My Favorite Classical Music Selections

People who only know me casually might think that it’s strange that I enjoy classical music. If you know me because I’m a DJ, focused on electronica and dance music, you’d probably think that listening to classical music would be the furthest thing from my mind. However, I actually like quite a few different types of music, with dance, rock, indie/alternative, and classical being among the top genres (and I don’t mind country). I studied classical piano for a long time, and an understanding of classical piano theory gives everyone a great building point for understanding other genres of music.

 

For those of you who have always wanted to learn more about classical music, but didn’t know where to begin, I’m going to give you a quick “top ten” list to think about. All the pieces that I'm going to list here are easily recognizable, and quite memorable. I don’t watch a lot of movies or TV, but I can think of several movies that have soundtracks which included various of these pieces, so I’ve tried to list those tie-ins where I could. Anyway, here is my late-night off-the-cuff “top ten classical music” list.

1. George Gershwin, “Rhapsody In Blue” – One of America’s most well-known and loved classical works. This piece was written by Gershwin in 1924, and many people remember it from its appearance in Disney’s “Fantasia 2000” movie. It's also in the opening sequences of Woody Allen's "Manhatten."  When Gershwin was asked about his inspiration for the piece, he said that he wrote it on a train trip from New York to Boston, to describe the musical kaleidoscope of America. To honor this piece, it was played at the opening of the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles by eighty-four pianists, playing simultaneously. The piece is instantly recognizable for its opening glissando on the clarinet. This is a very whimsical and upbeat piece.

2. Samuel Osborne Barber, “Adagio For Strings” – This is another unforgettable composition for me, because it was the backing music for the “Barnes Shoots Elias” scene in the movie Platoon. This piece was written in 1936, and was voted as the “saddest” classical musical composition of all time by a recent BBC survey. That’s not surprising, when you hear it, considering its mournful tempo and melodies. Versions of this composition have been remixed or sampled for tracks by such well-known DJ’s and producers as Sean Combs, Ferry Corsten, the Skip Raiders, Paul Oakenfold, and Tiesto. In fact, it was the strength of Tiesto’s remix of this piece, from his “Parade of Athletes” album, that led to him being asked to perform at the opening ceremonies of the 2004 Olympics in Athens.

3. Maurice Ravel, “Bolero” – This 1928 composition by Maurice Ravel actually embarrassed him because of its popularity. It was featured in the popular late 1970’s film “10” (Bo Derek & Dudley Moore), and is most recognizable for its ostinato rhythm on the snare drum throughout. The piece itself is very simple, and is one of the best examples in classical music of a piece that constantly builds throughout the performance. It is basically just two separate melodies, which continue to overlap each other, and more and more instruments get added as the piece progresses, until finally the entire orchestra is playing together at the end. Some people might also recognize this from its inclusion in the theatre production Copacabana.

4. Carl Orff, “Carmina Burana (O Fortuna)” – The Carmina Burana is a manuscript from the 12th or 13th century which is really just a collection of hundreds and hundreds of medieval songs and poems. Carmina Burana means “songs of Burana” in whatever language it was written in (Latin?). In the 1920’s or 1930’s, Carl Orff set 24 of these songs/poems to music, and the most famous of this group was “O Fortuna.” If you’ve seen “The Doors” (the movie), then you’ll easily recognize the “O Fortuna” selection from that soundtrack, when Jim and Patricia (the reporter) were in the library, entering the blood pact.

5. Mozart, “Eine Kleine Nachtmusik” – This work, meaning “a little night music,” was written in the late eighteenth century. There are four known movements to this (with the suggestion by Mozart himself that there was also originally a fifth movement), and the first movement is the one that everyone would recognize instantly. The best way that I’d describe this work would be that it is a pretty whimsical or frivolous piece of music. This composition has been featured in a couple movies that I can think of: Alien, and one of the Ace Ventura movies.

6. Johann Pachelbel, “Canon in D” – This 17th century work, often [mistakenly] assumed to be composed by J. S. Bach, is a simple three-part canon based on a repeating two-bar (eight note) bass line.  I used to love to play it when I was studying classical piano. However, a rock arrangement was made extremely popular by YouTube, in this video by an Asian guitarist.

