Recording - March 2010 - 24

created, once again, through the miracle of technology. The lead vocal track was pitch-shifted up a third, and then pitch-corrected, not for intonation, but to limit the newly-transposed track to notes that would fit in the key of the song, resulting in an appropriate harmony part. Nowadays, any half-decent pitch-shifter could do this much more directly and easily, and the best of them can do it almost transparently. In our case, way back when, the burps and blips were quite pronounced—sometimes even hilarious when you solo’d the “harmony” track—but even these more severe vocal artifacts stayed well hidden, masked by the arrangement as long as we didn’t blend them in too prominently in the mix. The vocals in the bridge still didn’t feel right—each vocal line entered midbar (on the “3”), two beats after each new chord was introduced.This resulted in a laid-back feel for those lines, as if the singer was ruminating thoughtfully (reinforced by the lyric). While this was a perfect match for the original moody vibe of the tune, it was inappropriate for the new, more “pushy” arrangement—the song felt like it lost its momentum every time the bridge came along. After some experimentation, we ended up moving the bridge vocal lines to start on the downbeat (the “1”) of each new chord (Figure 6)—this restored the “push” needed to preserve the song’s new sense of constant forward motion. The repositioning also suggested a differently-accented delivery of the Bridge lyrics, infusing them with more of a sense of hopefulness, and providing a slight lift in mood in that section. This subtle change actually altered the overall impression of the singer’s mood significantly, and helped the original vocal performance fit in better stylistically with the new treatment. The last step was to try and add a musical hook to the arrangement, and we chose the “na-na” vocal line that introduced the vocal at the beginning on Figure 6: Bridge Vocals Moved in DAW the song—almost a throwaway in the guitar solo section), the tune clocked in original version. This was adapted as a about 30 seconds longer, but with the solo electric guitar riff (jangly but slight- higher energy level, seemed to have a ly edgy tone) that came in immediately constant forward motion instead of with the loud drums at bar 1/beat 1 in a dragging. In place of the steady, conslightly simplified form (Figure 7), fol- templative vibe of the song’s original lowed by its vocal introduction where it incarnation, there were now stronger always had been, 8 bars later. As the dynamic variations between the quiopening riff of the song, this figure now eter, sparser verses and the other more took on a new prominence in the energetic sections, with an occasional arrangement, and its similarity to the shift in mood (the Bridge) for contrast. chorus melody established it as the main What started out as a quiet, dark, melodic motif of the song. moody, sparse vocal tune with a light, We brought it back, just as in the open acoustic guitar accompaniment intro, as the 1st bridge transitioned had morphed, first into an ill-conceived into the instrumental section (now a blues lament, and then into a highguitar solo)—the guitar plays it twice, energy, jangly rock anthem—the misjust as in the first 8 bars, and then match of the “downer” lyrics with the continues into a melodic solo that more raucous track is a often-used comes out of the riff for another 8 technique in pop songs, and it worked bars, after which the vocal picks it up quite decently here. And, despite the again while the guitar finishes its solo very different feel of the rock version, with windmill chords (same as the it was accomplished using the original intro), before the arrangement drops vocal performance, successfully adaptback down in intensity for the 2nd ed to the new arrangement. (last) verse. This second iteration of Now, of course I think the re-purposthe na-na vocal was not part of the ing of this tune worked out pretty well, original recording, so we just flew it but does that mean the original in (duplicated the part) from the approach was doomed to failure? Of intro section and re-used it here. course not! If the songwriter had been Figure 7: Na-na Guitar Riff To reinforce this melodic hook one able to stick around, he likely would last time, we resurrected a na-na ad-lib have reined us in, kept us on the origifrom the end of the song that we had nal path, and even shared enough of previously tossed out as being too over- his vision for the song to bring us wrought for the original low-key ver- around to that kind of treatment. sion, and had the whole band (drums There’s no one best, or right, treatment and bass, in particular) react to the for a song—witness all the great vocalist here, with a big drum fill and remakes and covers that have brought some bass riffing up the neck, which new life to songs over the years. But it also helped reinforce a more “live” feel does mean that a song (or any piece of for the track. In the original ending, the music) can be taken down a lot more vocal just kind of trailed off into the paths than any one person might tend distance (in keeping with the moody to go, and I guess the best any artist, vibe)—now, the tune ended with three arranger, or producer can do is just to big chords and a gradual deceleration. follow whatever approach inspires you the most. So get to it, and, as the songSomething new, something old writer, remain open to treatments of Overall, with the extra sections your songs that you would never have (additional vocal na-na’s and longer thought of yourself! Joe Albano (albano@recordingmag.com) is a musician/engineer/producer/audio consultant in NYC—he can be reached through his production company’s website at RPMRecording.com.RECORDING MARCH 2010
http://www.RPMRecording.com
Recording - March 2010

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Recording - March 2010
