Am I overdoing it editing vocals?

[SoundsLikeFog]

It was more about starting a conversation than a specific question.

It seems I should never post anything while listening to Conan - The Barbarian OST.

E: Just twist buttons 'till it makes you scream "CROM!" I'd wager a good bottle of scotch that Crom laughs at your grid lines.

 

[Keregioz]

But I just got back from a forest stroll with my dogs. You know, the canine type, not mah dawgs.

Seriously though.. Your opening post states that you do a fuckton and some more to all your vocal tracks and phrase by phrase.. No reference, no audio clip. Zip, nada.

Then you say that you do it only when necessary and when it has a purpose and you're not making the takes unhuman, just little tighter etc.

So if you like the results, and find the astronomical amounts of phrase by phrase prosessing on all the tracks valid and necessary.. .. .. ..

Why / What are you asking? I don't think that is a far out or insulting question..

Is it really too much processing though? I mean, besides using melodyne which mostly depends on the singer, compression, de-esser and EQ are pretty common...or did I miss something?

 

[right_to_rage]

Can we a hear a before and after clip? I think thats the true test of whether or not your overdoing it lol. Quite the process indeed.

 

[Charles J]

WOW. Sounds like a LOT to go through, and I can see doing that if it was a vocal that I wasn't present for the tracking or didn't do it at our studio.

on every record produced from front to back, I've moved a vocal line maybe, 3 times, out of quite a few releases.

What you hear on my records is exactly how the vocalist laid it down, timing and feel wise.

I'm also a Nazi and can get uber up in the singer face and really push them to be the best they can, that's cool.

I like to point out the fact that, as a vocalist, it's fucking AWESOME to say "yeah man, all the vocals on this record weren't TOUCHED. just eq, compression, etc..."

I find it makes vocalists really enjoy the process more. Then again, I've been kind of blessed in this regard because I've always worked with remarkable vocalists.... IDK why, hahaha...

But I say, do what you gotta do! For how *I* like things, no, I'd rather record the part again until it's just how the singer and I want it (I also tracks in 'blocks' so that we can really focus on wtf is going on, hahaha). definitely not into, hit record, start song and try to scream WELL all the way through it.

Unless it was called for, a band like glassjaw or something in the hardcore realm per haps....

 

[JeffTD]

I've never come across a vocalist that didn't benefit from a little nudging, at least here or there if not every phrase. Most guys rush and need to be pushed back a little in order to groove better.

 

[greyskull]

Honestly, wanky answer as it is it totally depends on the singer and The music.
If the music and the style calls for you to go crazy editing and tuning then do it, but if you're recording jazzy or bluesy kinda stuff and the singer can always nail their parts, the. Evaluate whether going crazy is
Actually adding anything to the song.

 

[mstone564]

No matter what the vocal style, if there are multiple layers (doubles, harmonies, ect.) I think it helps the song immensely to line those up, using the best, or 'main,' vocal as a guideline. That includes stretching the tail end as well.

I've also never had any experience with a vocalist who can sing on pitch, so subtle tuning always helps.

 

[Terminus]

I always edit the vocals to the drums, at least where the guy rushes it too much. I often notice that with most people you have to edit timing just a little, usually nearer the beginning of a song. I like having the consonants together, all the other stuff can be a little looser imo, and will sometimes lead to happy accidents that'll make the part better by being looser.