So, She really can sing, who knew?

[Carl H.]

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


Selling out, or doing the thing to maximize profits?

[SOTSDO]

At any rate, she's not selling out, just going through the same "I wanna be legit" phase that many pop stars do. There's nothing wrong with that, except in the eyes of "purists" who feel that you should only perform the kind of music that they want you to.

I've had pop fans tell me that "Lady Gaga is the real thing/she can really sing" and so forth. For right now, I would state that this apparent talent is "not proven". Even when she "goes acoustic (which really impresses pop folks for some reason, there is sweetening of her voice involved. And there may be "autotune" - I can't always pick that out from what comes out of the sound systems, even when they are ostensibly "acoustic".

The whole thing is put together out of edits, with dozens of jump cuts for visual effect, and that she moves in and out from the microphone(s) throughout, yet the sound is consistent.

As with most staged recording of movies or "videos", this one was done in two phases. The first works towards the perfection of the visual element (which for most pop folks is the prime concern - note all of the shots of her body interspaced with the performance; legitimate or not, sex sells).

Then, the audio element is added to fit the final edit, usually in bits and pieces in order to present a "perfect" performance.

("Can sing" here is a bit of an oxymoron as well. I detect both compression and reverb in both of their voices in this recording. Standard practice that makes a so-so vocalist much better.)

I'd wager that few of us here have ever delivered a 100% on the money, perfect performance in one take. The advantage of pre-recorded stuff (audio and video) is that you can work at it until you get it "just so" and only then release it to the rest of the world. Every commercial recording session that I have been a part of was an extended effort to get things right, with multiple takes, and (in at least one case) splicing part of one session with another.

I put all of them, from Madonna (who has to be one of the hardest looking women to perform at her age; has she looked in a mirror lately?) through Christina (who at least is more physically attractive) to Lady Gaga on the same plane. Lip synchronization and distance from the concert platform allow their groups to play a canned performance while they prance and strut around. Rock does it, Broadway does it for some numbers, and they do it.

It is fun to watch partially clad women bounce around though. In that, their efforts succeed as far as this old goat is concerned.

And, this is where I dredge Robert Palmer up again. He was a talented enough rocker for the time and place, but where he got his traction was with his prancing (one hesitates to call it dancing) cloned backup groups. It sure worked for him.

[DrewSorensenMusic]

Does anyone else think Tony's the one selling out? I mean, if you were to find the person most qualified to sing a crooner style duet with Tony, I don't think Lady Gaga would be high at the top of the list of likely candidates. There are many hard working amature singers that a highly studied and talented in the field, and instead he turns to a pop idol that wears deli meats for pants.

On one hand it brings this style of music to an audience that is auditorily retarded, who more or less would not have listened to this if lady gaga had sung it.

On the other hand, this music is not made for them, and they will not go out and purchase a frank sinatra, nancy wilson, etc... album because lady gaga sung this song with Tony. So instead of helping an up-and-coming artist flourish in our all too quickly dimishing subculture, Tony tries to boost his own album sales with the use of artists outside his true follower's realm.

[clarnibass]

The whole thing is put together out of edits, with dozens of jump cuts for visual effect, and that she moves in and out from the microphone(s) throughout, yet the sound is consistent.
Yes, the whole thing seems super edited and it probably is. But regardless, you (i.e. anyone) could tell "she can really sing" from listening to her pop music, regardless of it being good or not. I heard a lot of her songs and some in acoustic versions (i.e. just her on piano) and personally I've only found one I really like. But that doesn't have anything to do with how she sang actually.

As far as them singing together, who knows. It might have been a producer/manager/label pushing or deciding it. Depends what each agreed with them. Maybe one of them wanted it. The lebel/producer deciding stuff happens in supposedly less commercial or mainstream music too. It's no big deal, what matters is the result.

[PrincessJ]

Depends on what "can sing" means - you certainly didn't say "can sing well" or "can sing great" - to me, "can sing" simply means one's ability to hold a good enough sense of pitch and have a non-offensive tone.
As a part-time sound engineer, I know all kinds of fancy things they do to people's "acoustic" performances and so on, like live autotune, compression, reverb, limiting, in some cases actual vocal transformers, etc, all through a bunch of fancy boxes and buttons hooked up to a mic. That being said I can't say that it's really really real, but I can say it's not hard to pretty up someone's singing real quick real nice.
It "she" had a pic on the news that was supposedly "without make-up" and was obviously edited and she was still wearing a bit of foundation and eye make-up (and lip gloss, and mascara, etc).
I trust it not! Commercial little piece of plastic inside and out. :)

[Carl H.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_GMgkcc2KM

Unprocessed live performance.

Don't happen to care for the song much, but she is working many aspects to get the sounds she wants here which are not electronic in nature.

Here is another persons thoughts on her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEw97J34SJU&feature=related



It's too easy to bash what you personally don't care for, but I happen to think she has talent. Won't be buying any of her music anytime soon though.

[Groovekiller]

If you don't like it, don't listen to it. Personally, if they paid me scale to back this act, I'd be there in a heartbeat.

[SOTSDO]

There is a significant difference in the sound that we are given when she is speaking into the microphone compared to the sound that's coming out when she starts singing. If nothing else, there is reverb being added to the mix at that point.

I don't understand all of the ins and outs of "live sound processing", but I do know that such stuff is routine for just about all performing artists.

As to the merit of what she sings, it's no better nor worse than most of the rest of what is being produced these days…or before. I'm not one to stick up for what Frank Sinatra did, which in many ways was as "processed" as what "Lady Gaga" puts out here and in her extravaganzas. Sinatra without the support of a Nelson Riddle arrangement, put together to cleverly disguise his vocal weaknesses, was someone that most would not pay to see.

Push comes to shove, all performers are creating an artificial environment. Some are more artificial (pop productions of the Madonna or Lady Gaga persuasion) and some are less (this performance on the Howard Stern show). But, they don't pay a sound board guy or gal to follow them around for nothing...

[Carl H.]

Who'd ever pay good money to listen to a fellow on stage going THHBBBPPTTTT and wiggling his fingers? Where's the talent in that? They need tools to make that noise into something people want to hear.