They say seeing is believing, and it certainly does seem that Britney Spears’ unwillingness to be witnessed singing live on stage has spawned a fascinating industry of conspiracy theories. I won’t say she has an “inability” to be witnessed singing live, because the theory that she basically can’t sing is itself the fundamental theory that all of the others are designed to prove.
No matter that there are actually quite a few videos on YouTube of Britney singing live. We’ve seen them here at PoorBritney. Conspiracy theorists prefer conspiracies and theories to facts, and, although they believe their cynical and suspicious attitude is proof of superior intelligence, they actually tend to be pretty gullible. You only have to examine what they believe for proof of that.
But anyway, who are the conspirators? Well, obviously there’s Britney herself, her past and present management team, her A&R managers and various others at Jive Records. You’d expect them to be loyal.... I guess.... but what about her embittered ex-security staff, and the ever-floating multitude of hangers-on and freeloaders, including ex-boyfriends? What about Sam Lutfi? Why would you expect any of them to keep quiet on Britney’s behalf?
What I think is more sinister than any of these is the grand conspiracy involving all of the record producers, vocal producers, studio musicians and their teams who have worked with her since 1998. When you consider that she’s worked with more than 40 production teams in her career so far, it’s pretty amazing that nobody has approached the News Of The World or The Sun with the terrible secret. Amazing too that so many of them have deliberately gone on record to lie about how good she is in the studio when they didn’t have to.
I can’t claim that my list of deceptions and malfaisance is exhaustive, because every time I write about Britney’s voice, somebody comes up with a new conspiracy theory. And the gullible people suck up every word of it. I also don’t expect the conspiracy theorists to have their minds changed by anything I say. I have no doubt that, if there are any comments, they’ll show that some people didn’t even consider the observations, analysis and facts I’m about to lay before them.
“Britney - her real voice! What she really sounds like!”
Yes, I can hear you sigh. You’d think anyone with half a brain would see the fallacy in putting forward, as evidence that she can’t sing, a few seconds of a video where, breathless and dancing hard, and thinking her mic is switched off, she emits a few tuneless grunts. She wasn’t trying to sing and probably wasn’t even aware that she was making any noise at all. All of this is glaringly obvious. Yet this video is trotted out again and again on website after website, followed by the usual bleating of the conspiracy sheep “That proves it! I always knew she couldn’t sing. Thank you for posting this!” Sometimes a Britney loyalist will respond with a shoal of videos showing her actually singing live, but nobody seems to care. I shall pause here for some eye-rolling.
“She doesn’t sing on her own records!”
I guess you could say this about anybody. No doubt there are Beyonce and GaGa soundalikes who could be deployed in the studio in the event that the stars had something better to do that day. But history suggests that this kind of skulduggery can’t be kept secret for very long. It didn’t take the public long to find out that Loleatta Holloway was the real singer on Black Box’s “Ride on Time”, that Manuella Kamossi really sang Technotronic’s “Pump up the jam”, that Audrey Hepburn was overdubbed by Marni Nixon (in “My Fair Lady”) and Juanita Hall by Muriel Smith (in “South Pacific”). The tabloids, with their suspicious minds, quickly discovered that Milli Vanilli weren’t singers at all. Strange, then, that in 12 years they haven’t managed to prove the same about Britney.
“There’s a Britney-button!”
According to this interesting theory, some producers are able to press a “Britney-button” on one of their obscure but impressive machines, and it makes any vocals by demo singers sound exactly like her. There’s an obvious weakness here, in that there would have to be a “her” for them to sound like, and “she” would have had to sing quite a few vocals to provide for the comprehensive programming that is evoked by the Britney-button.
Another problem is that we know the “Britney-button” isn’t a standard Pro-Tools plug-in, or an unofficial one that’s been circulating around the studios, because that’s something that would have leaked on the professional audio websites. So it would have to be a custom feature that each producer programs for himself. And if there is no “her” for the soundalike to sound alike with, how come every one of her 40 producers has managed to come up with the same vocal signatures and tone? Coincidence? Producer David Foster recently remarked that he loved Britney’s voice for her tone, adding “You cannot manufacture tone”. He hasn’t worked with Britney so he has no reason to lie.
“Her vocals are all stuck together from a few small good bits!”
At the extreme end of the spectrum, this theory holds that Britney phones in a few words and phrases to the studio, maybe just a few vowels and consonants, and the all-knowing, all-powerful producer programs them into his computer, shuffles them around a bit and out they come in the right order as a finished vocal track. As against this, we have actually seen many paparazzi pictures of Britney going into and coming out of recording studios, so we may suspect that at least part of this isn’t true!
But what does she do in there? Sing a few random words and phrases then go home? For a producer to create acceptable vocal tracks from them would be a task of unimaginable complexity and take forever. In fact, it would be a lot simpler and quicker from the producer’s point of view if Britney would just sing the complete song right through, however badly. This would be a gigantic shortcut to getting all the words and phrases required, and in the right order, for any amount of diabolical processing to take place. Goodness knows, if she goes off-key a few times, there’s always the Almighty Autotune to put things right. Right?
“Her vocals are blended with other singers!”
According to this theory, Britney has a deep voice and if you hear anything else on her records, that’s someone else’s voice “blended” with hers. Exhibit “A” is a home-edited version of “Gimme More” with the center channel taken out. It is then assumed that Britney’s vocal only appears on the center channel and nowhere else. Everything else that you hear, which is about 90% of the track, is claimed to be Keri Hilson. But. There’s always a “but”, isn’t there? Britney’s lead vocal is only placed on the center channel in the first part of the verse. In the second part, “working it down, etc”, and in the chorus, her voice is split between left and right channels. It’s blatantly obvious, if you listen using a pair of good headphones. And it’s also obvious what Keri contributes, which is a couple of “Aaaah” sounds during the first part of the verse.
