Why do singers put their mouths against microphones?

[Mxsmanic]

Apart from the hygiene aspects, why do so many singers have their mouths right
up against the microphones when they sing?

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 20:25:19 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Apart from the hygiene aspects, why do so many singers have their mouths right
>up against the microphones when they sing?

Because they are not properly trained and can't sing loudly enough.

d

[Neill Massello]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Apart from the hygiene aspects, why do so many singers have their mouths right
> up against the microphones when they sing?

It's a habit they pick up from all those "auditions".

[Ron Capik]

Hmmmm.... Wondering if this is a test post to see
who doesn't have "Mxsmanic" in their kill file.

Truly (based on past posts) do you believe "Mxsmanic"
cares to actually learn anything on this subject?
==

Later...
Ron Capik <<< cynic-in-training >>>
--

[Richard Webb]

On Fri 2012-Apr-13 14:26, Don Pearce writes:
>>Apart from the hygiene aspects, why do so many singers have their mouths right
>>up against the microphones when they sing?

> Because they are not properly trained and can't sing loudly enough.

Agreed, many aren't trained at all. But then even if
they've had a bit of training, which usually isn't true,
their choice of microphone for the application doesn't help
matters. i note this especially with folks who use the
sm-58 because that's what they've seen other people use.
Yeah yeah, before anybody mentions it, I know about the
resistor mod and have turned others onto it.

OFtentimes introducing them to a different microphone
coupled with a little bit of training can do wonders to cure that.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Apart from the hygiene aspects, why do so many singers have their mouths right
>up against the microphones when they sing?

1. Because they are unskilled and have not learned proper microphone technique.

2. Because they are used to using horrible PA systems that are being run on
the edge of feedback and need all the gain they can get.

In general, not a sign of a competent vocalist, but some people just won't
stop eating the microphone. A good solution for microphone-eaters is to
give them a fake microphone to sing into and then a narrow pattern mike
six inches away to actually use.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ron Capik]

3. They want to hide that they're lip syncing.
==

Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Peter Larsen]

Ron Capik wrote:

> 3. They want to hide that they're lip syncing.

Note to self: no, you may not drink coffee while reading usenet.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

>
> Later...
> Ron Capik

[Scott Dorsey]

Jeff Henig <yom...@yomama.com> wrote:
>
>Not entirely true. Some of us are intentionally using proximity effect. I
>do this when I sing rhythm bass. Heck, sometimes I even bring my fingers up
>around the top to seal it completely against my mouth. But it's a specific
>effect I'm looking for.

Those are crooners, not singers. Guys like that are better off using a
mike with an outrageously tight pattern like a KMS150 which lets you get
that sound without getting so close you pop it.

>Not to mention that THAT is what a microphone is FOR. Otherwise, we could
>just get rid of electrical sound reinforcement altogether and go back to
>proper building design and singers who project.

I'd be in favor of that, absolutely.

[Jenn]

In article <7rrgo75oo479olh96...@4ax.com>,

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Apart from the hygiene aspects, why do so many singers have their mouths right
> up against the microphones when they sing?

Insecurity, probably. I've seen many well-known singers do this (Elton
John, Bill Joel, et al).

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Apart from the hygiene aspects, why do so many singers have their
>> mouths right up against the microphones when they sing?
>
> 1. Because they are unskilled and have not learned proper microphone
> technique.

And they have seen starlets do it on TV while miming to music.

geoff

[Fran Guidry]

On Friday, April 13, 2012 8:25:19 AM UTC-10, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Apart from the hygiene aspects, why do so many singers have their mouths right
> up against the microphones when they sing?

In at least some cases, because the engineer running the PA instructs them to do so, and that same engineer EQs and gain stages things to require that technique.

Pretty much the same as Scott's #2, but I've gotten this instruction more than once.

Fran

[Scott Dorsey]

Jenn <jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>Insecurity, probably. I've seen many well-known singers do this (Elton
>John, Bill Joel, et al).

You'll often see Elton John with a huge foam ball on the mike which
appears designed to keep him away from the actual microphone. This
is another good trick for mike-eaters.

[Trevor]

"Fran Guidry" <fran....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5315390.492.1334373325820.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbxy18...

>> Apart from the hygiene aspects, why do so many singers have their mouths
>> right
>> up against the microphones when they sing?
>
> In at least some cases, because the engineer running the PA instructs them
> to do so, and that same engineer EQs and gain stages things to require
> that technique.

Well it's easier to cope with singers right on the mic in a live concert.
than it is when they sing 3 foot from the mic at a whisper, and expect the
sound guy to just turn it up. Apart from feedback you have to cope with
sound bleed from everything else on stage making it more difficult to get
the balance right.
Worse still is the ones who constantly move on and off the mic when they
shouldn't. A proper professional knows when to adjust the distance as
appropriate, and not simply rely on a compressor or sound guy to fix it for
them.

