R.I.P. Richie's golden voice 1983-2002 :(

Id Die 4 you · #31 07-02-2012, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supersonic

Aloha !

Because you've got the tone of his voice down. If you've got the tone of someone's voice you can pretty much make him sing anything you want him to. Yet even that tone can be mimicked, all you've got to do is find someone who sounds similar and only the die hards will hear how it's not really Richie.

Think about it, if you wouldn't know it was Richie singing the verses of Nowadays, wouldn't you think it was someone else as well? I'm not hinting at Richie not having sung that song, but iif you can process a voice so much that it barely sounds like him, you can do it the other way around as well. Take someone who has a similar voice Richie has, and then put a bunch of effects over it to make him sound like a carbon copy. They've done it an insane amount of times, even back in the 60's this was done already, though effects back then were very limited.

With today's studio tricks I could in theory put a vocal line down and then have it processed through Richies tone to make my voice sound like Richie's. It'll never be a 100% match but it'll get close enough. There have been quite a few examples recently that put these technologies in the spotlight (Michael Jackson's 2010 record, Tupac's hologram performance at Coachella). Bury a voice in the effects of the music and no one'll notice apart from a select few die hards.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

In my opinion you're going way overboard with what what effects you can 'hear' on this record. By 'studio tricks' you can actually hear EQ, chorus etc which on tracks like Burn the Candle Down are actually indicative of the stylistic features of the genre eg Philip Sayce.
Auto tune, if used, has no noticeable influence on the vocal whereas When We Beautiful and She's A Mystery are two examples where it is far too noticeable and another vocal take should have been done! Please do give examples of where the vocals are unduly influenced by autotune etc and by that I don't mean a subjective issue regarding timbre.

Yes the youtube videos are awful renditions of the songs but to say that his voice has completely gone is a little premature. Evidently his range is not as wide as it once was but it was likely just a poor performance as it was early in the day and he probably didn't rehearse any of the material!

sambos apprentice · #32 07-02-2012, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samboraisgodUK

Okay this was bad, but no need to get carried away. The guitar masterclass he did wasn't that long ago and that was great. No-one could go downhill that quickly, i think we can just put it down to an off day.

i think people get over enthused (which is fine, great) but honestly i didn't see anything to get excited about at those masterclasses.

Regurgitating the same licks he has been forever.

A WEE bit of variation would be nice. he's finished.

Also, just listened to she's a mystery....can't find any trace of any auto tune!

Supersonic · #33 07-02-2012, 02:32 PM

Aloha !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Id Die 4 you

In my opinion you're going way overboard with what what effects you can 'hear' on this record. By 'studio tricks' you can actually hear EQ, chorus etc which on tracks like Burn the Candle Down are actually indicative of the stylistic features of the genre eg Philip Sayce.
Auto tune, if used, has no noticeable influence on the vocal whereas When We Beautiful and She's A Mystery are two examples where it is far too noticeable and another vocal take should have been done! Please do give examples of where the vocals are unduly influenced by autotune etc and by that I don't mean a subjective issue regarding timbre.

I'm not talking about stuff like Burn That Candle Down. That one's just got some vocal effects over his singing voice because they wanted that stylistic approach. However, you saying how "auto tune if used has no notable influence on the vocal" makes me wonder if you have any idea how auto tune works, especially when you're citing She's A Mystery as an example which has a lot more natural vocal track than anything of Richie's record.

If you can't detect the auto tuning it doesn't mean that it's there. The entire chorus of Nowadays is autotuned. The bridge which Richie fails to nail in the example I posted is completely autotuned on the version of the song that leaked. Those are just 2 examples of how they managed to make him sound a whole lot better than what he actually sounds like.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

RSROCKS · #34 07-02-2012, 03:00 PM

The third video they just posted is pretty awful to except for Richie's comments about Bounce and calling Bon Jovi what it really is, a formulated pop band.

