Attitude, Pitch, Timing

@?,*???&? · Post by **@?,*???&?** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:45 am

First off, I want to keep this short, but there are many facets to what I am about to post.

I am producing, recording, mixing a record for a band. I give every band I work with co-production credit as they bring the songs and the context.

For this current project I am charging $4400 for 11 songs and a tag-reprise so technically, working on 12 pieces of music.

This is a baby band and have one amazing singer and one less-than-amazing singer. The band early on expressed that they wanted to pursue the 2 singer thing- inspite of my strong recommendations not to do so. It can create tons of imaging issues later with the band and this band wants to get signed. This is their first full-length they've told me that they realize that they've been holding themselves to a lower standard than they should have been. The work we've done has eclipsed ANYTHING the band has done to date and all members have told me so.

Recording vocals with the amazing singer has taken roughly 12 takes per song with a great end result thru compositing. His songs sound amazing and has turned in some stellar performances.

The other less-than-great singer has, on at least 2 of the songs he is singing, required 64 tracks to not nail a take. Even with a composite, the performance falls short. His sense of pitch center is so bad that punching in is impossible because he is sharp or flat very inconsistently. His attitude is bland and he also has timing issues with regard to phrasing and rhythm. He has ample backing vocal ability and has sung on all the other songs in that capacity, he just does not have that imperative 'lead vocal character'. I have taken the angle with him at this point that if they are not going to have the best singer present the material and put the best forward for the band- which is what I have strongly urged them to do, then beyond 3 session attempts to get vocals down per song, I'd like to them go hourly. As well, I may or may not pull my credit as an end result of this process.

Their intent was to have the less-than-great singer sing on about half the record, but that's now been paired back and the better singer has taken over one of those songs and turned in a much more rock and roll performance on it.

At this point, for the time we've spent, if the band were paying hourly, their fee would be somewhere around $14,000.

Am I out of line on this?

jeddypoo · Post by **jeddypoo** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:04 am

i don't think you're out of line. It's extremely frustrating to record bad singers, and if the band HAS a really good singer, the other one should either get out of the way for him, or he should make an effort to get better, which is entirely possible.

good luck.

Professor T · Post by **Professor T** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:11 am

does the less than amazing singer play an instrument as well, or are they just a singer?

JASIII · Post by **JASIII** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:40 am

No, esp if you're producing. Or co-producing.

douglas baldwin · Post by **douglas baldwin** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:47 am

Sounds like a tough situation.

I'm wondering if you could have avoided the $4,400-vs.-$14,000 discrepancy by checking the band out more before quoting a price. You say they're a baby band - did you hear anything they had recorded previously? Did you see them perform live?

I think many of us could learn from your judgement if you post how you arrived at the $4,400 figure, and how you now find yourself at the $14,000 figure.

And I'm wondering what the dynamic of this second singer is with the band. Does he own the PA? Do they practice at his house? Does he have major street cred? If there guys are serious about moving up, they need to cut this singer loose, or the singer needs to do some major homework before committing to a pro carreer.

DavidM · Post by **DavidM** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:50 am

Tough.

You can't expect them to pay more than originally agreed to. Period. At the same time, you can't work for free or for a reduced rate - which is what you're doing at this point.

If the band is serious about putting their best foot forward, they need to face reality about the bad singer. Call it tough love, but they don't stand a chance in hell with a bad singer unless you get into the auto-tune, heavy vocal editing realm.

I would suggest tackling the issue head-on. Play them a recording of a good vocal performance by an established band in the same genre that they respect. Then play a track with the crappy vocalist singing. Then play the other "reference" band followed by a track of the good singer. Have them pay close attention to the vocals and weigh the differences - regardless of good and bad. Let them decide what's good and bad. If they don't hear it, suck it up, and finish your job as if nothing's wrong. It's not your responsibility to get them signed. If they make a bad decision and you've counseled them otherwise, you're not to blame.

Essentially, you're the producer, and you've got to be straight with them. And more importantly, you have to get the project done. Renegotiate the price if you have to, but something has to give in this scenario.

Taking your name off the project is a very arrogant move.

BTW, isn't 16 takes for the good vocalist excessive?

cgarges · Post by **cgarges** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:31 am

douglas baldwin wrote:I think many of us could learn from your judgement if you post how you arrived at the $4,400 figure, and how you now find yourself at the $14,000 figure.

Yeah, I'd like to know what sort of terms were involved in the $4400 agreement. If you're producing, it's your chief responisibility to bring the record in within budget. If you're producing, you should have had enough familiarity with the band to know what they could and couldn't deliver. If you're the producer, you have to make the call about what's acceptable and what's not based on the budget and/or eat the additional costs.

