What is up with the drummers who record the songs for SC???
It seems like they don't pay attention to the original songs drumming patterns and when it's left out, it makes a HUGE diffence in the outcome.
It takes away the KICK-ASS value!
It severely degrades the song!

I will give you 3 perfect examples of what I'm talkin' about.
Let's start with the song " fire " by Jimi Hendrix from the SC arena rock disk.
If you compare the original version with the SC version, you wlll notice that the drumming SUCKS on the SC version. It is a disgrace and takes away from the KICK-ASS value. How and Why was that recording approved?!
By contrast, if any of you singers or KJ's have the old Dangerous Disk volume #11, it has the song " Fire " and their version is AWESOME and the drumming is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than the SC version. ALso it was recorded louder and you can literally feel all the energy and KICK-ASS that was put into the song. It is ALIVE!!!
If you would like a copy of that disk you can go to www.eastcoastkaraoke.com and order it because they still carry the full line of Dangerous Disks and they also have all the latest SC releases for $29.99 ( Spotlight series ).

Example #2
The song " Sugar " by System of a Down.
If you listen to the original version a few times and then the SC version, you will notice that the drumming is very weak in the part where the lead vocalist sings BEFORE " the Kombucha Mushroom people." The parts where he says " I'm not there all the time, some people some people etc... and " I got a gun the other day from Sako it's cute etc..." and this takes away the KICK-ASS value.

Example #3
I just recently purchased the disk with the FOO Fighters song " I'll stick around."
What a disappointment.
Instead of being a SUPER KICK-ASS song, it's just a song that Kicks ass.
Aside from the drumming, they did an AWESOME job of recording that song. It sounds almost exactly like the original version and I give them credit BUT what was up with that drummer???
In the part in which the lead singer says " I don't owe you anything " and the opening part of the song ( NOT the opening drum roll to begin the song ) the drum pattern should accompany that part like this:
hit, hit hit hit hit hit hit,
hit, hit hit hit hit hit hit,
hit hit hit hit hit hit hit,
etc...
The deadbeat drummer for SC has it like this:

Hit, hit,
hit, hit,
hit, hit,
etc...
What's interesting though is that for the rest of the song the drumming seemed accurate. So why in the Hell did he F-ck that part up which sverely had an impact on the KICK-ASS value!
NOw BC, I am sure that you have oversight and most likely give the final approval of whether a songs recording gets the okay to be released on a disk. In a previous response to me you said don't tell me about rock n roll because when your mom was changing your diapers, you saw Led Zeppelin etc...
If you know about rock n roll so much as you claim then How in the Hell did these songs get your approval. If I was the studio Manager, in the last case I would have had a meeting with the whole band and said " you guys did a great job with the song BUT ( and I would have directly addressed the drummer and informed him about the mistake he made and I would make them do it over. If he made the same mistake again, I would make the drummer listen to the original version at least 3 times in a row and explain and point out this egregious flaw and would NOT approve the song until he got it right. I would have done the same thing in the other 2 instances.
On a related note, some other songs that SC recorded lacked the KICK-ASS value because of these reasons:
I will list 2 perfect examples:
The song " Space Lord " by Monster Magnet.
When I first got that disk and listened ot the song I said to myself " Wow, this sounds awesome so far. And then all of a sudden when you get to the part where the lead vocalist belts out " I left my throne a million miles away etc... " it lacked the raw power and KICK-ASS of the original version instrumentally. That part was supposed to be recorded LOUD and IN YOUR FACE! like the original. If you listen to the original version and then the SC version, you'll know what I'm talkin' about.
That was a HUGE disappointment and it could have been a SUPER KICK-ASS song.
The other example is the song " Bawidaba " by Kid Rock.
The chorus who recorded the part " bawidaba di dang di dang diggy diggy diggy say up jump the boogie say up jump the boogie " sounded like they just got out of bed and didn't feel like going to work for the day. Their attitude was like " Oh we're here, we're gonna get paid, let's just roll outta bed, do the song, get paid and go home." If I was the studio Manager I would have gone over to them, give them all a big WHACK across their heads and said " HELLO, wake the F-CK up! You're workin' for SC the greatest Karaoke company in the world. You're gonna sing that part like it's supposed to be sung with aggression and anger in your voices like the chorus in the original version. If you guys do that again, I'm gonna send your asses to Music Maestro!"
That would have surely waked them up and corrected the mishap.
Also the " grunge " element was missing from the song and those parts should have been recorded louder.
On a lesser note " nookie " by Limp Bizkit also was missing the " grunge " element but overall you did an awesome job with that one because the parts that were supposed to be recorded loud was accomplished.
All I'm saying is that you should be more critical in the approval process of these songs because SC has a reputation for good accuracy and quality and in those instances, those elements should NOT have been overlooked and could have easily been corrected.
P.S. When you release that JIMI HENDRIX disk PLEASE DO NOT include the arena rock version of FIRE. Re-record it with the appropriate adjustments.
Thanks

