do wop babes, andy and stewart or samples for backing vocals

[Grant]

I've finally come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter what they do, it's the Police.

If you've ever seen the Beatles Anthology where paul McCartnery respionds
to criticism about the White Album he says sometyhing like 'It was the Beatles and it was great.' So that's the attitude I'm going to take here.

By the way the time from The Beatles hitting America to the end of the Police (20 years) is shorter than the time since the Police toured until now (22 years.) Wait, when did I get old?

[sockii]

>Who was it that kept yelling Stewart's name? And Sting was like, "It's one of your kids."

I have no idea, it was some guy in the back of the room.

There were definitely a lot of Stewart fans in attendance!

[ghostinthepolice]

Hello!!
For me the question is: which of this 3 for backing vocals?
1) Three wonderful NAKED girls like Beyonce, Shakira or similar (Sting choice )
2) Three great Rock voices like Linda Perry or Joss Stone
3) Three in one, ten in one, hundred in one voices like Bobby McFerrin or similar (or similar??? )

[Bassman]

Hmm... it seems I may be in the minority here as to my opinion, but here goes. I don't like samples in a live show. If I wanted to hear recorded music I could put on a CD. A live show should be live only, no samples or recordings. I think the best solution to obtaining the best live show would be to have two or three do-wop girls (or two girls and guy or whatever). I think they would add a lot and let Stewart and Andy concentrate on playing the music. No offence to Stew or Andy, but I think professional singers would enhance the show.

[coco]

Please....Nooooo not the do wop babes. They ruined the Synchronicity video for me. I'm first choice Andy & Stewart then samples if it comes down to saving Sting's voice and allowing Andy & Stewart more freedom to concentrate on their instruments.

[bella]

First of all, what is this "click" that everyone is talking about?

Second, I do not want any sampled background vocals if it means they have to stick to a strick time measurement. As others have said, I think that takes all the spontaneity out of the performance. I enjoyed the whole relaxed feeling of the whisky rehearsal. I loved them talking in the middle of the songs, that was great. I don't expect them to do that on all songs, but if the impulse hits them I don't want them to have to "hold that thought" by being locked into some canned backing vocals. But, then, maybe this "click" thing that you are talking about has something to do with selftiming it. I don't know.

As far as background singers? If I had to chose one or the other? I'd take that over canned background vocals anyday.

Here's a suggestion I haven't heard!! How about Joe Sumner as background vocals? He could do it from backstage.

[blueboy]

What makes the Police vocals so great is the SOUND of Sting's voice...especially the sound of him doing harmonies over his own lead vocal.

Andy and Stewart's vocals add "charm" to the early recordings, but honestly they are not great voices (relative to Sting).

Three babes singing Synch1 backing vocals almost made me ralph when I first heard it. I later got used it (probably 10 years later), but I would definitely prefer not to hear that approach again. Also, Sting does not sing with vibrato, and most "trained" singers do, so they have a difficult time emulating what Sting does.

Short of getting a Sting clone on stage, the mix of samples and Andy and Stew is the best option.

Also, for those of you not familiar with how the samples thing works, it doesn't necessarily require that Stewart plays to a click and that the song stays "rigid" all the time. Someone backstage can easily trigger short vocal samples at the right time just like they were playing another instrument. The Police can improvise all night long, but when the big chorus comes around, a guy can just trigger the backing vocals on cue off of a keyboard.

The only thing that requires a "click track" is when they are using sequenced keyboards that are the kind of thing a keyboardist wouldn't even try to play live anyway. Of course Sting might also insist that Stewart uses a click to keep his tempo "under control" as well

I think everyone should take into account that although these guys look great, they are in their 50's and 60's! Some of you probably get winded just walking up and down a flight of stairs even at a much younger age! Try going on tour for a year and jumping around on stage, playing your instrument and singing. It can get very fatiguing. Not to mention all the traveling and press interviews that they will have to do. Then imagine your parents doing that!