As for hygiene, I'm often amazed at how few singers bring their own mics. I
don't get too many guitarists expecting me to provide a guitar for them, but
a microphone of their own is a lot easier to carry. I do use anti-bacterial
wipes on the vocal mics in any case though. They're just as likly to catch
something from an audience member when signing CD's.

Trevor.

[Richard Webb]

On Fri 2012-Apr-13 20:12, Jeff Henig writes:
<snip>

> However, it also occurs to me that contemporary small-ensemble
> amplified a cappella is a strange beast that isn't very widely
> known. This newsgroup being what it is, I'd assume that anything I'd
> bring up would be old hat to you all.

Not necessarily. I've stumbled across only one such group
in my travels and I've been doing this for years.

> And we know what assuming does.

That we do.

> I just hope that I'm not sounding argumentative or condescending
> when I bring this stuff up. It's just my experience, narrow and
> specific, in which I've spent a lot of time. And a lot of the things
> that have to do with singing rhythm bass are counter-intuitive to
> highly trained singers and engineers.

Indeed, and as you note, that's why you have trouble getting what you want/need from an engineer who's not familiar with you. IN that situation, the best you can do, especially if he/she hasn't had a chance to get acquainted first, is give fair
warning in riders and the like that you're unconventional.

IN fact, one of the first things I'd tell an unfamiliar
engineer when choosing a microphone for you would be "think
kick drum." Just tell him that whenever he looks at you
with an eye toward what he's supposed to do about you
picture not you standing there, but a kick drum.


This is one reason I like to hear a rehearsal or two of a
new ensemble I'm going to record, especially if I'm expected to wear a producer's hat as well. Even if somebody else is
engineering I can then provide some guidance regarding
aspects that may not fit the conventional.

But you're right, this does drift quite a bit from
mxsmanic's question. In most applications what he sees is
faulty technique for a variety of reasons.

[Peter Larsen]

Some of the time a sound guy can ask for it, not all singers are good at "3
inches from the mouth", but getting closer does awful things to the mouth
acoustics and ruins the vox sound. Try holding a fist in front of your mouth
while talking or singing and listen as you move it closer and notice the
changed feel in the throat when the resonances of the mouth cavity get
de-tuned.

Also: to determine the exact square foot to stand on on stage when singing:
move around singing, loud is not required - making the weeist bit of sound
is enough, and notice how it feels in the throat. Stand where it is easiest
to sing.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Jenn]

In article <4f89219c$0$56793$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,

So true. Also true with many instruments.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[mcp6453]

On 4/13/2012 11:37 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Jenn <jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> Insecurity, probably. I've seen many well-known singers do this (Elton
>> John, Bill Joel, et al).
>
> You'll often see Elton John with a huge foam ball on the mike which
> appears designed to keep him away from the actual microphone. This
> is another good trick for mike-eaters.

BSW has a pop filter for RE20/RE27/PR40 that does a great job of keeping the
talent's lips off the grill.

http://www.bswusa.com/Pop-Filters-BSW-RE27POP-P1419.aspx

It would be great of the company would make a version of this one for the
SM57/SM58/Beta 87. It would look like crap on camera, but it could be useful in
non-video environments.

[Peter Larsen]

mcp6453 wrote:

> It would be great of the company would make a version of this one for
> the SM57/SM58/Beta 87.

Shure's foam screen for the SM57 is as good as the mic, in fact: put on mic
and never remove unless you need to for whatever reason. There's also the
SM7 ...

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen]

mcp6453 wrote:

> On 4/13/2012 11:37 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Jenn <jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Insecurity, probably. I've seen many well-known singers do this
>>> (Elton John, Bill Joel, et al).
>>
>> You'll often see Elton John with a huge foam ball on the mike which
>> appears designed to keep him away from the actual microphone. This
>> is another good trick for mike-eaters.
>
> BSW has a pop filter for RE20/RE27/PR40 that does a great job of
> keeping the talent's lips off the grill.
>
> http://www.bswusa.com/Pop-Filters-BSW-RE27POP-P1419.aspx

Neat indeed!

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Jeff Henig]

I greatly appreciate the feedback, Richard. (And realizing how
incongruous that sounds in a NG dedicated to pro sound. Bwahahahahahah...)

I'm very thankful that we have an engineer who knows what he's doing.
Also one of our vocalists is OCD about researching sound and has been in
a cappella music for twenty years. Between the two of them we get some
very good live sound, and I'd absolutely hate to start from scratch again.

Our biggest two problems are arranging and recording. We are currently
working with someone who is an out-and-out genius when it comes to both.
Replacing him would be a nightmare--even if given an Ardent or a Muscle
Shoals. The dude kicks butt with just an Mbox Mini and a Mac. Seriously.
And I'd love to see what he could do with that kind of facility...

His biggest issue is that he over-schedules himself and ends up flaking
out. But I guess that comes with the territory--he's a musician, after
all. ;^)

As far as my own abilities, I know just enough to get me in trouble. I
could put together a decent live show and maybe record a decent project,
but I don't want just decent. That's why I'm here learning.