------------------
PSYCHO JOE

The specific songs and issues you raise are irrelevant. On some level, this happens every single day on every song - you just don't hear the mistakes or differences, or you don't care about those other songs with the same types of issues. But someone else out there is feeling the same thing about a song they really care about.

None of the songs are perfect! I could crank out this type of criticism and find fault with absolutely every single song ever produced by every karaoke manufacturer. We have songs we nail, and songs we miss. Anyone with a scintilla of sense - about music - would understand that it is impossible for human beings to recreate music to perfection. I could raise Hendrix from the dead, and he couldn't (or wouldn't) recreate those parts exactly the same way. It's music - not mathematics! You don't boot up a computer and plug in a macro, and voilá. Human beings play, sing, record, mix - execute.

The bottom line is this: we can't afford to spend days, weeks and months recording these songs - like the original recordings. In this business, you do your best to stay on the high side of the score, and move on to the next challenge. And, overall, we do the best job we can. And, in this league, we have the highest batting average for success.

It's karaoke, Mr. Bernstein!

PS - the Hendrix Star will be out in February and it contains the same version of "Fire" - and it KICKS ASS!!! Do not cross this line until you have read and absorbed this statement.

------------------
PSYCHO JOE

Joe is right, the drumming is often on the side of "passable" rather than "Fully Competent"

One song that leaps to mind is my long-awaited "Bark at the Moon". While it is over-all "Excellent" there is a crucial moment, when the solo is over and the song goes back to the "beginning" the "bah-bum" of the (snare?) is really, really weak, then it comes back in properly for the next phrase.

Now BC might find that to just be "really nitpicky" but rather than see it that way, why not just kinda go "You know, maybe we could pay a little more attention to the drums" and leave it at that? We are paying your bills, after all...and it's really a steaming load of crap to say "Well, we're the best so nyaaaah!"

This is not ingratitude, I bought the disk and payed the money.

I guess you guys got a drummer on contract, and maybe can't try some new people out, that's my guess...but the drums often lack, that is for sure. Everything else is usually spot-on.

The point being, has anyone ever approached you after singing one of these songs in public and said, "You know, those drums in that song just didn't kick ass." Or, "The beginning of that song was a bit off - there were 4 drum beats instead of 6." I highly doubt it. These little quirks are usually only noticed when listening to the CDG track by itself and then comparing it against the original. Most people don't even realize that karaoke music has to be recreated in the first place.

I bet if you sung SC's "Fire" every week at a venue for a year, and then one night you switched it with the All Hits version, do you believe someone would notice?

Now, I used to be extremely picky myself until I noticed that for the environment in which the music was designed for it really didn't matter if the instruments were "right on" or not because no one's going to notice anyway! People are (or should be) paying attention to the singer kicking ass versus the music.

One line in BC's post raises questions to me:
"It's karaoke, Mr. Bernstein!"

