JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Gary LeVox of Rascal Flats

Man can that guy sing! What an amazing voice. Amazing tone, perfect pitch.

And I've heard from a lot of people that without pitch correctors the guy is awful, ha

No pitch corrector is THAT good.

Not true. That is actually the job of a tuner. To make the vocal "perfect". So it is indeed that good, and if it didn't make it perfect, then it wouldn't be much of a tuner. Check out Gary singing on the Leno show...or this monstrosity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCcRI0PRqzM
That is just embarrassing. You can tell he was embarrassed.
He is not the best singer on the planet. They actually use rack-mount auto-tuners on stage for their shows. However, on tv they don't have their house engineers and all their gear that they normally use. Which explains why they don't sound that great on tv. Having that said. I love Rascal Flatts. I have all of their albums, and I think the production and song selection is perfect. I could give a crap less that what I am hearing on their records is made a little more in tune. It just makes the record sound better. No complaints here. Saying gary is good, or even great writer?? Maybe! But a great singer? I'm sorry, I can't agree with that. But only because of tuning issues. I actually love the actual sound of his voice, and on a record it is fantastic.

Maybe there would be hope for my voice if I had all those gizmos to make it sound better. LOL

Yeah you could totally sound better. When playing songs for people they act like the person singing doesn't matter...but it does sort of matter. And it matters to me. If I could have somebody sing every song I write I would. I don't have that luxury though. So I use tools like auto-tune to make my voice more presentable. I actually have a decent voice, but it's not as god as a lot of the stars. This helps me compete to some extent.

Sorry, they're The Backstreet Boys of country music.{All fluff, no stuff!}

Sort of. They play instruments though. What does make them similar to the Backstreet Boys is they make phenomenal sounding records with incredible songs. To me the talent is irrelevant if the music is good. Because if the music is good then there must be alot of talent around, so even if I pointed out the weak link, (Gary's singing) Rascal Flatts is still great.

I'm not sure who's busier the auto tune operator at the Tim McGraw concert or the studio melodyne operator on a Rascal Flatts record... that said, if it's available technology you should use it if you're trying to be commercial, your competition is using it...i can't sing nearly as high as he can and i must admit i like alot of the writers they give cuts to, wish i was one of them...yeah, and like being a backstreet boy( or a writer for them) would have been a bad thing, yeah crap i hate yachts and big friggin' houses that are paid for...ha...mj

For stage you actually just set the auto-tune for chromatic. Maybe true these days about Tim Mcgraw, but he did make half of those great records on tape with no software or tuning, so basically anything before 1999. I would love to be in Rascal Flatts position. They are making good music, making alot of money, and probably having a blast.

I really couldn't care less about ANY of them truthfully. More power to em'...{But if I EVER resort to using pitch correctors, sequencers,loop machines, ect, someone feel free to stick a .38 up my ass and pull the trigger!

Sorry, but to me, talent is STILL relevant!!!! {Death to "pop-tarts"!}

Yeah I kinda said it wrong. I guess I meant his talent was irrelevant because of all the other talent in and around the group.

I bet if all the women in the world disappeared then Rascal Flatts would cease to exist.

Lots of great records are made with sequencers, pitch correctors, and loop machines. Probably alot of your favorites too.

I'm with you MJ. They can cut one of my songs any time they want. I don't think Jeffery Steele gives a hoot if they use Autotune or not.

It just goes to show that anybody, regardless of talent, can make a great sounding record with the gizmos and production techniques widely used nowadays. I'm with the old school real talent should show through. These gizmos should be used to enhance a great performance not disguise a poor one.

How many pop tarts and boybands can play live for a couple of hours without Melodyne/Autotune, backing tracks, lip sync or other gizmos? Not many if any at all.

You guys are forgetting one thing. It is all about entertainment and giving the audience a good show.
The girls love this guy. They don't give a hoot if he can sing or not.
He has great songs, and songwriters, and puts on a good show.

What this guy has in his voice, no pitch machine can duplicate.. I haven't heard anything like that since somebody like Roy Orbison. It is his, you pick it- range, tone, expression. He has it all.

"Monstrosity" is a little on the tough side. His voice cracked a few times -- maybe he had a cold -- I would still like to sing that well! Also some singers blend together nicely and sometimes they don't.

Kevin

Considering how famous and succesful they are and the occasion..... it was woeful.
Monstrosity is a pretty apt description.

The worst thing I ever heard musically was so bad I was actually turning red with embarrassment for him even though it was something I saw on television. Garth Brooks a few years ago sang for the Grammy's. I don't think it was his fault but apparently he had no monitoring in his ear and he sang the entire song so far out of key that I think it was actually in another key- and even then, he was clearly fishing for the notes. There was no way to describe it unless you compare it to listening to some one who sings really loud and out of tune to a song on their IPod when they have no idea someone is listening.

I think that is the key to what makes those records good. The fact that they are using gizmos to enhance great performance. It might take a while to get that performance, but once it's on tape it's magic.