It's interesting going from what I know in a cappella recording
technique to more conventional stuff--instrumental rock/jazz and
orchestral recording. Being that the project I'm currently working on
will be a hybrid of both, I think I need to be much more knowledgeable
about your guys' world.

I think in a number of ways, a cappella has hindered my recording
development. I mean I know how to mic a guitar cab and I've some idea of
micing a drum kit, or my Hammond--maybe even a piano, but getting the
gain staging right, getting a good EQ on the board, all of that stuff is
something I feel woefully inadequate with.

My hope is that I can do well enough with my first recording and local
performances that I can afford a proper producer and engineer for the
next project. I also hope to learn enough in the process to be able to
communicate my ideas in depth to the folks behind the board.

---Jeff

[polymod]

"Jeff Henig" <yom...@yomama.com> wrote in message
news:jmc38j$jpt$2...@dont-email.me...

Good luck Jeff .
Just keep recording and you'll get better and better at it. Do a lot of
reading. Compare the sound of your recordings with others in the same realm.
And.....never think you're not ready to record or you'll spend your whole
life never recording!

I grew up on the performer side of the 'glass'. But the other side is what
keeps the building from falling down ;)


Poly

[polymod]

"Jeff Henig" <yom...@yomama.com> wrote in message

news:801137512356114410.06...@news.eternal-september.org...

> "polymod" <pol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Good luck Jeff .
>> Just keep recording and you'll get better and better at it. Do a lot of
>> reading. Compare the sound of your recordings with others in the same
>> realm.
>> And.....never think you're not ready to record or you'll spend your whole
>> life never recording!
>

> Oh crap, talk about hittin' the nail on the head! I get so intimidated
> when
> I hear great projects, and I want mine to sound like them--so I end up
> saying I need to upgrade all my gear and knowhow before I record. Time,
> money, yada, yada. And I sit here not recording and shaking my fists!
> *woeful grin*

Gear lust is one of the worst desires outside of autotune <G>
I released a solo CD a few years back that was done on an outdated computer
running Windows 98, a 10 year old version of Sonar, and a variety of classic
analog synths, most which have no midi capabilities. Long story short, the
CD did quite well.....better than I could have ever anticipated.
Knowing your equipment is key.

> Here I am with a Digi001, an Mbox2 Mini, and a Delta1010LT, wanting that
> Neve board and Otari 2" 24 track--and doing nothing but a bit of writing
> because I'm waiting to be where I can get the sound I hear on "Grace" by
> Buckley or Led Zep III... Yeah, sometimes I'm an idiot. I have something
> that'll get the job done, I just need to DO it.

Anytime you need a push, give me a holler :)

>> I grew up on the performer side of the 'glass'. But the other side is
>> what
>> keeps the building from falling down ;)

> Roger that. I don't know if I'll get to that level, other than recording
> other folks' demos. I'll be happy to do my own stuff justice.

Look at it this way....I'm guessing most engineers can't play like I can
play a musical instrument. But it shouldn't stop them from trying.
I'd think it would work the other way around also.

Poly

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:08:36 -0400, Ron Capik wrote
(in article <wZ-dnT5aUfNBGhXS...@giganews.com>):

Well put and he's trying to infect rec.video.pro as well

Ty Ford

Try my new blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r

[Nil]

On 14 Apr 2012, "polymod" <pol...@optonline.net> wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> Gear lust is one of the worst desires outside of autotune <G>
> I released a solo CD a few years back that was done on an outdated
> computer running Windows 98, a 10 year old version of Sonar, and a
> variety of classic analog synths, most which have no midi
> capabilities. Long story short, the CD did quite well.....better
> than I could have ever anticipated. Knowing your equipment is key.

I have it, and it sounds fabulous! Excellent classic synth sounds and
production. I listened to it a couple of weeks ago, and I was impressed
all over again.

[geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Jenn <jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> Insecurity, probably. I've seen many well-known singers do this
>> (Elton John, Bill Joel, et al).
>
> You'll often see Elton John with a huge foam ball on the mike which
> appears designed to keep him away from the actual microphone. This
> is another good trick for mike-eaters.
> --scott

Rubbing grille in armpit (in view of vocalist) has similar effect.

geoff

[Richard Webb]

First, sorry about that, limitations in subject length meant my reader/editor grunged subject line.

On Sat 2012-Apr-14 10:57, Jeff Henig writes:
<snip>

>> Indeed, and as you note, that's why you have trouble getting what you
>> want/need from an engineer who's not familiar with you. IN that
>> situation, the best you can do, especially if he/she hasn't had a
>> chance to get acquainted first, is give fair
>> warning in riders and the like that you're unconventional.

<snip>

> I greatly appreciate the feedback, Richard. (And realizing how
> incongruous that sounds in a NG dedicated to pro sound.
> Bwahahahahahah...)

nO problem. Done plenty of conventional a capella, the
usual barbershop and other types, usually outdoors at some
sort of festival or at a community event. just turn off the monitors, place a couple mics to capture them, let 'em go.

