I probably should have explained my reasoning in my first post.
I think my MAIN point is that, just because that effect IS available, it doesn't mean it should automatically be considered on every little thing. And, it depends on the feel of the song. I wrote a tune once that I just couldn't sing normally. It didn't sound right. The music was kind of "angsty", and it was about politicians, corporations, etc. It demanded a different-sounding vocal.
Being bored at the time, a couple beers into it...I ended up giving it a "punkish" sound by copping a faux-British accent (kinda like Green Day...before Green Day), and literally bouncing my upper body up-and-down while singing to give it a kind of tremolo/vibrato thing, where the words were kind of bouncing around the center pitch, and the phrases were delivered kind of 'haltingly". That's the only thing that worked with the tune. It just fit the mood. I purposely abused an effect (though it was an "unnatural" natural one). Nobody who knew me could tell it was me, but that wasn't the point. It would not have fit in on any collection of anything else I've goofed with, like some of my industrial-metal stuff, which wouldn't fit in with the ballad-y stuff, which would make no sense along with the blues stuff. (I just like to experiment and try anything in any style. Just to see if I can.)
Yeah, those effects have their uses, but I was just suggesting that they shouldn't be relied upon for absolutely EVERYthing, and automatically applied...just because it's there. It depends on the music. I suspect many a good song has been beaten into a generic, bland overproduced state...just because they could.
That's all I was trying to get at. The song is the thing. It'll tell you if something needs "fixed", or not. Sometimes, there are "happy accidents". Sometimes not fixing little quirks actually makes the song. Sometimes, purposely adding quirks makes it.
"Wow. THAT'S different. I kinda like it!"
Last edited by Kapt.Krunch; 01-06-2012 at 03:45 AM.