7. Tchaikovsky, “Nutcracker Suite: Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy” – The Nutcracker Suite is a ballet. Within the musical score to the ballet, Tchaikovsky wrote a series of waltzes and other works. The “Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy” is probably the most famous of these. The song in the original Nutcracker which introduces the “Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy” is called “La Marche,” and that piece was used as the basis for a pop rock single that became a #1 hit in Britain in the 1960’s, although I can’t remember who wrote it. Anyway, that song, “Nut Rocker,” is one of the theme songs for Boston Bruins. Parts of the Nutcracker Suite (including “Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy” as an opener) were used in the original soundtrack to Disney’s “Fantasia” (1940 version).

8. Rachmaninoff, “Piano Concerto no. 2, opus 18” – Rachmaninoff, a Russian composer of the early 20th century, is famous for four concertos he wrote, and also for the “Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini.” I really like his 2nd Concerto, although his third Concerto is notable for being one of the most difficult works to play on piano. I think this selection is in "Shine."

9. Ludwig van Beethoven, “Mondscheinsonate” – Most people would probably know this better by its common English name, the “Moonlight Sonata.” Beethoven’s list of produced works is enormous, such as his nine symphonies, and he is well known for the compositions that he continued to write over the years as he slowly became completely tone deaf. In fact, it is said that when his Ninth Symphony premiered, he did not hear the audience clapping so he started to cry because he thought they didn’t like it, and he did not realize until someone turned him around to face the audience that everybody had loved it. Anyway, the Moonlight Sonata is probably in a ton of films, but I can’t think of any right now.

10. Johann Strauss Jr., “An Der Schonen Blau” – This is something that you might recognize if I told you that the common English name for the piece is the “Blue Danube Waltz.” And if you’ve seen “2001: A Space Odyssey,” you’ll recognize this song. It was also used in a Monty Python skit, where there was an orchestra playing this piece in a football field, and someone kept blowing up members of the orchestra.  It was also in "Hannibal."


Alright, that’s enough about classical music for this evening, but if you have ever had any urge to start learning a bit about classical music, find copies of these ten selections to get you started, and you won’t go wrong.

I'm Jonathan Clark, known online as DJ Bolivia.  Do you want to learn more about DJ'ing and music production?  If so, visit:

djbolivia.ca/training

If you happen to enjoy techno tracks, most of my tracks are available as free downloads from this link:

djbolivia.ca/tracks

Thanks so much for visit, and for your support!  I really appreciate the fan base that I've been able to build up over the years.

Also, if you want to visit any of my other sites, here are a few links:

    YouTube:  youtube.com/djbolivia

    SoundCloud:  soundcloud.com/djbolivia

    Blogger:  djbolivia.blogspot.com

    Main Site:  www.djbolivia.ca

Happy Birthday Song Loses Copyright Protection

Here's an interesting development in a specific copyright situation;  the "Happy Birthday" song.

This song was written more than a century ago, and is the most recognizable song in the English language.

The melody from the song is based on a song called "Good Morning To All" which was written in 1893.  The first time that the lyrics appeared in print with that melody was in 1912, although there were no copyright notices attached to the melody and lyrics at the time.

In 1935, a US company called Summy was able to register the copyright on the song.  For the next 63 years, they collected royalties on public performances of the song, earning the company tens of millions of dollars.

In 1998, Warner Music purchased the copyright to the song, and started collecting royalties from that point forward.  As an example of the money that they collected, the rate to include the song in a film or documentary could be around $700 USD, although this could vary significantly.

Also in 1998, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was passed.  That had some major influence on copyright law, as anyone who has studied music copyright knows.  The Copyright Term Extension Act was somewhat contentious.  In short, it extended some copyright terms by a couple decades, although that's a gross over-simplification.

An American law professor (Robert Brauneis) did some research into Happy Birthday in the 2000's, and in 2010, he concluded that the song was probably not a legitimate copyright, even though Warner continued to enforce royalties.