> I'm very thankful that we have an engineer who knows what he's
> doing. Also one of our vocalists is OCD about researching sound and
> has been in a cappella music for twenty years. Between the two of
> them we get some very good live sound, and I'd absolutely hate to
> start from scratch again.

YEp, it's a team effort, where the team knows what it needs
to do, and how to get there.


ON the arranging and recording front, it sounds like you've
got most of the battle whipped though.
<snip>

> It's interesting going from what I know in a cappella recording
> technique to more conventional stuff--instrumental rock/jazz and
> orchestral recording. Being that the project I'm currently working
> on will be a hybrid of both, I think I need to be much more
> knowledgeable about your guys' world.

YOu're in the right place. Polymod gave you some good
advice too. The one thing I could add to it is, trust your
ears. Know your equipment and your rooms, that way you can
learn to interpret what your ears are telling you. Know the space you're going to work in, and know your equipment, then let your ears do the rest. They'll tell you when you need
to do more work on something. That's the part that will
suck if I really have to give up remote truck for the haul
it into a back room rig in a rack for recording. I like
that control room in the back of the truck. I know it. I
spent enough time when we first bought it just listening to
music on both sets of monitors in it so that I knew what the room was telling me.

> I think in a number of ways, a cappella has hindered my recording
> development. I mean I know how to mic a guitar cab and I've some
> idea of micing a drum kit, or my Hammond--maybe even a piano, but
> getting the gain staging right, getting a good EQ on the board, all
> of that stuff is something I feel woefully inadequate with.

Again, know the gear, know your environment then trust your
ears. they'll tell you when it's right and when it's not.

> My hope is that I can do well enough with my first recording and
> local performances that I can afford a proper producer and engineer
> for the next project. I also hope to learn enough in the process to
> be able to communicate my ideas in depth to the folks behind the
> board.

That's the key right there, and in the process of learning
your equipment and your working environment you'll be able
to do that. I've had the opposite fun. The band comes in,
I've never heard them before and when I ask them what sound
they're going for the drummer plays me early Zeppelin, then
is surprised when I don't close mic the kit and stick him in a closet somewhere <g>.

[Scott Dorsey]

Robin K. Banks <RFNB...@thefederalreserve.com> wrote:
>
>Is it me are are EV mics more pop sensitive than others? I thought "PL"
>stood for "Pop-Sss! Lookout!" That being said, singers with good
>technique love them because of the extended distance proximity lows I
>suppose, and learn to work it for maximum effect. Ronnie Van Zant can be
>seen using them for example when he wasn't using a 57.

Well, try an RE-55 some time! You couldn't pop it if you tried! Mind
you, there's absolutely zero proximity effect....

>Anyways, some singers with good technique use the proximity effect to
>fatten up the low end on their voice on certain passages so it does not
>sound thin. Those with lousy mic chops do it because they saw a good
>singer do it, but had no idea why I think.

I think for people to be able to do this, they have to be able to hear
exactly what they sound like. Sadly, very few monitoring systems are good
enough for singers to be able to get a sense of this.

Good monitoring also prevents popping....

[polymod]

"Nil" <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA035C6D5...@wheedledeedle.moc...

Thank you. I really appreciate that.

Poly

[Jeff Henig]

polymod wrote:
> "Jeff Henig" <yom...@yomama.com> wrote in message
> news:801137512356114410.06...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "polymod" <pol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Good luck Jeff .
>>> Just keep recording and you'll get better and better at it. Do a lot of
>>> reading. Compare the sound of your recordings with others in the same
>>> realm.
>>> And.....never think you're not ready to record or you'll spend your whole
>>> life never recording!
>> Oh crap, talk about hittin' the nail on the head! I get so intimidated
>> when
>> I hear great projects, and I want mine to sound like them--so I end up
>> saying I need to upgrade all my gear and knowhow before I record. Time,
>> money, yada, yada. And I sit here not recording and shaking my fists!
>> *woeful grin*
>
> Gear lust is one of the worst desires outside of autotune <G>

LOL! I know THAT'S right.

> I released a solo CD a few years back that was done on an outdated computer
> running Windows 98, a 10 year old version of Sonar, and a variety of classic
> analog synths, most which have no midi capabilities. Long story short, the
> CD did quite well.....better than I could have ever anticipated.
> Knowing your equipment is key.

1. My songwriting partner and I released an a cappella project back in
2002 using the Digi001/ProTools 5.something, OS9, and a couple of Altec
mics that were equivalent to a k84 or something. It didn't sell a whole
lot (we didn't really market it all that well), but we were both pretty
happy with the sonic results. I don't know why I think I can't do good
stuff with it again, especially since I've a much better mic now in the
Rode K2. (shakin' my head)

2. I'd love to hear that CD. Any chance I can buy a copy off you?

>
>> Here I am with a Digi001, an Mbox2 Mini, and a Delta1010LT, wanting that
>> Neve board and Otari 2" 24 track--and doing nothing but a bit of writing
>> because I'm waiting to be where I can get the sound I hear on "Grace" by
>> Buckley or Led Zep III... Yeah, sometimes I'm an idiot. I have something
>> that'll get the job done, I just need to DO it.
>
> Anytime you need a push, give me a holler :)