Javier · #35 07-02-2012, 03:23 PM

He sounds rusty as hell! But I wouldn't put it as far as loosing it or going downhill, it doesn't even sound like he's drunk (he would have sounded more comfortable that way :P ) I just put it down to it being a really off performance, a bad crowd to not feed off of and Richie not having Jon's ability to fake it and superficially improve a performance by acting like he gives a shit.....

Id Die 4 you · #36 07-02-2012, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supersonic

Aloha !

I'm not talking about stuff like Burn That Candle Down. That one's just got some vocal effects over his singing voice because they wanted that stylistic approach. However, you saying how "auto tune if used has no notable influence on the vocal" makes me wonder if you have any idea how auto tune works, especially when you're citing She's A Mystery as an example which has a lot more natural vocal track than anything of Richie's record.

If you can't detect the auto tuning it doesn't mean that it's there. The entire chorus of Nowadays is autotuned. The bridge which Richie fails to nail in the example I posted is completely autotuned on the version of the song that leaked. Those are just 2 examples of how they managed to make him sound a whole lot better than what he actually sounds like.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

Nowadays isn't autotune! Its a phaser effect on his vocal, which has also been used on the guitars. She's a mystery is caked in autotune.

YouTube

Listen to the word 'fire' the frequency is clearly being modulated because of auto tune. There are other instances of this across the whole song.

Clearly you do not quite understand the difference. There is no noticeable movement or inflection on the vocal because of autotune on any of the tracks I have had a listen to but maybe if I listened more closely... (or was shown a concrete example). I agree with the notion just because you can't hear it doesn't mean it isn't there, there will undoubtedly be numerous vocals edits on any record made today.

faith1985 · #37 07-02-2012, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supersonic

Aloha !

Because you've got the tone of his voice down. If you've got the tone of someone's voice you can pretty much make him sing anything you want him to. Yet even that tone can be mimicked, all you've got to do is find someone who sounds similar and only the die hards will hear how it's not really Richie.

Think about it, if you wouldn't know it was Richie singing the verses of Nowadays, wouldn't you think it was someone else as well? I'm not hinting at Richie not having sung that song, but iif you can process a voice so much that it barely sounds like him, you can do it the other way around as well. Take someone who has a similar voice Richie has, and then put a bunch of effects over it to make him sound like a carbon copy. They've done it an insane amount of times, even back in the 60's this was done already, though effects back then were very limited.

With today's studio tricks I could in theory put a vocal line down and then have it processed through Richies tone to make my voice sound like Richie's. It'll never be a 100% match but it'll get close enough. There have been quite a few examples recently that put these technologies in the spotlight (Michael Jackson's 2010 record, Tupac's hologram performance at Coachella). Bury a voice in the effects of the music and no one'll notice apart from a select few die hards.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

I can see you know your shit

Let's wait and see and hope he will still nail some of the songs on his tour!!!!

P.S.: your avatar is cruel!

samboraisgodUK · #38 07-02-2012, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSROCKS

The third video they just posted is pretty awful to except for Richie's comments about Bounce and calling Bon Jovi what it really is, a formulated pop band.

Meh, it's not that bad, he sounds better than on the others. Also, when you listen to him talk at the start, he doesn't sound very well (only sore throat, cold, hayfever etc.) Look at the Tokyo 08 show where both he and Jon weren't well, they sounded crap then and have sounded much better subsequently. It's just an off day. I don't think we should get too carried away. Plus, it's a ridiculously shitty guitar sound, that doesn't help the performance at all.

Here is the third video anyway:

Richie Sambora At Sunset Sessions ROCK! 2012 -...

muziektaal · #39 07-02-2012, 06:52 PM

Is he drunk? To me he is acting a bit weird - he tries to be cool which doesn't work well, he calls Bon Jovi a POP band and he messes up the LOAP intro...

Captain_jovi · #40 07-02-2012, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muziektaal

Is he drunk? To me he is acting a bit weird - he tries to be cool which doesn't work well, he calls Bon Jovi a POP band and he messes up the LOAP intro...

He's obviously sick. He's called Bon Jovi a pop band, mainly because they are.

R.I.P. Richie's golden voice 1983-2002 :(

General BJ Discussion