Granted, no one can be expected to exactly re-create music. But does saying "it's karaoke" mean it doesn't deserve a 100% effort? "The drums are a little weak on that song, or the background singers were a bit off there, but, ah, what the hell, it's karaoke. It'll do. What's next, we gotta get these songs out there." That's the kind of discussion I'd like to think doesn't happen at Sound Choice.

By saying "it's karaoke" (which I read as "it's ONLY karaoke), that minimizes what you guys are doing. It's almost like saying to somebody at a party "Yeah, I work at Sound Choice. We make karaoke music. Hopefully it will lead to a real job in the music industry"

I know that I consider the creation of karaoke music to be a legitimate part of the music industry, just as singing at or hosting a karaoke show is a legitimate part of the entertainment industry. I also know that karaoke has a reputation as a "lesser" form of entertainment. Most of us take pride in our singing or hosting. Probably most of us have never said something like "it's only karaoke"

Now, if you could just say you guys do the best job you can, as you started to do, and leave it at that, I think that would have been fine. The rest, as Darth says, came across pretty arrogant. I don't think the Sleps invested the large dollars they did in a modern recording facility because "It's karaoke, Mr. Bernstein!"

So I didn't expect them to visit the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport and find a helicopter to sample from for the instrumental break in REM's "Orange Crush". Now, that's picky!

Most of the time, it's spot on. Sometimes, we fall short.

That isn't arrogant - it's just the plain truth. If you want "Customer Service" pablum, or false modesty, I'm not your guy. I didn't realize it was arrogant to admit that we're not perfect. I've never contested the statements made that there may be parts on our productions that aren't perfect. In fact, I've agreed with that, and I could point out things on every single song that go right over your heads - as I've also said.

We we will continue to be human as we continue to strive to do the best that we can. Just like always. It isn't as good as the original, nor is it likely perfect. It is what it is. If people can't accept that - refer to Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. On this forum, however, my own opinions are usually backed up by facts, and the knowledge of how things are done in this business. The responses so far are mostly what I would expect from people who don't have the first inkling of what it takes to do this and how it gets done. And that's okay - I don't expect people to understand the business of recording and distributing karoake.

What I am unwilling to let go are the sweeping generalities stated as facts, but based only on opinion and a serious inability to recognize a basic common sense about busienss realities. For instance, the original post here. Or the words "passable" or "lacking" as applied to the drumming on our entire catalogue. Those types of remarks remove credibility from whatever may be truthful and accurate in the rest of the statement.

For instance, Darth: "my long-awaited "Bark at the Moon". While it is over-all "Excellent" there is a crucial moment, when the solo is over and the song goes back to the "beginning" the "bah-bum" of the (snare?) is really, really weak, then it comes back in properly for the next phrase."

Let's say I take you at your word, and you are correct about the Ozzy song. Ultimately, your statement reinforces two of the points I made in my original response. First, you're talking about a couple beats of a song - less than one bar - of a song that is how long!? So... you're saying we messed up one or two beats in that song?

Well, I'll take one or two beats that aren't just like the original on every single song we do. As far as your example is concerned, I call that an "A". Is it perfect? Of course not, and what you point out isn't the only reason. But it certainly doesn't ruin the karaoke experience - for people with any reasonable expectation of reality for karaoke reproductions. As you pointed out, it was "Excellent".

Secondly, the complaints are always about a song that you, the individual, care about, i.e, "my long-awaited", etc. People don't notice the differences with songs that they don't care about - only with the songs that they know every note, nuance and hiccup. And for the one person out there who really loves "that song", that means that song is 'terrible' - for them.

Like I said, I could find fault with every single song - by every single manufacturer. 'Someone' out there will have a problem with every single song we do, which means every single song we do is 'terrible' to some individual. Based on the statements here, I'm supposed to 'fix' every single perceived error as defined by amateur musical opinion out there?