In 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed against Warner to try to recover all royalties paid to Warner since 2009.  This past fall, the judge hearing the case ruled that Warner's copyright to the song was invalid for the lyrics and melody, and could only be upheld for a specific piano arrangement of the song.  Alternative arrangements would not be considered to fall within Warner's copyright claim.  However, the judge stopped short of declaring Happy Birthday to fall within the public domain.

Here's where things get interesting.  Warner announced at the start of this week that they would not contest the judge's ruling.  They also agreed proactively to a settlement of about fourteen million dollars to reimburse royalties dating back to 2009, and they also stipulated that the song should be placed in the public domain.  But why would they do this??

The answer is simple:  in return for this, they're avoiding going to trial, which would have run the risk that they could be published for having collected royalties for so many decades, in case the courts decided that the original copyright claim in 1935 was invalid.  If that had happened, Warner could have been responsible for paying much more than just fourteen million dollars.

The judge in the case will be signing off on the settlement in March, which should be mainly just a formality.  Once that happens, it will mark the close of an interesting prominent case in American music copyright law.

Here's a link to an article in the Hollywood Reporter with more information:

Warner To Pay $14 Million

I'm Jonathan Clark, known online as DJ Bolivia.  Do you want to learn more about DJ'ing and music production?  If so, visit:

djbolivia.ca/training

If you happen to enjoy techno tracks, most of my tracks are available as free downloads from this link:

djbolivia.ca/tracks

Thanks so much for visit, and for your support!  I really appreciate the fan base that I've been able to build up over the years.

Also, if you want to visit any of my other sites, here are a few links:

    YouTube:  youtube.com/djbolivia

    SoundCloud:  soundcloud.com/djbolivia

    Blogger:  djbolivia.blogspot.com

    Main Site:  www.djbolivia.ca

"Time Keeps Marching On" (Jonathan Clark)

I just finished working on a song this evening (not electronic/dance music), and I have copyrighted it and registered it with SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada). I'm posting it here as a public record of the date and time of copyright. At the present time, I am posting only the lyrics, although I may add a professional recording at some point in the future. If any singers/artists want to cover this song, please feel free to go ahead as long as proper attribution is given so that my composer/author royalties will accrue properly.

 

Jonathan Clark – “Time Keeps Marching On”

Chords:  Repeating Am, F, C, G in verses and chorus, with G, Am, F, G in bridge.

Mood:  Melancholy.  Suggested tempo approximately 63 bpm.

Setting/Plot:  Singer (gender unknown) is thinking about someone who is presumably his partner/lover.  It becomes apparent that that person has departed, and that the singer is depressed about the situation, hoping that it will change.  The passage of time is indicated throughout the song by changing time references in the choruses, and it become apparent by the end of the song that the partner/lover is not going to return.  There is no indication throughout the song why the partner/lover has departed. Perhaps it was a quarrel, or perhaps the person fell in love with someone else.  The listener will probably be waiting throughout the song for clues to explain why the partner/lover has left, but the question will never be answered.

Plot Twist:  Perhaps a music video could provide hints or visual cues throughout the song that perhaps the lovers were in a quarrel, but at the end, suddenly reveal that the lover got into a vehicle accident while texting and driving.  A video could reveal any number of surprise endings.

Verse1:

Thoughts

Memories

What we did

You and me

Days

Without a care

All because

You were there

Chorus1:

Staying here in bed all day, I

Can’t believe you went away

Someday soon maybe you’ll come back

Time keeps marching on

Verse2:

Words

Things you said

Forever caught

In my head

Laughs

I had with you

Your easy smile

It haunts me too

Chorus2:

Saying prayers in bed all day, it’s

Been a while since you went away

Someday soon maybe you’ll come back

Yet time keeps marching on

Solo Section Here – probably just some Am chords

Bridge:

I’m not too sure, what I can do

I can’t stop thinking thoughts of you

How do I go back in time, and

Change ….          

