MDNA vocals - WOW

[Nessie]

I like that she premiered a new vocal style for Gang Bang. That was new and fresh!

GGW is a HC moment though

[IsaacHarris]

As a musician that knows a lot about the studio, has studied audio engineering, and is in a studio everyday... I'd just like to say I have noticed the general public mentioning Pro Tools and Auto-Tune a whole bunch. I don't quite think they know what they are or what they do, and they especially don't understand that no amount of studio trickery will make you sound like an amazing singer. If you can't sing, it will help you to sound *maybe* passable, but you will NEVER sound great.

Also, people don't understand that there's a difference between NEEDING Auto-Tune and USING Auto-Tune. Madonna doesn't NEED Auto-Tune and never has. Contrary to popular belief, she has excellent pitch.

Auto-Tune was created as a way to slide vocals (usually certain notes) into the correct pitch. Often, even the world's best singers will lay down multiple vocal takes (from top to bottom) for the same song, and will end up with one take everyone loves, except for one bum note. Well, you're not going to throw the baby out with the bath water, and time is money. It's much easier to slide that one note (usually by a small amount) into tune, than it is to sing the part again, especially if you've already sung it 5-6 times, and you are inspired and want to keep moving. People with taste, use it in small amounts, much like makeup. But like most retouching nowadays, people misuse it and anyone with ears can hear how bad it sounds. Sure it's in pitch, but human beings don't sing in perfect pitch all the time. That is part of the beauty of the human voice. It's part of the beauty of music. It's why a symphony orchestra sounds full and bigger than life. When those small nuances are removed (to ridiculous degrees) by tools like Auto-Ttune, the human ear will notice it. The same way you'll notice a model on the cover of a magazine has poreless doll skin. Just listen to the last 30 Seconds to Mars record (or anything on the radio) for sickening examples of this. And it's a shame, because Jared Leto can actually sing well enough for what he does, and has decent pitch.

Pro Tools is industry standard software that practically every record you've ever heard in the last 17-18 years has been recorded into. It's a virtual recording studio inside a computer. Extremely talented people use it, and they're not using it to hide some sort of shortcoming. That's not what it was made for. For the laymen, it's basically the recording industries shift from multitrack tape, to the hard disk. It doesn't make you or any other instrument sound better. Sure you can comp vocals with it, but people were comping vocals with tape back in the day as well. Talented people. The reason you hear people saying "Pro Tools" as a negative, is because producers/engineers (with no taste) have *abused* the ease that it provides in sliding a performance perfectly into time. For example, if your drummer is falling out of time here and there, you can lock every drum hit to a perfect metronomic grid. If you have taste and REALLY know your craft, no one will ever know. If you don't...well...just turn on pop or mainstream rock radio.

So, you really can't make anyone sound like an amazing singer, and if you attempt to (and people have) it sounds comical. The best it can do, is make it seem like someone can carry a tune. But there's a lot more that goes into singing than just pitch and timing. No computer can make your natural raw vocal quality sound good if it isn't. Just listen to any Britney Spears record. I don't think there's anyone on the planet that will argue that she has anything even resembling vocal ability. And even with all of the Auto-Tuning, EQ, track doubling etc., she still doesn't sound like someone with anything even resembling vocal ability. Ultimately, she just sounds like a non-singer, that's somehow singing in key. People really need to remember that's all Auto-Tune can do for you. And even at that, it can't work miracles, as it does its best work within small parameters. If you're a horrible singer singing totally outside a key, Auto-Tune pitch correction will make you sound like a robot. And not good vocoder robotics (Nobody Knows Me), but really harsh, digital, glitchy, something sounds wrong robotics.

And just an aside (as an audio engineering nerd) Auto-Tune more often than not, sounds like SHIT. Melodyne is where it's at!

Anyway, just needed to say that, as WAY too many people mention Auto-Tune nowadays, without really understanding what it can and can't do. And Madonna hasn't even used pitch correction until *maybe* the Music record. Anything she's done since then (unless it's obviously a stylized effect) hasn't sounded like the HORRIBLE, and LAZY Auto-Tune abuse you hear elsewhere.

Much like plastic surgery cannot and rarely does make someone look beautiful, that wasn't beautiful already, Auto-Tune will not make your voice sound beautiful, if it isn't already.

Now that was a good read!

[Mat.Guy]

Thank you Viktor for all the interesting stuff. I would like to read your track by track review of MDNA. Technically speaking.