In the 'karaoke' business, there are margins - for error and for costs vs. profit. That's why there are limitations to what can be done for 'karaoke' in terms of production. Do you think, for a moment, that I'm going to pull a disc that cost thousands of dollars to produce, just so I can fix one "bah dum"??!?! That's not reality.

Dan, Downhome, and anyone else who didn't read what I said, and is traveling down that road: Can you show me where I have ever said SC does not make it's best effort on all our productions. Ever?? Where do you get that?

That's right, "it's only karaoke". It's not original music made by original artists for original record companies with an original BUDGET of bigtime original dollars. To be sold to hundreds of thousands, or millions, or tens of millions of original customers!

Like I said, neither SC - nor any other manufacturer that I know of - has the budget to spend the time and money like the original artists (who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on their recordings) to make sure every single, note, phrase, etc. is absolutely perfect. And it's likely that we never will.

Do you know why?
* Because the returns don't justify that kind of cost.
* Because the market isn't big enough.
* Because there aren't enough people who purchase karaoke to make it economically feasible to undertake such expenses.
* Because we would go out of business if we did that.
* Because the return isn't there.....

And the limitations imposed by the small factor of 'how do I stay in business' is what makes it only karaoke.

I have never said - read my lips - that we don't make 100% effort on every song we do. Not just the songs that are requested by our customers, but on ALL the songs we produce. Every single song gets the same amount of time and effort - except those that need more time. But effort and results don't always produce perfection.

If my statements here were interpreted as saying we don't make an honest effort on every song - then you're not reading my words, you're creating your own version of my words.

I've said this so many times, and yet it still doesn't get through. We do the best we can in every aspect of our work. Most of the time, we nail it, sometimes we miss it. If that's arrogant - don't ask me no questions, I'll tell you no lies.

PS - to paraphrase Leigh, I can't believe I let this kind of crap get stirred up by someone like that.

Controversy is good for the grey matter. You have to form thoughts before you can express them. My 2¢ is spent, time to get off my sudsy-sidewalk-pulpit.

[This message has been edited by Dog (edited December 16, 2000).]

Posts: 900 | From: Ottawa, ON Canada | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | 

If we added a diferent musician to the band, guess what? That's right it sounded different. No two musicians play the same way, and they most certainly don't play any one song the same. I guess until you become a musician and play for a while you really should not complain. You are talking about two totaly different bands or musicians on one brand of cd verses onother brand. It also plays a big part on the recording engineer how a song sounds. I have recorded in more than one studio and believe me, the two were different like night and day!

I am aslo a big critic on how a song sounds. And by the way BC I would really like to compliment SC and the musicians and all the people involded on the brick 5 version of "Turn Me Loose"- Loverboy, that is one awsome version!

Anyway just my two bits worth...

think about it

a song is played slightly different

a song is played so different it don't sound like the original

TWO DIFFERENT THINGS

Best,

Of course not!!! You listened to the same song on the same disk!!! DUH!!!

But in all seriousness, if you did listen to the original version and then the SC version and didn't see anything wrong with the drumming, you REALLY need to have your hearing checked because the difference is SUBSTANTIAL!!!
Also I mentioned the Dangerous version NOT the All Hits version ( I'm not aware that All Hits put out a version of " FIRE " ). Even though they are the same organization their All Hits version was probably different from the Dangerous version.
To illustrate a perfect example, All Hits put out the most pathetic and horrendous version of the song " war pigs " by Black Sabbath ( and I swear if I, Metalroke and MADMAXX ever find the band and the persons responsible for approving that song, we're gonna tie them up, stone them to death and set them on fire for disgracing one of the all-time greatest metal and funk songs ever made ). By contrast, the Dangerous version is much better. But the overall winner by a landslide is the SC version because it sounds very close to the original and it's the WHOLE song.
My suggestion to you is to listen to the original version of " Fire " AT LEAST 5 times in a row and pay attention to every aspect of the song ESPECIALLY THE DRUMMING and then all you have to do is listen ONCE to the SC version and ONCE to the Dangerous version and you will see who's version is CLEARLY the winner. It is SO BLATANTLY obvious because the Dangerous version's drumming is 100% better and it was recorded louder and it's full of energy and life!