Pahahahahahah! Will do. *grin*

>
>>> I grew up on the performer side of the 'glass'. But the other side is
>>> what
>>> keeps the building from falling down ;)
>> Roger that. I don't know if I'll get to that level, other than recording
>> other folks' demos. I'll be happy to do my own stuff justice.
>
> Look at it this way....I'm guessing most engineers can't play like I can
> play a musical instrument. But it shouldn't stop them from trying.
> I'd think it would work the other way around also.
>
> Poly
>
>

True enough. Aside from my songwriting partner (who is our arranger and
recording engineer I was talking about earlier), there aren't many
engineers whose singing I really want to hear.

---Jeff

[Jeff Henig]

Richard Webb wrote:
> First, sorry about that, limitations in subject length meant my reader/editor grunged subject line.
>
> On Sat 2012-Apr-14 10:57, Jeff Henig writes:
> <snip>
>
>>> Indeed, and as you note, that's why you have trouble getting what you
>>> want/need from an engineer who's not familiar with you. IN that
>>> situation, the best you can do, especially if he/she hasn't had a
>>> chance to get acquainted first, is give fair
>>> warning in riders and the like that you're unconventional.
> <snip>
>
>> I greatly appreciate the feedback, Richard. (And realizing how
>> incongruous that sounds in a NG dedicated to pro sound.
>> Bwahahahahahah...)
>
> nO problem. Done plenty of conventional a capella, the
> usual barbershop and other types, usually outdoors at some
> sort of festival or at a community event. just turn off the monitors, place a couple mics to capture them, let 'em go.

That's pretty much how we did our choral projects when I was in
collegiate choruses. Once on the risers with mics in front of us, once
in a circle with the mics in the center.

>
>> I'm very thankful that we have an engineer who knows what he's
>> doing. Also one of our vocalists is OCD about researching sound and
>> has been in a cappella music for twenty years. Between the two of
>> them we get some very good live sound, and I'd absolutely hate to
>> start from scratch again.
>
> YEp, it's a team effort, where the team knows what it needs
> to do, and how to get there.
>
>
> ON the arranging and recording front, it sounds like you've
> got most of the battle whipped though.

Sure, until my buddy flakes again. (shakin' my head)

> <snip>
>
>> It's interesting going from what I know in a cappella recording
>> technique to more conventional stuff--instrumental rock/jazz and
>> orchestral recording. Being that the project I'm currently working
>> on will be a hybrid of both, I think I need to be much more
>> knowledgeable about your guys' world.
>
> YOu're in the right place. Polymod gave you some good
> advice too. The one thing I could add to it is, trust your
> ears. Know your equipment and your rooms, that way you can
> learn to interpret what your ears are telling you. Know the space you're going to work in, and know your equipment, then let your ears do the rest. They'll tell you when you need
> to do more work on something. That's the part that will
> suck if I really have to give up remote truck for the haul
> it into a back room rig in a rack for recording. I like
> that control room in the back of the truck. I know it. I
> spent enough time when we first bought it just listening to
> music on both sets of monitors in it so that I knew what the room was telling me.

That's a definite must. I can't wait to have a room pretty much
dedicated to music--and we're moving to the new house right now. It's a
sunroom with a lot of brick and windows, but I know how I want to treat
it to keep it from being extremely live.

I may also have access to a performance hall on campus that has been
fitted for recording purposes. If that's the case, the sunroom may just
become my songwriting lab and mixing room exclusively.

>
>> I think in a number of ways, a cappella has hindered my recording
>> development. I mean I know how to mic a guitar cab and I've some
>> idea of micing a drum kit, or my Hammond--maybe even a piano, but
>> getting the gain staging right, getting a good EQ on the board, all
>> of that stuff is something I feel woefully inadequate with.
>
> Again, know the gear, know your environment then trust your
> ears. they'll tell you when it's right and when it's not.
>
>> My hope is that I can do well enough with my first recording and
>> local performances that I can afford a proper producer and engineer
>> for the next project. I also hope to learn enough in the process to
>> be able to communicate my ideas in depth to the folks behind the
>> board.
>
> That's the key right there, and in the process of learning
> your equipment and your working environment you'll be able
> to do that. I've had the opposite fun. The band comes in,
> I've never heard them before and when I ask them what sound
> they're going for the drummer plays me early Zeppelin, then
> is surprised when I don't close mic the kit and stick him in a closet somewhere <g>.

Oh, eek! It's amazing to me how many musicians aren't willing to put in
the time and effort to study their history and do honor to their craft.
Before I was a singer, I was a fan, and I studied the fool out of my
fave bands. That whole creating depth by using mic distance thing was
drilled into my head pretty early--in fact, WAY before I had anything to
record with, I knew this was a technique I wanted to use.


Thanks for the interjections, Richard!