[modul8tr]

I doubt that. The main actress in that show is from broadway and they all sound like pretty capable singers despite the obvious use of pitch correction. Like you said, you can't make a shit singer sound good. Didn't they also do a live show? (I didn't see it so I have no idea how "live" it is.)

I would imagine the reason it has so much pitch correction is because being a TV show its probably recorded very quickly with a limited budget and barely any time for them to practice. The volume of songs they record is pretty big. Not forgetting that its very in at the moment. Which imo is the main reason Orbit has used it so much.

I know nothing about the show, or how many vocalists are on it, and can only pass on what I've been told. The person that shared that with me had no reason to make it up. And I'll say again, in certain cases there's more going on than pitch correction. I won't say what.

Yeah TV is very fast, but good vocalists can lay it down without *needing* to use lots of it. Whoever they have from Broadway is likely a real vocalist.

I sing for a living, everyday for 6 hours, 5 days a week- and when I hear how bad the auto-tuning is it infuriates me.

And Madonna is a Mezzo, not an Alto- so the mid to high-ish range notes are always gonna sit comfortably and ring like a bell!

Girlie Show is a magnificent example of how good she can sing. Vocally she kills it- and I can tell you- rib reserve breathing while dancing does not make singing an easy feat, especially for 2 hours straight. In the case of stage musicals (my forte), most will hire "pit singers" so the onstage performers can have beefed up vocals because of the breathe issues, or just use canned vocals- which again angers me to no end. SO Madonna is beyond gifted, more than likely due to her Olympic trained physique.

And also, Im not afraid of the tracks on this album going live, shes gonna slay it, no worries!

A singer!!

I know about the world of Opera as a musician/performer and from the behind the scenes pov, and I know about the world of musical theatre as a fan. I've heard of using canned vocals occasionally in musicals, but I have never heard of "pit singers". Now, are you saying they are using another persons voice, that blends so well with the onstage singer that it is indistinguishable? Or is it more so a backup vocalist type gig, where it's obviously a backing/harmonized vocal that supports the onstage singer?

Edited March 24, 2012 by Viktor

[Guest Sinisin]

I know nothing about the show, or how many vocalists are on it, and can only pass on what I've been told. The person that shared that with me had no reason to make it up. And I'll say again, in certain cases there's more going on than pitch correction. I won't say what.

Yeah TV is very fast, but good vocalists can lay it down without *needing* to use lots of it. Whoever they have from Broadway is likely a real vocalist.

A singer!!

I know about the world of Opera as a musician/performer and from the behind the scenes pov, and I know about the world of musical theatre as a fan. I've heard of using canned vocals occasionally in musicals, but I have never heard of "pit singers". Now, are you saying they are using another persons voice, that blends so well with the onstage singer that it is indistinguishable? Or is it more so a backup vocalist type gig, where it's obviously a backing/harmonized vocal that supports the onstage singer?

The pit singers will sit in the orchestra pit with the other musicians and sing the exact same parts in an ensemble/chorus number to help complete a bigger sound when the onstage ensemble is dancing. I was in a musical as ensemble- maybe 12-14 of us total, and it was all Fosse choreography and we employed maybe 6 pit singers to beef up our vocals. All the onstage performers were individually mic'd, while the pit singers were picked up on the pit mic's. It was great to have them as we were workin it out onstage and really needed their help!

[aorlaan]

people dont give her credit where it is due... i had opera friends who struggled to sing some of her songs because it was too fast tempo and they were out of breathe

[modul8tr]

Thanks for this.

How authentic would you say the pitch on Madonna's vocals on Love Spent ae?

I'm so floored by that song (it's easily on the short list for one of the best of her career imo) that I haven't focused on that aspect, but nothing stuck out to me as irritating.

I will say she can sing those notes in tune, so it's not a case of *needing* to use it. Off the top of my head I remember hearing something going on effects wise (delays, and maybe some sort of harmonization effect). I think there were some doubled vocals on some of the high parts ("I want you to take me like you take your money"), where she's singing with herself, but at the exact same pitch. In that case you can have intonation issues (one voice being flatter or sharper than the other occasionally) as well as timing issues. Once you edit the timing into lock step, and adjust the pitch so that you are in tune with yourself, it *can* give it just a hint of artificiality. Sometimes that is intentional, and these days, can be considered an effect, or a sound.