Verse3:

Time

Keeps Marching On

It slowly ticks

From dusk ‘til dawn

Nights

Awake, alone

A lonely house

An empty home

Chorus3:

Praying here in bed all day, it’s

Been so long since you went away

I understand that you won’t be back

It’s time to get my life on track

You won’t return, I must accept

Although it hasn’t hit me yet

I never will repay your debt

And time keeps marching on

Time keeps marching on

Time keeps marching on

Works and music copyright 2014, Jonathan Clark

Registered with SOCAN (The Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada), on December 14th, 2014, as Work # A1408096.  My IPI number is 547338531.

Contact the author/composer:  jonathan.scooter.clark@gmail.com

I'm Jonathan Clark, known online as DJ Bolivia.  Do you want to learn more about DJ'ing and music production?  If so, visit:

djbolivia.ca/training

If you happen to enjoy techno tracks, most of my tracks are available as free downloads from this link:

djbolivia.ca/tracks

Thanks so much for visit, and for your support!  I really appreciate the fan base that I've been able to build up over the years.

Also, if you want to visit any of my other sites, here are a few links:

    YouTube:  youtube.com/djbolivia

    SoundCloud:  soundcloud.com/djbolivia

    Blogger:  djbolivia.blogspot.com

    Main Site:  www.djbolivia.ca

Sibilance - How Singers and Audio Engineers deal with Sibilant Consonants

Let's talk about sibilance for a few minutes, since I briefly touched on it in my first Audio Recording Basics video on YouTube a few weeks ago.

Sibilance is another phenomena that generally makes a vocal performance less enjoyable. And by the way, sibilant consonants may sometimes also be referred to as stridents, obstacle fricatives, or obstacle affricates. But I don't think most singers or audio engineers need to memorize all of the different terms, as long as you know what sibilance means.

Basically, sibilance is the presence of certain "hissing" sounds in a singer's vocals. Generally, there are five letter combinations that can start a sound which leads to sibilance: S, Z, SH, CH, and J. Try vocalizing each of those sounds. You can probably hear/feel the hissing quite easily, right? Ok, try each one again for a second time, but slowly, and this time, think about something: the tongue is an incredibly versatile muscle. And a very fast one. When you vocal the S or the Z sound, think about the position that your tongue is in. The front of it is right up against the roof of your mouth, just behind your upper front teeth. It is mostly pressed up against the roof of your mouth with only a very small thin channel for air to flow through, which is why you hear the hissing sound, because the air comes out of that channel quite quickly. For the other three sounds, the SH and CH and J, the tongue is still up against the roof of the mouth, but a wider channel remains clear, which is why the air has more room to flow and the hissing is not quite as pronounced. Incidentally, I find it amazing how quickly a person's tongue moves during regular speech. I think a lot of people fail to appreciate how much work it does in the course of a conversation.




In terms of audio frequency, most sibilance occurs in the range from about 5k to 10k Hz. This is definitely the upper part of the range as far as vocals go. It's also interesting to note that as some people get old, they may suffer partially from a condition called presbycusis. This is basically a type of hearing loss, but it starts in upper frequencies. Basically, if presbycusis becomes advanced enough, the degraded ability to hear upper frequencies may creep down into the part of the spectrum that sibilance occupies, so the sibilance may seem to be less of a problem than it would have when the listener was younger.

Perhaps I shouldn't have titled this post to suggest that singers need to deal with this problem. The audio engineers play a much larger role in properly controlling sibilance in vocals, although it is good for singers to understand the phenomena. The first two things that I need to say about sibilance are that: (1) pop filters, which help deal with plosives, do not help reduce sibilance; and (2) microphone type and placement can make a huge difference.

I won't get into details about microphones here. The subject of microphone types and characteristics is incredibly complex. I want to put together a detailed tutorial video just about microphones, but to be honest, I don't even feel fully qualified to talk about them effectively, so I'll probably bring in an outside pro to help with that topic. But I can tell you a couple of brief points.