If I was the studio Manager for SC, I would first make it a policy to know which songs SC plans to add to it's repertoire. Then I would listen to every song 5 times in a row and pay attention to every aspect of the song ( guitar, bass, synthesizers, drumming, chorus, etc... ). Then after the band performs the song and it's recorded, I would review the song for accuracy and if adjustments are necessary, I would make them do it over with the necessary adjustments until it's done right. Because with SC's reputation for superior quality, I would ensure that EVERY song is recorded as close to the original as possible. After all, I'm getting PAID to do this so I'm gonna give 1000% effort to keep my customers happy and BC should take the same approach.

------------------
PSYCHO JOE

Bringing excitement, originality, disruption and chaos to your karaoke world order!!!

On the topic of drummers not being able to duplicate their own licks, just take a listen to Neil Pert on the studio AND the live version of YYZ...damn close!!

BTW- I saw nothing wrong with BC's statements, frankly, I'm surprised he even takes the time to address those moronic posts anymore.

Well-said, Mark.

BC - Congrats on having the patience to even address this kind of bullsh*t.

By the way, you forgot one....

* Because people are always whining about our prices.

I wonder if the same people who go on nit-picking rages like this about stupid little flaws (that don't affect the singability of a track) would be willing to absorb the cost of making every track absolutely perfect. KINDA DOUBT IT. In fact, I think they'd be the ones double-timing it to the END of that volunteer line.

(Incidentally....I'm curious - anybody who would like to absorb the cost of renting a helicopter for the day, raise your hand. ------------------ Didn't think so.)

Ya know....in the clubs, I noticed that the biggest whiners about the rotation are usually the ones who spend the least money. Beginning to think the same principle also applies to the quality of CD+Gs....whaddaya think, folks?

Let's see..... [weighing hands and looking back and forth from one to the other]

Hmmmm....nit-picking, cheap, nit-picking, cheap. Yeah.....ya know....they seem to go together.....go figure.....

I'd be the first one to admit being picky when it comes to karaoke versions but this is going way overboard. I mean, there are some karaoke versions that SC has done that I haven't been 100% fond of but I'd never come onto THIER website and go ballistic over something petty like this.

I agree it's "just karaoke" and for 99.9% of these people who do karaoke the only place for these "stars" to go afterwards is to thier cars and home.

BC, you make a couple of good points. The original artist will never be able to reproduce a studio recording. Not only would he/she have to play/sing it the same way, but the engineering would have to be the same. In Brian Wilson's book Wouldn't It Be Nice he talks about going back into the studio after he climbed out from under his rock, and finding out that the engineers could now (1980) "fix" his voice so that it was always on key. Now I know how Britney makes a recording...

I know of lots of songs that I have memorized every nuance and background harmony. And I've either gone to a concert or heard a live recording of the same song and wondered what drugs the artist was on at the performance. Ever listened to Chicago IV - Carnegie Hall? Ugh. Only the Eagles and CSNY seem to be anal about making their live performances sound like their studio albums - and they get criticized for that too!

There's gonna be songs that we love that SC or any CDG manufacturer will probably make mistakes on. The few times it's happenned to me on an SC disc, I was frankly surprised. Funny how we're not so surprised when it's someone else. Could this be why we pay more for SC? Hmmm.

Well, back to shoveling.

In the case of Bark at the Moon, which I mentioned earlier, it took me about five minutes.

The Jimi Hendrix Song as mentioned above might benefit by being run through a reverb filter and maybe playing with the equalizer to bring the drums out more...dont know for sure, haven't heard it.