- Someone mentioned "Some Girls" being Auto-Tuned to death or something. It's not, it's just a creative use of effects, as opposed to trying to make someone sound like they can sing. They're going for a super stylized robo/layered/harmonized sound. That's a kick ass track!

- The bit at the end of "Falling Free", sounded like her natural voice layered with an exact copy of that same vocal (just like copy and paste on a computer!), but the layered vocal is pitched way down (somewhat like her voice at the end of "Hollywood") and played at a lower volume to balance them. It was really cool, weird, and unexpected. That song is also on the short list as one of the best of her career. WOW. If she ever does a ballad record again, it should sound like this. It's so good and unique, someone needs to do this.

-As far as anything that irritates my ear on this record from a vocal production standpoint, it would be the 10 bar break in Girls Gone Wild ("I know I know I know I shouldn't act this way"). I don't like the effects or her approach to singing it. Similar to some of the vocals I disliked on Hard Candy. Also the way the vocals are produced on "Best Friend" aren't my taste. That's the one B-Side from this project that I can understand being a B-Side. Why "I Fucked Up" is a B-Side is mind blowing to me.

In general, I really like the way her vocals *sit* with the tracks on this record. They live within the sonic landscape of the song. I found her vocals too dry and up front on most of Hard Candy. Dry and up front can work, but it didn't there.

The pit singers will sit in the orchestra pit with the other musicians and sing the exact same parts in an ensemble/chorus number to help complete a bigger sound when the onstage ensemble is dancing. I was in a musical as ensemble- maybe 12-14 of us total, and it was all Fosse choreography and we employed maybe 6 pit singers to beef up our vocals. All the onstage performers were individually mic'd, while the pit singers were picked up on the pit mic's. It was great to have them as we were workin it out onstage and really needed their help!

Oh I get it. It's somewhat similar to a chorus. You musical theatre people are amazing! Such hard work.

[Guest bluejean]

Just listen to any Britney Spears record. I don't think there's anyone on the planet that will argue that she has anything even resembling vocal ability.

I would argue against that. Britney has a good voice. There has just been no effort put into it in the past 10 years. But on her first 3 albums she had a reasonably strong voice and there is alot of performances where she sings totally live and does a reasonable job. I'm guessing you have not seen any of those. I think her voice is still there but she just doesn't care and probably is in and out of the studio as quickly as possible.

[Guest Sinisin]

I'm so floored by that song (it's easily on the short list for one of the best of her career imo) that I haven't focused on that aspect, but nothing stuck out to me as irritating.

I will say she can sing those notes in tune, so it's not a case of *needing* to use it. Off the top of my head I remember hearing something going on effects wise (delays, and maybe some sort of harmonization effect). I think there were some doubled vocals on some of the high parts ("I want you to take me like you take your money"), where she's singing with herself, but at the exact same pitch. In that case you can have intonation issues (one voice being flatter or sharper than the other occasionally) as well as timing issues. Once you edit the timing into lock step, and adjust the pitch so that you are in tune with yourself, it *can* give it just a hint of artificiality. Sometimes that is intentional, and these days, can be considered an effect, or a sound.

- Someone mentioned "Some Girls" being Auto-Tuned to death or something. It's not, it's just a creative use of effects, as opposed to trying to make someone sound like they can sing. They're going for a super stylized robo/layered/harmonized sound. That's a kick ass track!

- The bit at the end of "Falling Free", sounded like her natural voice layered with an exact copy of that same vocal (just like copy and paste on a computer!), but the layered vocal is pitched way down (somewhat like her voice at the end of "Hollywood") and played at a lower volume to balance them. It was really cool, weird, and unexpected. That song is also on the short list as one of the best of her career. WOW. If she ever does a ballad record again, it should sound like this. It's so good and unique, someone needs to do this.

-As far as anything that irritates my ear on this record from a vocal production standpoint, it would be the 10 bar break in Girls Gone Wild ("I know I know I know I shouldn't act this way"). I don't like the effects or her approach to singing it. Similar to some of the vocals I disliked on Hard Candy. Also the way the vocals are produced on "Best Friend" aren't my taste. That's the one B-Side from this project that I can understand being a B-Side. Why "I Fucked Up" is a B-Side is mind blowing to me.

In general, I really like the way her vocals *sit* with the tracks on this record. They live within the sonic landscape of the song. I found her vocals too dry and up front on most of Hard Candy. Dry and up front can work, but it didn't there.