First, there are a several different types of microphones: dynamic, condenser, ribbon, crystal, and carbon. But the first two types are most common. Dynamic microphones are cost-effective, general-purpose microphones that are sturdy and robust. They can be used to record vocals, but would also be the type most often used to record various instruments, such as guitars (miking a guitar amp), etc. Condenser microphones are generally a bit higher quality, and are often better at capturing higher frequencies, but the drawbacks are that they are also a bit more fragile and they also need a small external power source (called phantom power) that usually runs to the microphone through the XLR signal cable attaching it to a mixing console. Often, the two types are mixed in recording sessions. For example, most instruments might be recorded with dynamic microphones, the vocalist with condensers, and the drum kit with a mix of several dynamic microphones capturing most of the kit with a couple of condenser mikes suspended overhead to capture a bit of extra high-end sizzle.

Anyway, the point of this background on microphones is not to tell you which one works best to reduce sibilance. The problem is that there is no specific answer to that. Different microphones (types OR models) can work more or less effectively, depending on the vocalist and to a less degree depending on the room. What works well with one vocalist might not be the best answer for the next vocalist.

Another interesting characteristic of microphones is that some of them are "directional." In other words, instead of picking up sounds equally well from all directions, there are certain directions from which sounds are recorded more or less easily. For example, in terms of recording fields, microphones can be classified as omni-directional, bi-directional, cardioid, super-cardioid, and hyper-cardioid. In other words, the microphone can record sounds differently depending on its orientation when it is set up. If you want to learn more about this topic, click here for a good post from DPA Microphones (warning, it's slightly technical).

The distance from the vocalist to the microphone should be greater than one might initially expect when trying to control sibilance. Depending on other factors, it might be common for the vocalist to place their mouth at least twelve inches away from the mike, and perhaps even eighteen inches away. It might also help for the vocalist to be above or below the usual horizontal plane. Of course, the easiest way to accomplish this is to adjust the angle of the microphone, not the singer.

So to sum up, if you're in a recording session and you're hearing the hissing of sibilance, your best options are as follows:
1. Try different microphones.
2. Make sure the vocalist's mouth is an appropriate distance from the microphone.
3. Angle the microphone slightly, according to what seems to work.

Other than that, there isn't a lot that can be done in terms of adjustments to the recording setup. I have occasionally heard people suggest that the vocalist can try chewing some gum and then sticking that gum up against the roof of their mouth. In some cases, this might help slightly, but this probably isn't a preferred approach because it would be annoying for the vocalist. Also, it would need to be a relatively small amount of gum, or else the singer is going to start to sound like they have something in their mouth, and his or her voice will start to sound different.

There is one other tool in the engineer's kit to reduce sibilance, which would occur during the post-recording period, when audio is being edited. There is a dynamic audio processing effect called "de-essing" which can use EQ'ing and compression to essentially reduce the volumes of certain frequencies within the bands in which sibilance is prevalent. Of course, it's always better to try to reduce problems at the recording stage, rather than hoping that a computer can resolve issues. If you want to learn a bit more about de-essing, click here to check out an article from Sound On Sound magazine.

Alright, hopefully this gives you some food for thought during your next recording session. Best of luck in your next project! And of course, if you'd like to check out some audio recording tutorial videos that I've put together on YouTube, click here to see a nicely organized index of the various tutorials that I've put together.

If you'd like to see my of my Understanding Sound tutorials, visit:

djbolivia.ca/sound

-----

I'm Jonathan Clark, known online as DJ Bolivia.  Do you want to learn more about DJ'ing and music production?  If so, visit:

djbolivia.ca/training

If you happen to enjoy techno tracks, most of my tracks are available as free downloads from this link:

djbolivia.ca/tracks

Thanks so much for visit, and for your support!  I really appreciate the fan base that I've been able to build up over the years.

Also, if you want to visit any of my other sites, here are a few links:

    YouTube:  youtube.com/djbolivia

    SoundCloud:  soundcloud.com/djbolivia

    Blogger:  djbolivia.blogspot.com

    Main Site:  www.djbolivia.ca

Plosives - A Background for Singers & Audio Engineers

Plosives are something that singers and audio engineers need to be concerned with. Well, especially audio engineers, although singers should understand the subject.

Basically, a plosive is like an explosion of air hitting a microphone during a recording process. Sing something like, "I'm on a Boat," with your hand about an inch in front of your mouth. Do you feel a sudden burst of air at some point? Try singing, "I'm on a plane." And then trying singing, "I'm in a car." Obviously, different sounds cause different amounts of that burst of air.