[Jeff Henig]

Oh, man, I know THAT'S right. When I'm singing anything other than
rhythm bass, I'll do everything in my power to avoid the popping.
Sometimes I think it bothers me more than the engineer. *grin*

As far as the low end is concerned, I think I have the opposite problem.
My high range is much thinner than my low range. I really enjoy how my
low range sounds, in fact, but my upper end sounds thin and brassy to
me. I've used doubling, EQ, and phasing to try to fix it, but I'm now
somewhat resigned to the fact that it's just going to sound that way.

Not to put myself in his league, but if I recall correctly, John Lennon
hated the sound of his own voice. Others are much more kind when they
review my singing than I am. But it does affect my self-confidence when
singing in public.

---Jeff

[Jeff Henig]

Ummmmm, yeah. I think that'll do it.

*shudder*

---Jeff

[polymod]

"Jeff Henig" <yom...@yomama.com> wrote in message

news:jmf172$9l6$2...@dont-email.me...

> 2. I'd love to hear that CD. Any chance I can buy a copy off you?

Check out the samples on my website before you spend any of your hard earned
$$ <g>

http://www.sonicmusic.net/mp3.htm


Poly

[Scott Dorsey]

Jeff Henig <yom...@yomama.com> wrote:
>
>Crooners, yes. Rhythm bass singing in a contemporary a cappella ensemble is
>a different animal entirely. Ridiculous EQs set to cut high end (I've seen
>some use kick drum mics!), very percussive notes--some of which use the
>"pop" for effect, and serious use of proximity effect to add to the "bass
>guitar" sound.

Ahh! Beatboxing!
A very different thing... and a place where you don't want a natural
effect either, since the microphone becomes part of the instrument kind
of like with a closed kick drum....

>> I'd be in favor of that, absolutely.
>
>That, of course, works for some styles of music much better than others.
>But in those cases, yes, I'm in whole-hearted agreement with you.

I would just ONCE like to see a Broadway revival done without reinforcement,
like the original show was.

[Jenn]

In article <jmfpq8$cja$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> I would just ONCE like to see a Broadway revival done without reinforcement,
> like the original show was.
> --scott

Amen!

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Jenn]

In article
<1873933745356232872.1...@news.eternal-september.org>
,
Jeff Henig <yom...@yomama.com> wrote:

> Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Jeff Henig <yom...@yomama.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Crooners, yes. Rhythm bass singing in a contemporary a cappella ensemble is
> >> a different animal entirely. Ridiculous EQs set to cut high end (I've seen
> >> some use kick drum mics!), very percussive notes--some of which use the
> >> "pop" for effect, and serious use of proximity effect to add to the "bass
> >> guitar" sound.
> >
> > Ahh! Beatboxing!
> > A very different thing... and a place where you don't want a natural
> > effect either, since the microphone becomes part of the instrument kind
> > of like with a closed kick drum....
> >
>

> YES, exactly. Well, almost. We have one in our group who actually does
> vocal percussion (he swears it's different from beatboxing but for the life
> of me, I don't know how), and I'm actually vocalizing the part of a bass
> guitar mixed with both kick drum and true word-singing. EQ'ing our two
> parts can be a bear if you're doing it for the first time.

>
> >>> I'd be in favor of that, absolutely.
> >>
> >> That, of course, works for some styles of music much better than others.
> >> But in those cases, yes, I'm in whole-hearted agreement with you.
> >
> > I would just ONCE like to see a Broadway revival done without reinforcement,
> > like the original show was.
> > --scott
>

> No kidding. I would really enjoy that!
>
> Are they even doing opera anymore without reinforcement?

Oh yes. Most places.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Frank Stearns]

klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:

snips

>I would just ONCE like to see a Broadway revival done without reinforcement,
>like the original show was.

You can occasionally make the case for tastefully done reinforcement, where what's
coming out of the system isn't much louder than the singer -- it's just there for
a little clarity and dimension in a less-than-ideal room... Occasionally.

It's the **&%4)((#@@ freakin' arena-rock level PA that makes me crazy with a near
uncontrollable urge to kick PA-related power cables or XLRs out of the wall (and
in some cases I wanna see bare, frayed wires in my hand, while the connector is
still in the wall with a few strands dangling out of it)...

"Security! Arrest that man!" they'd say.

"Security! You could do a better sound design than these bozos!" I'd reply...

<w>

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.

[Frank Stearns]

Jeff Henig <yom...@yomama.com> writes:

>Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Jeff Henig <yom...@yomama.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Crooners, yes. Rhythm bass singing in a contemporary a cappella ensemble is
>>> a different animal entirely. Ridiculous EQs set to cut high end (I've seen
>>> some use kick drum mics!), very percussive notes--some of which use the
>>> "pop" for effect, and serious use of proximity effect to add to the "bass
>>> guitar" sound.
>>
>> Ahh! Beatboxing!
>> A very different thing... and a place where you don't want a natural
>> effect either, since the microphone becomes part of the instrument kind
>> of like with a closed kick drum....
>>

>YES, exactly. Well, almost. We have one in our group who actually does
>vocal percussion (he swears it's different from beatboxing but for the life
>of me, I don't know how), and I'm actually vocalizing the part of a bass
>guitar mixed with both kick drum and true word-singing. EQ'ing our two
>parts can be a bear if you're doing it for the first time.