Oh I get it. It's somewhat similar to a chorus. You musical theatre people are amazing! Such hard work.

Well thank you, and welcome to the forum. You should stay awhile.

[Guest bluejean]

I'm so floored by that song (it's easily on the short list for one of the best of her career imo) that I haven't focused on that aspect, but nothing stuck out to me as irritating.

I've worked with melodyne myself and to me it sounds like it has been used on all the Orbit tracks. You can hear the use of it very obviously on the verses of Love Spent. I find it unbearable on the acoustic version, I wish she'd redone the vocals for that. It always stands out more on acoustic tracks. Masterpiece its not as heavy but you can hear it clearly on the backing vocals. I think they've deliberately used it less on Falling Free since its a more stripped back song.

Turn Up The Radio I don't notice it at all but I'm sure its there, just more subtle. My evaluation is that Orbit uses melodyne more than the other producers on the album but that is not to say that that is the reason why her voice sounds so good on those songs. I wish he didn't use it because I don't hear any of that on Ray of Light. Viktor you would probably know but did melodyne even exist in 1998?

[Guest bluejean]

I'm so floored by that song (it's easily on the short list for one of the best of her career imo) that I haven't focused on that aspect, but nothing stuck out to me as irritating.

I will say she can sing those notes in tune, so it's not a case of *needing* to use it. Off the top of my head I remember hearing something going on effects wise (delays, and maybe some sort of harmonization effect). I think there were some doubled vocals on some of the high parts ("I want you to take me like you take your money"), where she's singing with herself, but at the exact same pitch. In that case you can have intonation issues (one voice being flatter or sharper than the other occasionally) as well as timing issues. Once you edit the timing into lock step, and adjust the pitch so that you are in tune with yourself, it *can* give it just a hint of artificiality. Sometimes that is intentional, and these days, can be considered an effect, or a sound.

I've worked with melodyne myself and to me it sounds like it has been used on all the Orbit tracks. You can hear the use of it very obviously on the verses of Love Spent. I find it unbearable on the acoustic version, I wish she'd redone the vocals for that. It always stands out more on acoustic tracks. Masterpiece its not as heavy but you can hear it clearly on the backing vocals. I think they've deliberately used it less on Falling Free since its a more stripped back song. But it's still there. I think the average person wouldn't notice if they are not a singer or haven't worked in the studio, plus its become so common. I can see it going out of fashion soon and I'd hoped Madonna would be one of the ones to refuse use of it apart from as an effect (Some Girls.)

Turn Up The Radio I don't notice it at all but I'm sure its there, just more subtle. My evaluation is that Orbit uses melodyne more than the other producers on the album but that is not to say that that is the reason why her voice sounds so good on those songs. I wish he didn't use it because I don't hear any of that on Ray of Light. Viktor you would probably know but did melodyne even exist in 1998?

[Guest]

As a musician that knows a lot about the studio, has studied audio engineering, and is in a studio everyday... I'd just like to say I have noticed the general public mentioning Pro Tools and Auto-Tune a whole bunch. I don't quite think they know what they are or what they do, and they especially don't understand that no amount of studio trickery will make you sound like an amazing singer. If you can't sing, it will help you to sound *maybe* passable, but you will NEVER sound great.

Also, people don't understand that there's a difference between NEEDING Auto-Tune and USING Auto-Tune. Madonna doesn't NEED Auto-Tune and never has. Contrary to popular belief, she has excellent pitch.

Auto-Tune was created as a way to slide vocals (usually certain notes) into the correct pitch. Often, even the world's best singers will lay down multiple vocal takes (from top to bottom) for the same song, and will end up with one take everyone loves, except for one bum note. Well, you're not going to throw the baby out with the bath water, and time is money. It's much easier to slide that one note (usually by a small amount) into tune, than it is to sing the part again, especially if you've already sung it 5-6 times, and you are inspired and want to keep moving. People with taste, use it in small amounts, much like makeup. But like most retouching nowadays, people misuse it and anyone with ears can hear how bad it sounds. Sure it's in pitch, but human beings don't sing in perfect pitch all the time. That is part of the beauty of the human voice. It's part of the beauty of music. It's why a symphony orchestra sounds full and bigger than life. When those small nuances are removed (to ridiculous degrees) by tools like Auto-Ttune, the human ear will notice it. The same way you'll notice a model on the cover of a magazine has poreless doll skin. Just listen to the last 30 Seconds to Mars record (or anything on the radio) for sickening examples of this. And it's a shame, because Jared Leto can actually sing well enough for what he does, and has decent pitch.