The worst sounds, ie. the ones that create the most significant plosives, are words that start with B's and P's. These are created by the lips. Nearly as bad are K and G sounds created by the body of the tongue. Also problematic are T's and D's, which are created by the tip (blade) of the tongue. And incidentally, some of those letters can be pronounced in different ways. For example, in English, the words "truck" and "the" both start with a T, but the T in "truck" causes more of a problem. I'm not entirely sure what the correct terminology for these different pronunciations is, but I personally call the sounds a "hard T" (in "truck") and a "soft T" (in "the"). I'm pretty sure those aren't the audiologically correct terms, but hopefully most people will understand what I mean.

All of the sounds that I mentioned above are caused by what are called the "stop consonants". That's because in order to make them, the flow of air through the mouth is temporarily stopped completely. In phonetic terms, this is also known as an "oral occlusive," a consonant in which the vocal tract is blocked so that all airflow ceases.

Are there other types of consonants besides stop consonants? Of course. "Fricatives" are partial occlusives which impede airflow in the vocal tract, but don't stop it entirely. And "nasals" are when the vocal tract is blocked, but air flows out the nose instead. Examples of nasals would be "m" or "n" sounds. Want to test those? Try placing your finger just under your nose and then say a phrase like "the bird flew over the lake." All of the sounds in that sentence can be produced in the mouth and vocal chords, and you don't need your nose. But if you try saying words like "motorway" or "nunnery" you're likely to feel some air coming out of your nose. It's faint, but it's there. Anyway, fricatives and nasals are not relevant to our intended topic for the day, so let's get back to plosives.

So why are plosives important? Well, as a singer gets closer to a microphone, the burst of air that comes out of the mouth will hit the microphone. Today's microphones are pretty sensitive. That burst of air hitting the microphone sounds different than the sound that should be hitting the microphone, namely the vibrating molecules that make a noise sound like it should. So instead of recording the proper sound, the microphone is partially recording the noise of air hitting the microphone, or essentially, a little wind-storm.

A secondary problem related to plosives is the fact that the closer a singer gets to a microphone, the better their voice sounds, in general. But as the singer gets closer, the plosives become more noticeable. A typical catch-22 situation.


So what is the solution? Well, I recommend that you try using a pop filter. Actually, every audio engineer will recommend that a pop filter the best solution for almost every vocal recording situation. But what is a pop filter? Well, it's a thin fabric similar to pantyhose, stretched over a frame. The pop filter is placed between the singer's mouth and the microphone, and it blocks the bursts of air from hitting the microphone, but the fabric is still thin enough that almost all of the sound of the vocalist come through (and you can boost the recording levels by a tiny amount to compensate, if necessary).

Here's a short thirty-second YouTube video to show you a pop filter:




Here are a couple of graphics that show what kind of difference you might see between a recording of a word without a pop filter (the first graphic), versus one with a pop filter (the bottom graphic). You can probably tell just from the visuals that the initial impact of the sound in the first recording is more harsh:






Now that you understand what plosives are, and how to reduce their impact with the use of a pop filter, it's time for further research. Tom Johnson writes a blog at I'd Rather Be Writing. He's got a post on it about plosives which is excellent because it has some accompanying sound files that help demonstrate what they can sound like. I'd recommend you check out his post, at this link:

Tom's Blog Post about Plosives

If you'd like to see my of my Understanding Sound tutorials, visit:

djbolivia.ca/sound

-----

I'm Jonathan Clark, known online as DJ Bolivia.  Do you want to learn more about DJ'ing and music production?  If so, visit:

djbolivia.ca/training

If you happen to enjoy techno tracks, most of my tracks are available as free downloads from this link:

djbolivia.ca/tracks

Thanks so much for visit, and for your support!  I really appreciate the fan base that I've been able to build up over the years.

