Studio production of female vox

Docfoster

Just talking about production here...

I like this (1956!!!):

(Louis grin earns an extra point too.)

I like this (Chesky label):

I like this (Chesky label agian):

I think this is OK:

But I think that this sort of production is such a shame. It does terrible damage to what sounds like a good performance of a good song (Susie Suh "Won't you come again"):

Just sounding off

uglymusic

Docfoster said:

Just talking about production here...

I like this (1956!!!):

(Louis grin earns an extra point too.)

I like this (Chesky label):

I like this (Chesky label agian):

I think this is OK:

But I think that this sort of production is such a shame. It does terrible damage to what sounds like a good performance of a good song (Susie Suh "Won't you come again"):

Just sounding off

From the evidence presented, Dr F, you seem to like the most unadorned productions.

I'll have to give this a bit of thought, as I don't listen to a great deal of vocals, and even less female ones.

Docfoster

You're right Dave. Get a decent microphone and position it well is a crucial start point for me. I like closely-miced vocals and instruments, which is quite an unnatural way of listening to things really (there aren't many unplugged gigs I've been to when the whole band have crowded around my ears to play).
Then add no more compression and reverb than is absolutely necessary* (*by my standards).

And oddly, I'd never thought before about the fact that you tend to prefer instrumental music and I often prefer vocal music.

cj66

I'm with you on female vocals! Not too much gets through with me.

Sticking with Ben's thought here I do agree;

Ella's recording, although sounding a little dated production wise, is far more natural and reminds me of the sound you would have in a small venue.

The Rosa & Marta tracks are very up close and personal and capture every nuance.

Nora's is showing signs of a little over-production, similar to being too closely mic'd.

Susie's is the typical overblown production that is oh so common and, yes, it does ruin what could have been so much better if, say, Chesky had been at the helm.

(BTW, only listening on earbuds straight of the laptop)

It's a sad reflection of what most record companies hold most dear and it's certainly not our listening pleasure

Docfoster

cj66 said:

I'm with you on female vocals! Not too much gets through with me.

Sticking with Ben's thought here I do agree;

Ella's recording, although sounding a little dated production wise, is far more natural and reminds me of the sound you would have in a small venue.

The Rosa & Marta tracks are very up close and personal and capture every nuance.

Nora's is showing signs of a little over-production, similar to being too closely mic'd.

Susie's is the typical overblown production that is oh so common and, yes, it does ruin what could have been so much better if, say, Chesky had been at the helm.

(BTW, only listening on earbuds straight of the laptop)

It's a sad reflection of what most record companies hold most dear and it's certainly not our listening pleasure

CJ, you've summed up exactly my impression and sentiments.
I must track down some more Chesky staff, their recordings always add to my enjoyment of the music.
I actually think the Norah Jones one, for a mainstream release, is ok. At least, I always expect it to be worse than it is. Certainly more listenable than the Susie Suh one.
And yes, presenting examples of production values through the medium of YouTube was never going to be the best way...! ;-D

cj66

The sheer fact that the differences and, most importantly, the very poor quality of the compressed to hell last track, show up so obviously even on YouTube & via low quality audio playback, blows the record companies given reasons out of the water. We're told it's still about volume on radio and average quality of audio gear used by Joe bloggs, dangly bits I say! It's purely bottom line, compression to hide the cheapest standards of recording is most likely the real truth.