Pro Tools is industry standard software that practically every record you've ever heard in the last 17-18 years has been recorded into. It's a virtual recording studio inside a computer. Extremely talented people use it, and they're not using it to hide some sort of shortcoming. That's not what it was made for. For the laymen, it's basically the recording industries shift from multitrack tape, to the hard disk. It doesn't make you or any other instrument sound better. Sure you can comp vocals with it, but people were comping vocals with tape back in the day as well. Talented people. The reason you hear people saying "Pro Tools" as a negative, is because producers/engineers (with no taste) have *abused* the ease that it provides in sliding a performance perfectly into time. For example, if your drummer is falling out of time here and there, you can lock every drum hit to a perfect metronomic grid. If you have taste and REALLY know your craft, no one will ever know. If you don't...well...just turn on pop or mainstream rock radio.

So, you really can't make anyone sound like an amazing singer, and if you attempt to (and people have) it sounds comical. The best it can do, is make it seem like someone can carry a tune. But there's a lot more that goes into singing than just pitch and timing. No computer can make your natural raw vocal quality sound good if it isn't. Just listen to any Britney Spears record. I don't think there's anyone on the planet that will argue that she has anything even resembling vocal ability. And even with all of the Auto-Tuning, EQ, track doubling etc., she still doesn't sound like someone with anything even resembling vocal ability. Ultimately, she just sounds like a non-singer, that's somehow singing in key. People really need to remember that's all Auto-Tune can do for you. And even at that, it can't work miracles, as it does its best work within small parameters. If you're a horrible singer singing totally outside a key, Auto-Tune pitch correction will make you sound like a robot. And not good vocoder robotics (Nobody Knows Me), but really harsh, digital, glitchy, something sounds wrong robotics.

And just an aside (as an audio engineering nerd) Auto-Tune more often than not, sounds like SHIT. Melodyne is where it's at!

Anyway, just needed to say that, as WAY too many people mention Auto-Tune nowadays, without really understanding what it can and can't do. And Madonna hasn't even used pitch correction until *maybe* the Music record. Anything she's done since then (unless it's obviously a stylized effect) hasn't sounded like the HORRIBLE, and LAZY Auto-Tune abuse you hear elsewhere.

Much like plastic surgery cannot and rarely does make someone look beautiful, that wasn't beautiful already, Auto-Tune will not make your voice sound beautiful, if it isn't already.

There are a bunch of pitiless morons who like to pretend they know what they're talking about. Strange to see that with Madonna it's the most vociferous opinion givers that do this pretending. It gets really boring and I'm glad when somebody like you cuts through the bullshit. Still, they'll be saying the same things. I love her vocals on MDNA, most notably Gang bang.

[Guest IJustFuctMadonna]

Yeah, I'm wondering why the melodyne is so obvious on the Orbit tracks. There's a few tracks where you don't hear it at all, like B-Day song. Weird.

[Guest bluejean]

Yeah, I'm wondering why the melodyne is so obvious on the Orbit tracks. There's a few tracks where you don't hear it at all, like B-Day song. Weird.

I wonder if its because he's inexperienced using it. Does anyone know if he has it on any of his other recent work? You don't hear it at all on Turn Up The Radio, GMAYL, Superstar and numerous others. Or maybe he just likes the effect.

[modul8tr]

Melodyne didn't exist in 1998. Auto-Tune was released that year, but Ray of Light was already in the can, so it wasn't used there. Melodyne can sound pretty invisible. Today these kinds of tools are so ubiquitous, for both their intended purpose, and as an effect, it's hard to say sometimes why it is being used. For better or worse, it's part of the sound of pop music nowadays.

And it's not always to cover bad singing, because EXCELLENT singers that can hit the note use it as well. Sometimes it's because of time. Superstars are pulled in so many directions, and the production flow for albums today is VERY different than the past. Other times an artist will lay down a scratch vocal for an early demo, and when it comes time to replace it, they'll find they can't match the magic captured in that original moment of inspiration. As a result, they keep the demo vocal and correct whatever issues there may be. And again this isn't because of ability, it's kind of an x factor thing. The best singers in the business have at times done this.