I bet this compares
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCcRI0PRqzM

Or not!

Most of "Dark Side Of The Moon" was made with loop machines and sequencers.

Recording is ONE thing, {although I won't use them} But playing "live" is another. Part of the allure of playing live is the element of performing "without a net". What fun is it to remove the element of danger?

I do not think you quite grasped my point.

Regardless of what we think the public loves these guys. We should be so fortunate.
Just for the record...I cannot stand his voice. It's like fingernails on a blackboard to me. But that's just me.
Although they do great songs. I wish they'd do one of mine then I could say I have a great song..Ha!.

I still don't see why using autotune is consdered such a big deal. What's wrong with using the best tools available to you.
I am a pretty good finish carpenter. I have seen finish work done by carpenters 100 years ago. I would not want to have to work with the tools they had available to them. I have the latest tools available to me and I use them. Does that mean I am any less a carpenter?

When you guys are on stage do you use compression? Graphic Equalizers, distortion, Great mics or a $19.95 radio shack gem? Amplifiers? anything that mellows out your voice or maybe you Pop yer P's, do you use a Pop filter?
Now if this guy truly cannot sing I really doubt he would be where he is at.

Well, I tried to listen, but I could not stand the song so I did not hear enough to pick up the bad parts. I think he is talented, but I hate the music and think the band represents the general homogenization of various genres into a soup of elevator pop music.

Bill, in some ways I agree with your point about tools, but only to a point. New tools do make some tasks easier, and most importantly, faster. However, I totally disagree with the use of pitch correction for a singer. I feel singing is an art form and as such should not be treated as a product. What kind of art would it be if you simply programmed a computer to do all your painting for you? Do you buy a clay plant pot and display it as art? Why not? Maybe because it was mass produced using the tools of pot making, instead of an artist's hand?

AMEN!!!

You hate Big and Rich; you hate Rascal Flats! Questions - What/who do you LIKE?

Well I don't think I approve of using Autotune to enhance a bad vocal. A true artist should work to achieve the best vocal they can obtain. Anything else is just being Lazy.
But....If the industry standard calls for perfection, which very few are able to obtain, then using the tool to assist in that perfection should be acceptable.
Unfortunately that is what the standard is now a days. Like it or not.
Would I prefer raw talent and a great vocal with an occasional "crack" in the voice? yes.

rblight is championing Big and rich and Gary Levox of Rascall Flatts.
I didn't like either of them from day one.
I do not like the Nasal tone of Levox's voice, it's like fingernails on a blackboard to my ears, and I don't like Big and Rich's songs.
Having said that I really liked "Winner at a Losing Game" by Levox and I liked "8th of November" by Big and Rich. Actually I like Big and Rich's Harmonies.

But truth is if I ever had the opportunity to meet either I would pay them the respect they deserve for making it to where they are. It takes a lot of hard work, and dedication, Talent, and I suppose a little luck, But they made it. And Rich is a pretty good songwriter as well.
If either would even consider cutting one of my songs I would be eternally grateful.

So I can't really say I totally don't like either of them.
I don't like Taylor Swift either but She is gonna be a SUPER STAR and nobody can dispute her marketability. She is the total package in Marketing. Sings, writes, is young and very beautiful. All the Teenage boys love her and the girls want to be her. What more can a label ask. The perfect package.
I am sure if I was 16 years old I would have her picture hanging in my locker at school

LOTS of people, just not THEM!{LOL}

They spend a lot of time recording his vocals for a record. Any producer strives for perfection which is why they use autotune...but I guarantee that the vocals are 99.9% perfect before they tune them. They can't enhance truly bad vocals. You would hear the tuner tuning. That would be bad for the band's reputation. When the tuner tunes, you hear it...so it's best if it's not noticeable. The only way to make it not noticeable?? Sing it as good and as close to in tune as possible. Anybody who can listen to a rascal flatts record and think that there is any laziness going on has got to be out of their mind. They are spending the same amount of time on vocals now as they always have. The finished product is just more perfect with the advent of auto-tune.

I watched Hannah Montana last night to see for myself if this girl has talent. She does. She is a better actor than singer but her songs are catchy. In the Disney series Miley transforms into her alter ego Hannah and becomes a super star. Her concert song in last night's episode had her singing a song that was very heavily processed with auto tune but I believe they did it for effect. It kind of adds a "bell" effect that can be very interesting. The first time I was aware of the use of auto tune as an effect was when I heard the song "Stars on the Water" when it was re-released (not the Rodney Crowell version) On the word "stars", the effect distorts very effectively the "ar" sound and the song was better for it. I have nothing against using effects in music. Without them we would have missed the whole Les Paul generated sounds that created modern rock and roll.

One of the reasons why I sometimes really don't like these forums.
Where in that statement did I mention Rascall Flatts or Gary Levox? Did you even read the rest of the post?

It was a statement about Bad Vocals and Autotune.