The same thory is applied to “Piece of Me”, but here the “real” singer is claimed to be Robyn Carlsson. However, on good headphones, you can detect quite easily how much is really Robyn. It’s the part of the vocals that sounds especially heavily synthesized - the “You want a piece, piece of me….” section at 2.22. She also sings “You want a piece of me” at the end of each verse and alternately in the chorus. And that is all.
But why are we giving the “blending” theory any credibility when it’s pure bullcrap anyway? You can’t blend two different voices together without it sounding like a duet. It would always be audible. And it isn’t. The alternative is that one of the “blended” voices would have to completely dominate the other to the point that it is inaudible. In which case it isn’t really a “blended” vocal at all. As for the idea that deep voice A could be blended with high voice B so that you ended up with the tone of A and the register of B - it is, frankly, ludicrous. You can see why I say that conspiracy theorists are gullible.
“An older black woman....!”
A lot of excitement was generated among Britney-haters and conspiracy theorists in 2008 when musician, writer and broadcaster Henry Rollins said this: "They have the black chick come in and sing, and Britney sings over it, and they mix them together. Britney gets her phrasing basically from this older R&B woman. I found that out talking to an engineer. Britney apparently isn't actually the worst singer, she just has no feel. So they bring in this older black woman who sings the song, then Britney sings to it, and they kind of make a mix of the two voices, and that's what you hear on the records."
Part of this has a limited degree of credibility. It is a widely-used studio practice for a producer to provide guide vocals to show a featured artist the kind of thing he’s looking for, especially when the star hasn’t written the song him/herself. It’s harder to see how an “older r&b woman” would have more “feel” than Britney does for her dancey electro-pop, or more experience in performing it. It also seems less than credible that all 40 producers, in studios across the USA and in Sweden, would use the same older black r&b woman. It has been alleged that Henry Rollins has an agenda though - which is his belief in the superiority of black over white musicians, so go figure.
It may be credible that Britney’s producers would sometimes use guide vocals, but what isn’t credible is that they would “make a mix of the two voices”. I spoke about this ridiculous suggestion in the previous section above. Either you can hear the guide vocal or you can’t. And with Britney you can’t. Which is just as well, because producers go to great lengths to make sure you can’t. This is because it’s not unknown for the anonymous and uncredited singers of guide vocals to CLAIM that their voices are audible and therefore they should get a share of the royalties. This happened to Paula Abdul in a celebrated case, which Abdul successfully defended. The court agreed that only her voice was audible.
“Heavily Autotuned!”
If people want to claim that her voice is usually or always put through some kind of synthesizer then I would have to disagree. On most of her albums, her voice is rarely, if ever, electronically altered. Listening on good headphones shows this to be true. She does use a robotic, metallic kind of voice sometimes, and it sounds electronic or artificial, but that is an effect SHE creates. In a few places, the producer or mixer adds a kind of thin electronic fuzz on top of her vocal line.
“Femme Fatale” is different from her previous albums because it does feature more use of electronic processing of her voice, but these are effects customized to each track and not just a load of generic distortion such as you get by misuse of the notorious Autotune.
The “Autotune” conspiracy argument, however, makes a different claim - which is that Britney is such a bad singer, and requires so much Autotuning to bring her into key, that Autotune is forced into distortion. But, as I said, what you hear on “Femme Fatale” isn’t the Autotune distortion sound, and at least 90% of her vocals, even on “Femme Fatale”, aren’t distorted anyway! Again I say “Listen with good headphones!” I could call upon any number of producers ready to testify that she can sing perfectly well in the studio and needs no more Autotuning than anybody else, but the conspiracy theorists say they’re all lying, so I won’t bother.
“Copy and paste!”
When I argued last week that Britney’s professional qualities as a singer were exemplified by her consistency, in other words that she could sing a phrase identically several times, a number of those who made comments said that this was achieved by copying and pasting. OK, I agree that this may be true. At the vocal comps stage, the producer and artist may agree that a certain “take” of a certain phrase was the best, and it would then be used for as many repeats as possible. All of this is true.
But what I wanted to argue was that Britney isn’t the kind of artist who needs dozens of takes before there are enough good parts for the comps to be of any use. Quite a few producers down the years have commented that she’s really fast and professional in the studio, and doesn’t require many takes. She is said to have laid down the lead vocals for “Till The World Ends” in about 15 minutes, so that seems to confirm it. And here’s a small section of Jenny Eliscu’s 2001 “Observer” article about Britney. She’s with Britney in the studio during a comps session: “Britney's sultry vocals sound near perfect in every version played, and her voice is stronger and more confident than you might expect. 'It's so hard to do vocal comps with Britney,' BT says with a laugh. 'Every take is so good. It's easier to do this with a bad singer.' There we have an independent witness from the press to testify that BT wasn’t lying.
But anyway. The “Femme Fatale” album is full of repeated phrases that show her consistency. My argument is perhaps better made by referring to an instance where they couldn’t be copied and pasted. Try, for example, “Shame on me/To need release/Uncontrollably” in “I wanna go”. Or “Diamond, diamond, shinin’ shinin’, oh boy you’re so fine/Gotta be the finest thing that I seen in my life/I will pay whatever just to get a better view/And yeah, your body looks so sick I think I caught the flu” from “(Drop Dead) Beautiful”. Different phrases, but sung identically. Yes, they may be the best versions of each phrase, comped from 6 different takes, but at least it shows her excellent consistency across the different takes - which is all I wanted to demonstrate and is good enough for me!
No comments:
Post a Comment