Anyway, I'm loving what I'm hearing on MDNA.

Regarding Britney, I'm definitely one of the people that will check someone out before forming an opinion. I've listened to her music and watched her live performances. *IMO* I've always been 100% baffled by what her appeal is. I don't like the "singing", I don't like the music, and most of all she has no charisma which is shocking to me. It's funny you mentioned this, because I took some time out to watch her Femme Fatale show on DVD (just out of curiosity) AND COULD NOT BELIEVE how lacking she was in charisma and energy. I've never seen someone so famous, lack so much x factor. Half assed dancing, the hair extensions that had to be seen to be believed, crap costumes, crap staging, the lame (and yawn inducing)Janet Jackson s&m audience participation rip off. And then, I'm not sure one note she sang was live. But that's really the least of my gripes.

Other people love her and that's great if they get something out of it. I just don't know what it could possibly be.

[modul8tr]

I'll add that I don't dislike her as a person, she actually seems really sweet. I just can't respect her work. I hope she can keep her head on straight and avoid being consumed by her personal issues and the trappings of fame.

Anyway, everyone enjoy MDNA. I am!

[GimmeSomeMo]

Regarding Britney, I'm definitely one of the people that will check someone out before forming an opinion. I've listened to her music and watched her live performances. *IMO* I've always been 100% baffled by what her appeal is. I don't like the "singing", I don't like the music, and most of all she has no charisma which is shocking to me. It's funny you mentioned this, because I took some time out to watch her Femme Fatale show on DVD (just out of curiosity) AND COULD NOT BELIEVE how lacking she was in charisma and energy. I've never seen someone so famous, lack so much x factor. Half assed dancing, the hair extensions that had to be seen to be believed, crap costumes, crap staging, the lame (and yawn inducing)Janet Jackson s&m audience participation rip off. And then, I'm not sure one note she sang was live. But that's really the least of my gripes.

Other people love her and that's great if they get something out of it. I just don't know what it could possibly be.

Hate to derail this thread but then again you wrote the I HATE BRITNEY paragraph. If you wanted a glimpse of what made her famous and popular maybe you shouldn't have watched the latest DVD where she looks and moves like a sedated hippo. Try some of the earlier appearances/tours.

[Guest bluejean]

Hate to derail this thread but then again you wrote the I HATE BRITNEY paragraph. If you wanted a glimpse of what made her famous and popular maybe you shouldn't have watched the latest DVD where she looks and moves like a sedated hippo. Try some of the earlier appearances/tours.

Exactly! I said she had a decent voice in the EARLIER parts of her career. And I'm saying that because I give credit where credit is due, I am by no means a fan of hers. I like her music but I wouldn't call it hers.

[GimmeSomeMo]

Well I wouldn't call Rihanna's music hers either but I still love it.

[Guest bluejean]

No me neither. Actually I think I'd prefer her music if someone else sang it.

[Crystal Coffin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWR9lsDjIyw

I have cry.

[modul8tr]

Exactly! I said she had a decent voice in the EARLIER parts of her career. And I'm saying that because I give credit where credit is due, I am by no means a fan of hers. I like her music but I wouldn't call it hers.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I did say I checked out her music and live performance (yes the earlier stuff) before forming an opinion about her, and I recently watched her Femme Fatale show. Sorry if that was not clear. Not impressed by any of it.

I think it's fantastic if other people dig it and it makes/made them happy.

[GimmeSomeMo]

You know what makes me happy now? MDNA. YES THATS RIGHT

[Case39]

Well I wouldn't call Rihanna's music hers either but I still love it.

Well at least Rihanna sing LIVE unlike Britney. That's a big difference (and i'm not even a Rihanna fan, i just enjoy her music).

And i have to agree with you Viktor, i don't understand what appeal Britney have. For me she's the most overrated artist of ALL times. When you can't sing, can't dance (yeah i know she used to be a good dancer but the thing is: if you're just a DANCER, you just become a DANCER and not a "singer")and doesn't even write your songs, you just don't deserve to have a career, let alone a career THAT big.

I know she's a sweet girl, i love her personality actually but it's still annoying to someone with so little talent become that big when so many talented artists never make it big. It's honestly unfair. No offence to the Britney fans, it's just my honest opinion.