If people are going to get all "purist" about only having just the 3 of them and not use technology because it is "cheating", maybe they shouldn't use a P.A. system or "electric" instruments. Is it OK to use a sample of a kick drum that is triggered off the real kick drum to get a better live drum sound...or is that cheating? I guess it's OK to emulate or enhance inanimate objects, but not human voices.

I agree that people should not use vocal samples if they can't sing the parts live that they cut and pasted together in the studio. They are just compensating for the fact that they can't really deliver the goods. But we all know Sting can sing...

If Stewart and Andy don't go near a Mic and their mouths aren't moving when some really loud perfect sounding Sting harmonies come over the P.A., then it will feel "wrong".

As long as are making an effort to blend in with the backing samples, it will sound better and "feel' natural.

[bella]

[quote]If people are going to get all "purist" about only having just the 3 of them and not use technology because it is "cheating", maybe they shouldn't use a P.A. system or "electric" instruments. Is it OK to use a sample of a kick drum that is triggered off the real kick drum to get a better live drum sound...or is that cheating? I guess it's OK to emulate or enhance inanimate objects, but not human voices.[/quote]

Blueboy, you better take a chill pill before I come over there and give you a good "sting on stew" pounding. (said with a smirk and a wink)

Forgive me for wanting live vocals, but I do think there is a difference between a human being's instrument, their voice, and a mechanical musical instrument. Yes, that is quite different for me than having drum effects, guitar, keyboard, etc. Yes, big difference in my book.

And you didn't explain the click thing to me, is that like a metronome or something? Sounds like it from your description.

Man, we need a better smiley face with his tongue sticking out.

[blueboy]

I'm very passionate about this because I see people getting upset about things like this, but at the same time totally accepting other things that they may not even be aware of. My point is that using samples to augment a live performance should not be viewed as anything other than a subjective preference. Technology is here to stay, and it can be used artistically to enhance the emotion of a performance. It can also be abused very easily, by covering up a performer's lack of talent or ability. That's clearly not the case here.

A big part of a song like Roxanne is the impact of the vocals in the chorus. That is not going to happen with Stewart and Andy. And in my subjective opinion, having the do wop babes doing a mowtown version of Sting's backing vocals would kill the intimacy of the 3-piece band thing, as well as resulting in having the song sound nothing like the Police I know and love on record. It turns them into a Vegas lounge act in my opinion.

As far as the click things goes (yes it's a metronome), it is only needed for things like Synchronicity 1, where the keyboard parts are pre-programmed because you can't play them live. Stewart needs to follow the sequenced keyboards by listening to a "click track" that is synchronized to the tempo of the keyboard parts. This means that the song structure cannot change, and there is less room for improvisation.

With vocal samples though, a keyboardist can trigger individual words or phrases in time with the song. So for Roxanne, as an example, the Police could decide to improvise as much as they want, as long as the guy in the back is also following Sting's lead, just like Andy and Stewart so that when they come around to the chorus again, he can trigger "Roxaaannnne..." at just the right time.

Not every songs needs them, or would benefit from them, but certain songs will.

I'm sure the internal band debate on this is just as passionate.

By the way, I wasn't directing my comments directly towards yours.

Also, I think it was a "Stew on Sting" pounding that resulted in a bruised rib....

[blueboy]

The Joe Sumner suggestion is actually a good one by the way, as they have obvious similar qualities to their voices and I think it would work.

I just don't think Joe would want to be seen as "copying" the sound of his father.

Didn't he once come out and say that he doesn't even like the Police's music?

[bella]

[quote]Also, I think it was a "Stew on Sting" pounding that resulted in a bruised rib....[/quote]

Go Stew! But, actually, I was refering to the most recent playful pounding by Sting at the Whisky rehearsals.

Thanks for the click track explanation!!

OH, and in reference to your Joe comment. Have you seen his band live? He is his father incarnate. Voice, mannerisms, dancing, jumping. Yeah, he might not WANT to copy him, but he really is the spittin' image on stage.

