Great singers with clear voices? (that sing so clearly you don't need a lyric sheet)

[Herb Hunter]

Originally Posted by Chicago Sandy

...Also, George “Budapest” Ezra--it took me three listenings to realize that “for you, ooh, uh dee vee dough” was actually “...I’d leave it all.” For a minute I’d thought English was not his first language, until I learned he’s from England.

I just listened to, Budapest, on iTunes and there is no question. He sings, uh dee vee dough, and not, I’d leave it all”.

I never heard of George Ezra before but his accent sounds a bit like a feigned Caribbean island one to me.

[Chicago Sandy]

A couple of contemporary rockers whom I find easy to understand are Hozier (what a voice!) and Vampire Weekend’s Ezra Koenig. Death Cab for Cutie’s Ben Gibbard has impeccable diction (and is a good lyricist) but I’m not wild about his voice.

[Rockin2Slowly]

Didn't read through the whole thread, but I'd like to add a few names. Maybe one or two are repeats?

Eddy Arnold
Josh Turner
Patsy Cline
John Denver
Jim Reeves
Martina McBride


I got to see Martina McBride a few years ago. Knew she had a good voice because my daughter showed me a few music videos of her. In person....wow. What a voice. No need to scream like most of today's singers. Excellent projection.

[H165]

Two guys, each of whom cover one of my favorite songs:

Ray Stevens and
Johnny Mathis

both cover "Misty"

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by scuzbucket

There is clearly a lot more to singing than you think Kev. (maybe post an example of your voice so we can decide if you sing with good diction or not? mixed in which ever way you like).

Perhaps, although I have been singing for about 58 to 60 years . Maybe there is a lot more to mixing than you think.

OKee Dokee how bout I post two examples with my voice, two different mixes from the same session tracks. One mixed to specifically feature my voice and one mixed to feature the other instruments in the mix. The difference between these two mixes involves differences in the mix criteria I mentioned back in my second post, as effecting clarity.

[KevWind]

Interesting . So is this a glass 1/2 full, or glass 1/2 empty situation?

1/2 empty: Is this the first time 50 years of performing that my performance was so awful as to have run off the entire audience metaphorically speaking ??

1/2 full: Or is this a case of two sound files being worth two thousand written words in demonstrating exactly how important mixing actually can be in perceived "clarity" of voice ?? Being the positive kindda guy that I am, I'll choose the latter.

[scuzbucket]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Interesting . So is this a glass 1/2 full, or glass 1/2 empty situation?

1/2 empty: Is this the first time 50 years of performing that my performance was so awful as to have run off the entire audience metaphorically speaking ??

1/2 full: Or is this a case of two sound files being worth two thousand written words in demonstrating exactly how important mixing actually can be in perceived "clarity" of voice ?? Being the positive kindda guy that I am, I'll choose the latter.

Sorry I didn't reply Kev, I hadn't logged in in a few days.

No complaints about your voice but I wouldn't say that it really stands out for clear diction (ie, the words don't really jump out at me : I have to try a little to get at them. I think this topic has been about singers that sing so precisely and cleanly that no effort is needed to hear every word (a rare talent in my opinion).

To my ears the massive difference between the two mixes is that you lowered the volume of the vocal substantially in the first one. I can still make out your words in the first one but I have to strain a lot more.

I totally agree that good mixing is important, but it can't turn average into excellent (when it comes to precise diction). There's good reason that singing teachers go on and on and on about the subject. I don't think they'd bother if technology could take care of it.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by scuzbucket

Sorry I didn't reply Kev, I hadn't logged in in a few days.
No complaints about your voice but I wouldn't say that it really stands out for clear diction (ie, the words don't really jump out at me : I have to try a little to get at them. I think this topic has been about singers that sing so precisely and cleanly that no effort is needed to hear every word (a rare talent in my opinion).

First thats OK and I would tend to agree about "diction", I have never stated or claimed anything about great diction mine or anybodies. And never disputed the obvious fact that some singers have great diction and many others do not. And yes many here presumed the topic was about great diction only, I however saw the question as some what open ended.
And given that the OP never asked specifically about "great diction" And because the OP's clarifying statement was a bit ambiguous , it appears that many took "sings so clearly" to figuratively be about "diction" only... but I took " don't need a lyric sheet " literally to be the qualifier for clarity , and as I have consistently stated, may arguably as much or more, to do with mixing . So staying with that as the qualifier in the OP, then are you saying you still might need a lyric sheet to clearly hear either one of my examples ?

To my ears the massive difference between the two mixes is that you lowered the volume of the vocal substantially in the first one.

Well Yes and No it is much more complex than that ..... yes there is a massive difference , but no the actual level difference of the vocals in the two mixes, is not substantial or massive and in fact not from actually lowering the volume level of the vocal track fader in first example .

In point of fact and interestingly I actually raised the vocal track fader level, to + 4.5 db on the vocal track in the first mix, over the level of the Vox track in the second example which stayed at 0.0 db) as per the photos below. Now to be sure the "output level" of the vocal in the first example is slightly lower than than the second - 3.4 db to be exact. So yes there is a relative level difference (which is BTW is one of the mix criteria I mentioned in my original posts as effecting clarity) But the "massive difference" has much to due with other mixing techniques, decisions, and use of effects like EQ,Compression, Reverb. In other words the rest of the criteria I stated in my original posts. .......... And I took you " mix what ever way you like " at your words......

Note the difference in the Inserts (plug in effects) section, at the top of the mixer channel lead vocal (labeled- Vox 1 ),

In the first example (the Instrument featured track) the Vox 1 has an EQ, and a Reverb on it. But the Vox 1 in the second example has an EQ, a Compressor , and a Channel Strip plug in that is a second EQ and second Compressor so the second example has 2 EQ's and 2 Compressors plus the reverb is sent out parallel, instead on the track itself as in the first example . Not to mention all the other differences in EQ ing and compression for all the other instruments between the two examples.

First sound file example mix session featuring the instruments, track fader level @ +4.5 db blue arrow


Second sound file mix session featuring the vocal, track fader level @ 0.0 db blue arrow




The Yes part is your correct there is some volume level difference : (the overall output level of the Vox 1 track in the first is example is 3.4 db lower than the output level of of the second as can be seen in this photo of a new session with only the vocal tracks imported and compared side by side. ? This 3.4 difference is due to there being some slight general EQ cuts in the mids and upper mids to make room for the instruments and most of the reduction is because of the reverb being place directly on the track. The rest of the perceived "massive" difference is a function of things like having removed the narrow band subtractive EQ ing and compression from all the instruments, slightly raising ( a few db here and there ) the fader levels of the other instrument tracks etc.etc.
[/URL]

I can still make out your words in the first one but I have to strain a lot more.

I totally agree that good mixing is important, but it can't turn average into excellent (when it comes to precise diction). There's good reason that singing teachers go on and on and on about the subject. I don't think they'd bother if technology could take care of it.

Again obviously mixing can't change diction and I never said it could , but in fact it can take average diction (like mine for example) and make the vocals significantly more or less clear ( and can make average diction , clear "without a lyric sheet") which is exactly what I have been saying from the get go .


And since a couple sound files are worth a thousand words. here some very short clips of just the vocal tracks soloed, so as to demonstrate the actual level difference 3.4 db but I think it should be audibly apparent in the full mix files in my previous post , the "massive difference" involves much much more






So you asked and I obliged, that was and is my point no sense belaboring, spose I'm done