Here's a little trick for beat-boxing that's cleaner than an obnoxious 'plosive into
the microphone. Possibly dangerous live, but certainly workable in the studio.

This case is for Protools:

1. Set up an oscillator on a new channel, tune it to, say, 50 hz (sine), -20 dB to
start.

2. Add a gate after the oscillator; set that gate to external keying using an
available bus.

3. Put a new send on the beat channel, using the same bus selected for the
external key input of the gate.

4. Along with the send level, adjust the thresholds and timings on the gate so that
you're getting a little burst of LF on the "kick drum" portion of the beat. Tune the
oscillator up a bit to get a little more audible kick (70hz, perhaps), but much
higher than 100 Hz and it'll sound odd. Much lower and most systems won't reproduce
it. You can fine-tune the hz for the best fit for a given beat sound. Careful you
don't put too much in the mix, otherwise, it'll sound like what it is, a gated burst
of LF tone.

You might need to compress or EQ-shape the key signal a little, but overall this
will give you a pretty rich LF thump (when you need it).

Have fun with it.

[Mxsmanic]

Jeff Henig writes:

> Are they even doing opera anymore without reinforcement?

The last time I saw an opera--probably about ten years ago, I'm not sure--it
seemed that all the performers and the orchestra were working without any
electronic amplification at all.

At first it surprised me. But then I figured that it makes sense, since the
whole purpose of opera singing is to make the singer audible alongside an
orchestra without any artificial amplification. Unfortunately it also makes
opera singing unintelligible and very artificial in sound.

[Trevor]

"Jeff Henig" <yom...@yomama.com> wrote in message

news:jmf2nb$i9n$3...@dont-email.me...

>> Rubbing grille in armpit (in view of vocalist) has similar effect.
>> geoff
>

> Ummmmm, yeah. I think that'll do it....

To make sure they never hire you again? Almost certainly.

Trevor.

[Luxey]

понедељак, 16. април 2012. 08.44.37 UTC+2, Mxsmanic је написао/ла:
> Jeff Henig writes:

Often, there is some kind of invisible reinforcement, mic arrays up the ceiling, or similar and inwall speakers on delay lines, but thats 'there for pourposes mentioned in Frank Stearns' post.

[Scott Dorsey]

mcp6453 <mcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>BSW has a pop filter for RE20/RE27/PR40 that does a great job of keeping the
>talent's lips off the grill.
>
>http://www.bswusa.com/Pop-Filters-BSW-RE27POP-P1419.aspx
>
>It would be great of the company would make a version of this one for the
>SM57/SM58/Beta 87. It would look like crap on camera, but it could be useful in
>non-video environments.

http://www.wind-tech.net/Large_Windscreens.php

[Scott Dorsey]

Jeff Henig <yom...@yomama.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would just ONCE like to see a Broadway revival done without reinforcement,
>> like the original show was.
>

>No kidding. I would really enjoy that!
>

>Are they even doing opera anymore without reinforcement?

Yes! Unfortunately that's about the only thing that is done without
reinforcement, though. But it's still a joy to just hear someone filling
a hall with their voice.

I heard Cab Calloway on stage once, with the power out. He was louder than
the band, and he was in his nineties too.

[Paul Winkler]

On Apr 15, 11:10 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Sadly, very few monitoring systems are good
> enough for singers to be able to get a sense of this.

I'm sure this contributes to mic-eating as well.

Speaking not as an engineer or as a "real singer" but only as an
untrained, not very good singer who has done background vocals in
small club gigs: if I can't hear myself well enough to tell if I'm on
pitch, I get closer to the mic.

I don't think I have *ever* had the feeling that I could tell what my
mic actually sounded like. In my context (amateur and semi-pro
bands), "monitoring system" includes not just the gear but also the
lack of time for soundcheck, lack of a dedicated monitor engineer,
lack of space onstage, and lack of decent acoustics for the music.

It's hard, without a lot of experience, to judge your distance from
the mic when you are simultaneously trying to harmonize, remember the
lyrics, and play your instrument. (And depending on the gig and your
role, you may need to care about how you look, too. I mostly wasn't in
that sort of band.) Mic distance is usually the last thing on my
mind, and if I can't tell what effect it has anyway, what can I do?

Finally: You may not be able to see very well. If you're touching the
mic, at least you know where it is, and at least if you're consistent
about it, the engineer can hopefully cope. Inside of 45 minutes we'll
be yanking our gear off the stage as quick as possible and he'll be on
to dealing with the next batch of doofuses.

If it's a lead singer who's not playing an instrument though, well
then, even in an amateur/semipro context, mic technique *is* the
instrument, or at least a large part of it.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

> Yes! Unfortunately that's about the only thing that is done without
> reinforcement, though. But it's still a joy to just hear someone filling
> a hall with their voice.