It seems to me that there are master tapes, with all the tracks seperated before final mixing. It's (most often) the mixing process that can make or break a song. In the digital age, the mixing process often takes away the "air" of a song and needs post-processing to capture the rawness and "tube-ampy" atmosphere of analogue sound.

I'd like to add that I'd gladly pay more money for a disc that is very detail oriented.

But overall, Soundchoice is excellent and is certainly superior to the other companies 95% of the time.

Darth, if you wanna talk the talk - and state it as facts - can you try to be more careful with how you throw words around? I think I understand that you're trying to help, but when you state misinformation as fact, that sends people away misinformed.

Now, I'm not looking to flame anyone here - but I'm not going to leave this kind of misinformation up here, either. Even when it's coming from good intentions.

What's a "reverb filter"? Now, far be it from me with 15 years in NYC recording studios to question such a term, but I've never heard it. To my knowledge, there is no such box, processor, engineering or sonic principle identified as a "reverb filter". You've got comb filters, notch filters, lo pass filters, hi pass filters - any "filter" defined as an adjustment to the sonic frequencies.

So, I figured, hey, maybe it's something out of the school of studio-in-a-box-for-your-apartment (like Acid and many other programs for the home-user market). So I asked some of the engineers who all have home studios. Nobody here has ever heard the term as you use it. So, in fact, we find fiction.

Of course, maybe that's what we're missing here, and you've identified the source of the problems. (Or maybe I'm about to learn something.)

About that equalizer for the drums - which drum are you going to "bring out" with that equalizer? Would that be the Bass Drum, with the low end between 30Hz and 250 Hz and the high end being affected all the way up through 3000KHz?

Or, the snare drum, with its' primary frequencies between 250Hz and 10KHz? Or the cymbals (2K - 20K)? Or the tom-toms? The rack/hi toms, or the floor tom?

Being that the drum kit utilizes such a wide frequency range, don't you think you might increase or decrease other instruments and vocals also found in those frequency ranges, as you equalize the "drums"? You don't need to answer, it's a rhetorical question. (Besides, as I read the original post, it was the "playing" that was being criticized, not the levels.)

And the "air of a song" is predicated on every single decision made about the production of a song. It is definitely not specific or limited to just the mixing process. It has everything to do with what instruments are used and how they are recorded, in addition to how they are processed in the mix.

Digital technology has been addressing the "warmth" of analog sound for the past 20 years. You can make a 100% digital recording and, depending on the skill of the producer and engineer, the equipment available, and the sound they are looking for, it can sound as clean or as grungy as you want (admittedly, up to a point). The "rawness" of a recording has as much or more to do with Production decisions (skill of the musicians playing, type of instrumentation, how layered is the recording, what style of music is it), as it does with Engineering decisions (what equipment is used, how is it recorded, what mics are used, what types of guitars, amps, synths, are used, etc.).

BC....I think you guys are the BEST cover band around, and if you ever want to play a gig in this town, I promise you it would be a sell out.

I do it all in one room of my home in one take - everything!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by cheapskore:
Well now PSYCHO JOE,
I guess if you were trying to get a hot topic going, looks loke you are doing a pretty good job...We are all getting sucked into a bunch of BS! Sing the damn song and enjoy the fact that there is such a thing called KARAOKE! Geeze Louise!

---

Cheapskore .....
I did not create this topic to make it " hot." This is a topic with substance that I really wanted to know the answer to and I had a legitimate complaint. If you really felt that this topic was BS, then keep your keyboard SHUT!
YOU are the sucker for responding to a " BS " topic.

All I am saying is PSYCHO JOE could have came across with it a little better than he did.

And yes PSYCHO JOE I do believe the drums need to be kickin' without any doubt. But I think that about every rock song, the back beat is what moves you and the audience.

I just got somewhat offended because I have put a lot of effort into my drumming and alot of feel into it for many years, and it just seemed like you were trashing all drummers in general.

Sorry PSYCHO JOE for trashing on your topic, ok?