[New Zealand Promoter]

"If people are going to get all "purist" about only having just the 3 of them and not use technology because it is "cheating", maybe they shouldn't use a P.A. system or "electric" instruments. Is it OK to use a sample of a kick drum that is triggered off the real kick drum to get a better live drum sound...or is that cheating? I guess it's OK to emulate or enhance inanimate objects, but not human voices. "

Ummmm we could start a debate about this very thing in a new thread and your completely invalid, flawed argument would be torn apart like a piglet in a wolf-pit. Using pre-recorded backing vocal tracks is NOT the same as using "electric instruments" or a "PA system".

I am taking a wild guess here, but I would say you're, ah, not a musician? You just like listening to it, right?

Actually, it doesn't matter. I am sure that most appreciators of live music, players of music or not, will agree that in principle, the use of a pre-recorded vocal sample to use in place of live backing vocals is not the same as using electricity and amplification to run a PA. LOL!

[blueboy]

[quote="tj7"]Ummmm we could start a debate about this very thing in a new thread and your completely invalid, flawed argument would be torn apart like a piglet in a wolf-pit. Using pre-recorded backing vocal tracks is NOT the same as using "electric instruments" or a "PA system".

I am taking a wild guess here, but I would say you're, ah, not a musician? You just like listening to it, right?

Actually, it doesn't matter. I am sure that most appreciators of live music, players of music or not, will agree that in principle, the use of a pre-recorded vocal sample to use in place of live backing vocals is not the same as using electricity and amplification to run a PA. LOL![/quote]

Your guess as to my musical status is a little off the mark....

...and yes, my example was extreme, but it was "simplified" to make my point for the people that are not necessarily aware of the technology that goes on behind the scenes that they probably don't even think about. At one point in time, many new technologies were frowned upon by purists. Many of those same technological advances are taken for granted today, and it doesn't make the music any less valid.

Where do you personally draw the line as to what is acceptable for a live performance? Is it OK to use a "vocal doubler" or "harmonizer" on a live lead vocal? Is it OK to use Autotune on a live lead vocal? Is it OK, only if it is used so subtly that you are not aware that it is there?

Taken to a further extreme, is it not cheating to use multitrack recorders in the studio and overdub your own intruments and harmonies? Was it blasphemous for Stewart to overdub his cymbals making drummers believe he had three arms? Should their records only be 100% live recordings?

Let's go further...should their photos be "photoshopped", or should we see all the warts and wrinkles? Should they have dyed their hair blonde? Should Sting not be allowed to get a nose-job?

Who cares???

All these "enhancements" are designed to make the experience of seeing and listening to the band more enjoyable.

All I'm saying is that the issue of using background vocal samples should not be a "religious" one. The argument against it comes off as an "elitist" one, similar to Jazz purists who despise what Sting does in blending musical styles. You can't draw the line at backing vocal samples, without opening a whole can of worms...and in the end it is all personal opinion.

I'm waiting in the Wolf pit......oink oink

[blueboy]

This, by the way, is where I draw the line for using technology in a live performance....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuqIgTfmPr8

[Wait and See]

I think the samples should be avoided if at all possible. If they feel a little shaky on the singing, just bring in a vocal coach and work on it. If it's absolutely necessary for the song to work, make sure it's mixed in a way that is as unobtrusive as possible. If it requires playing to a click, DON'T DO IT.

I would much rather see them take along a (male) keyboard player who can fill in the harmonies than to see them use samples. The use of "electronic augmentation" opens them up wide to the charge that they're a bunch of old geezers who can't play or sing anymore. Roxanne on the Grammys sounded mechanical, and I think there is no doubt they were using a click to sync it with the BG vocals. Doing that for the tour would take away the musical interplay and spontaneity that is at least 50% of the band's appeal. Is this the Police or Britney Spears? Just my opinion.