[vocalism]

^ Untalented people have always become famous. But Britney will NEVER be respected. People like certain songs. "Toxic" has gotten a lot of respect from critics. But Britney as an ARTIST is a joke and everyone but her fans knows it. She can't even sell albums anymore.

[Dannylex]

I'm so floored by that song (it's easily on the short list for one of the best of her career imo) that I haven't focused on that aspect, but nothing stuck out to me as irritating.

I will say she can sing those notes in tune, so it's not a case of *needing* to use it. Off the top of my head I remember hearing something going on effects wise (delays, and maybe some sort of harmonization effect). I think there were some doubled vocals on some of the high parts ("I want you to take me like you take your money"), where she's singing with herself, but at the exact same pitch. In that case you can have intonation issues (one voice being flatter or sharper than the other occasionally) as well as timing issues. Once you edit the timing into lock step, and adjust the pitch so that you are in tune with yourself, it *can* give it just a hint of artificiality. Sometimes that is intentional, and these days, can be considered an effect, or a sound.

- Someone mentioned "Some Girls" being Auto-Tuned to death or something. It's not, it's just a creative use of effects, as opposed to trying to make someone sound like they can sing. They're going for a super stylized robo/layered/harmonized sound. That's a kick ass track!

- The bit at the end of "Falling Free", sounded like her natural voice layered with an exact copy of that same vocal (just like copy and paste on a computer!), but the layered vocal is pitched way down (somewhat like her voice at the end of "Hollywood") and played at a lower volume to balance them. It was really cool, weird, and unexpected. That song is also on the short list as one of the best of her career. WOW. If she ever does a ballad record again, it should sound like this. It's so good and unique, someone needs to do this.

-As far as anything that irritates my ear on this record from a vocal production standpoint, it would be the 10 bar break in Girls Gone Wild ("I know I know I know I shouldn't act this way"). I don't like the effects or her approach to singing it. Similar to some of the vocals I disliked on Hard Candy. Also the way the vocals are produced on "Best Friend" aren't my taste. That's the one B-Side from this project that I can understand being a B-Side. Why "I Fucked Up" is a B-Side is mind blowing to me.

In general, I really like the way her vocals *sit* with the tracks on this record. They live within the sonic landscape of the song. I found her vocals too dry and up front on most of Hard Candy. Dry and up front can work, but it didn't there.

Oh I get it. It's somewhat similar to a chorus. You musical theatre people are amazing! Such hard work.

To read you is to love you

[Nessie]

I love that this thread became a Britney thread!

Anyway, i'm not a fan of the girl and her music never really appelead to me. Not in her golden years and not now. But i can't deny that she definitely had a set of features that made her unique. She was the embodiment of the american sweet girl that gone wild "singing" in a very distinguish slut style that immediately appelead to straight men even before she became a gay icon, much like Madonna in her early slut days.

She was unique in what she was supposed to do, and it's still doing anyway.

As for her voice, everyone can recognize a Britney song by a mile! Since day 1 she "sings" in a very distinguish way. I personally don't like it, but there are tons of people that loves it and i agree with them that her unique style to say words (overproduced or not) it's her trademark.

[Guest Xanthium]

Britney Spears is an interesting case. She's not famous, and never has been, because of her "talent". She used to be able to sing minimally and was once an awesome dancer. Totally believe in her heyday she could've whooped Madonna's ASS in a dance off. There was a fluidity to Britney's moves that Madonna NEVER had. Look at the "I'm A Slave 4 U" video as an example. Britney could carry a note at one point. I remember she sang "Everytime" live once and played the piano when promoting In The Zone. I was impressed. But those days are long over. The reason Britney became famous in the first place is because men wanted to fuck her and women and gay men wanted to be her. Being a pop star isn't always about talent and the music. She fulfilled a fantasy. And Britney is still famous because she is beloved. She is the girl-next-door and the fulfillment of the American Dream. She's basically a national symbol for goal achievement. She doesn't have any charisma anymore these days but she will be in the hearts of the public far more than people like Xtina ever will. Britney is a part of our cultural consciousness. I adore her music but I realize that anyone could be singing it. She does have a unique vocal style that is recognizable and endearing but her work is not about talent. Having said that I will always be a fan and I will always root for her. She's just a star, now and forever.

[Crystal Coffin]

There was a fluidity to Britney's moves that Madonna NEVER had.

!

[Guest Xanthium]

Sorry CC baby. Britney was a better dancer than Madonna.