Is there something different between reinforcement and amplification?

> I heard Cab Calloway on stage once, with the power out. He was louder than
> the band, and he was in his nineties too.

Maybe he could no longer hear himself performing.

[ckoz...@snet.net]

It IS a bad habit, and improper technique. And I see everyone doing it, not just musicians. Public speakers, politicians. Although I do encourage experimentation - your recorded voice will sound different at 2 inches vs 7 inches away from the screen - I learned in recording studio training that 3-5" is technically the best distance.

I would use 'spit screens' in the studio to keep them back but this might prove awkward-looking in concert. Another option is headsets - again, in studio - but might look too sci-fi on stage. And the freq response might not quite compare to a classic Neumann or esoteric mic from before WWII(!)

Perhaps, as you suggested, we have simply let training & proper technique fall by the wayside for the sake of rushing out another contractual obligation. lol!

-CC

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey writes:
>
>> Yes! Unfortunately that's about the only thing that is done without
>> reinforcement, though. But it's still a joy to just hear someone filling
>> a hall with their voice.
>
>Is there something different between reinforcement and amplification?

Philosophy, for the most part.

>> I heard Cab Calloway on stage once, with the power out. He was louder than
>> the band, and he was in his nineties too.
>
>Maybe he could no longer hear himself performing.

No, he was perfect.

[ckoz...@snet.net]

On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:16:17 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:

_______

I usually combat "microphone lips" by either #1. Turning them up just until a small FB squeal emerges, and they pull back(!) or #2. I fully CCW the LF knob on their channel in comb. with their High-pass button(if present).

Works like charm!

-CC

[Scott Dorsey]

Luxey <lux...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Often, there is some kind of invisible reinforcement, mic arrays up the cei=
>ling, or similar and inwall speakers on delay lines, but thats 'there for p=

>ourposes mentioned in Frank Stearns' post.

If you _ever_ notice sound reinforcement with acoustic music, something is
wrong.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

> No, he was perfect.

Ninety years old with perfect hearing? He was lucky, then, especially for a
musician.

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:

> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Apart from the hygiene aspects, why do so many singers have their mouths
> >right
> >up against the microphones when they sing?
>
> 1. Because they are unskilled and have not learned proper microphone
> technique.
>
> 2. Because they are used to using horrible PA systems that are being run on
> the edge of feedback and need all the gain they can get.
>
> In general, not a sign of a competent vocalist, but some people just won't
> stop eating the microphone. A good solution for microphone-eaters is to
> give them a fake microphone to sing into and then a narrow pattern mike
> six inches away to actually use.

I tried that at a folk festival. The singer refused to continue with
the show until I had turned on the front mic - then she could hear the
P.A. was working because of all the pops and bangs coming back at her
from the back wall of the room.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[ckoz...@snet.net]

On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 3:35:58 PM UTC-4, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
then she could hear the
> P.A. was working because of all the pops and bangs coming back at her
> from the back wall of the room.
>
>
> --
> ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~

________________
? ? ?

What was going on behind that back wall, knife-throwing contests?

-CC

[Scott Dorsey]

Oh, I have no idea if he could hear at all. But his timing and balance
was perfect. He was with a 50-piece band after all, and when you're
Cab Calloway, the conductor follows you.

And he was, with no PA, louder than a full orchestra.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

> Oh, I have no idea if he could hear at all. But his timing and balance
> was perfect. He was with a 50-piece band after all, and when you're
> Cab Calloway, the conductor follows you.

Here's the effect that hearing Cab Calloway again had on an elderly man in a
nursing home:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKDXuCE7LeQ

[Adrian Tuddenham]

She was so habituated to bad P.A. that she didn't believe the system was
working unless she could hear the reflection from the back wall of the
pops and bangs she was creating by getting too close to the mic.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~

[Jeff Henig]

Hmmmmmmm... That one looks familiar. Like one I just posted here the
other day.

smh

---Jeff

[Scott Dorsey]

I hadn't seen it. But then again, that's the effect Cab Calloway has on
everyone.

Here, try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kioZ-wTPC9I

[Mxsmanic]

Jeff Henig writes:

> Hmmmmmmm... That one looks familiar. Like one I just posted here the
> other day.

It's entirely possible that I saw the link here. I can't remember where it
came from. But I posted it just in case.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

> I hadn't seen it. But then again, that's the effect Cab Calloway has on
> everyone.
>
> Here, try this:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kioZ-wTPC9I

Amazing ... that was around 1980, I think, so he would have been in his 70s.

[ckoz...@snet.net]

On Friday, April 13, 2012 3:14:04 PM UTC-4, Neill Massello wrote:

> Mxsmanic <.com> wrote:
>
> > Apart from the hygiene aspects, why do so many singers have their mouths right
> > up against the microphones when they sing?
>

> It's a habit they pick up from all those "auditions".
__________
And performers of certain genres do it for looks! They hold the mic by the pop screen ball and press it against their lips as they sing/spit into it, whilst their other hand is jabbing into the sky at every beat.

-CC