If you and the band came up with a $4400 figure, I would really hope that there were some sort of terms involving time allotted. At some point, they can't expect you to continue to give them time, but at the same time, if you agreed to a set figure, you can't be too demanding about them giving you more money than you agreed upon.

What were the details of the initial agreement?

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

JohnDavisNYC · Post by **JohnDavisNYC** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:42 am

I don't consider 12 takes to be a great singer, I consider 2 takes to be a great singer. 12 takes is an ok singer, and anything above 16 is a bad singer.... i mean.... shit.... unless he's still writing the lyrics in the studio and going back to change lines or something

I had a band that I was tracking where the singer couldn't get it together and I sent them home with the files to do vocals on his 002, because it was sooooo awful it wasn't worth my time... I think technology has let us become too lax about expecting good performances from skilled musicians.

I would never do a flat rate/open ended session for musicians who couldn't really play or sing well, because it always ends up hurting you.... I say make the ones who can't sing pay you for every agonizing moment of comping and tuning shitty vocals.

John

Ryan Silva · Post by **Ryan Silva** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:27 pm

toaster3000 wrote:I don't consider 12 takes to be a great singer, I consider 2 takes to be a great singer. 12 takes is an ok singer, and anything above 16 is a bad singer.... John

Sometimes it takes a little while for a singer to make decisions about proximity to the mic, dynamics in head placment, ect. So they could be a great singer with no pitch problems, and still need more than 12 takes. Now this should not be an issue on every song but I respect the diffrence of singing on a 58 at a club, then doing it on a LDC in a quite enviroment.

I myself am a so-so singer, and have toiled away at 20 plus takes before, but I always pulled it off and you wouldn't know how much I strugled after listening to the final mix. That being said, if I hadn't got the support of my band members and our producer, I would have never been able to work under such presure. I mean maybe this guy is just feeling too much heat, and needs to relax.

good luck

Rufer · Post by **Rufer** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:02 pm

Very well put.

I'm a shitty singer and I nail it on the first take.

spankenstein · Post by **spankenstein** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:41 pm

Do they like the second singer. There's plenty of bands out there that have shitty singers but get plenty of attention, see Deerhoof. Her voice makes me want to stick pencils in my ears but there's a lot of people loving it.

@?,*???&? · Post by **@?,*???&?** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:20 pm

The bad singer arrogantly told me yesterday that because this is a co-production, it's a band decision that he sing. He also accused me of not allowing him the opportunity to sing well.

Really.

Part of me wants to kick out a back-up of everything we've done, hand it to them and pat them on the butt and send them on their way to finish with someone else, but I won't do this. Just like Garges suggested, I've got an agreement and I'll fully honor it because it is the right thing to do.

The band came to me because I have the experience and a great many resources once the product is finished. If I can't get behind the product and end up feeling weird about it in any way, then what's the point? I won't be able to help them in the future.

Also, I do feel this guy is a solid contributing member. He plays bass and has served amply for backing vocals on all songs- just not an enigma as a lead vocalist.

cgarges · Post by **cgarges** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:15 pm

So what sort of time committment do they get from you for their $4400.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

leftofthedial · Post by **leftofthedial** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:03 pm

Why don't you paula abdul it....

Get the good singer to sing a guide vocal, have the bad singer sing to the guide vocal, then use the guide vocal for the finished track?

Fletcher · Post by **Fletcher** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:22 pm

There are some singers I have found that can sing for more than an hour or two but they are few and far between... I find they usually start to blow out by like the 4th or 5th try [after a couple of 'warm up' passes where I'm pretending to be getting the sound but is really just giving them an opportunity to get warmed up].

When I worked with a really anal singer he wanted to cut 4 tracks then I did a compilation track... if there was something he still didn't dig he'd punch that part until he thought it was perfect but other than that my world is usually 2-3 passes and we're moving on.

64 tracks of shitty vocals? I'd blow my fucking brains out!! You're obviously a better man than me for being able to sit through that... or you really need to have the old "heart to heart" with them [goes somethng like "Singer 2 is a great person... but I wouldn't sign him up for the newspaper never mind a record deal... we need a little reality here"]. It may hurt singer #2's feelings... but that's life and in the long run there is a reason its called #2, and the band will ultimately thank you [or stop wasting your time... either way its a "win" situation].

Best of luck with it!!!!!!!

Message Board

Attitude, Pitch, Timing

Attitude, Pitch, Timing

j

Who is online