Also, if you want to visit any of my other sites, here are a few links:

    YouTube:  youtube.com/djbolivia

    SoundCloud:  soundcloud.com/djbolivia

    Blogger:  djbolivia.blogspot.com

    Main Site:  www.djbolivia.ca

Separating Vocals from Songs

I've gotten quite a few inquiries from people recently on how to separate or remove vocals from a song, so they can then remix those vocals into a different track. It's very difficult to do, but it IS possible in some cases, so I'll outline a way to make it happen here.

 

 
First, in order to do this, you need to find a radio edit of the song that you like, with vocals. Then, you also need to find the exact same version of the song but as an instrumental, ie. without the vocals. If you can't find both of these two versions, then this trick won't be possible.

Next, you need to import the two audio files into your sequencer. Line them up perfectly in parallel, down to the millisecond (actually, to the exact sample). You need to be able to play them simultaneously so that they sound exactly like just one song (except for the vocals standing out, of course).

Now, convert each track to mono, so the two stereo channels are combined in each track. They need to be panned to the center.

Once you've done the above steps, and you know that they are completely synchronized, then take the instrumental track and invert the phase of the entire track.

Now, play the two tracks together, or bounce them to disk. The phase inverted version in the instrumental will cancel out the waveforms of the music in the vocal version, leaving only the vocals behind.

Now if you cannot find the full song as both a vocal take and an instrumental with the same arrangement, then you're almost out of luck. The only rare exception is that if you have just the vocal version, sometimes (in theory) you can pull tiny snippets of the vocals out from the track by cutting it up and following the steps above (for instance if there is a chorus with vocals and another "chorus" chord arrangement in the song without singing). This wouldn't work with rock songs, because they are recorded live and they won't be exactly the same, even if the musicians tried to play them exactly the same. But in today's studio-heavy world, some pop songs which are computer produced are probably generic enough to make it work. I've never actually tried this, but in theory, you might find some songs that you could do it with.


Let's step back for a while and ask why you're separating the vocals from a song. I presume that you're trying to remix a track that you like. Are you doing it because you like that track specifically, and no other? If you're doing this as a project for an artist, they should be able to provide the vocals for you. If you're doing it for yourself, then you face a bigger challenge.

An audio file that contains only vocals and no instruments at all is called an acappella. This term is actually a contraction of two Latin words, "a cappella," which literally means "from the chapel," or figuratively, "from the choir." You can do internet searches for acappella tracks in all kinds of places: Google, torrent sites, and legitimate music sites. The trick is to remember that many people spell the word incorrectly. To search effectively, you should search for "accappella" and "acappella" and "acapella" (this last one is the most common spelling and yields the best results in searches, although some people argue that the one with two P's is more correct). If I had a preference, I'd like to see things spelled correctly. So if you're a producer who is releasing acappellas, let's see if we can change the world together, and start spelling it with two P's.

Personally, rather than bang my head against a wall trying to find vocals for a specific track that I want to remix, I do it this way: I'll spend half an hour on the net, trying to locate an acappella for that particular song. If I can't find one in that amount of time, I'm probably not ever going to find one. Sometimes, it is better to just admit defeat and look instead for acappellas in general, and then pick one that you like which is already available.

There are a lot of acappellas out there. If you search download or torrent sites, you can find lots of legal ones that you can download very quickly. Some have to be purchased, but many are free, depending on which sources you use. Go to www.beatport.com as an example. Enter "acappella" into the search engine, and you'll find several hundred tracks to choose from. Enter "acapella" and you'll find thousands.

In rare cases, if you are looking for a specific song, you can actually contact the artist and ask if you can have a copy of the vocals. Some artists will give these out, although it's pretty rare on major labels unless you happen to be a very well-known remixer with a lot of previous credits on your resume. Many smart studios/artists will recognize the fact that the more often that their songs are remixed, the more publicity (and therefore royalties) that go to the copyright holders for the songs. The remixer doesn't get any royalties (except in certain uncommon exceptions for top remixers). Usually, all the money is made by the original artist (or I should say, more accurately, by the studio). Of course, you do also have to recognize that a bad remix of a track doesn't help much, because it won't get played and therefore won't drive radio-play or other royalties. Some artists/studios will provide vocals under strict conditions that the artist/studio gets to review the remix first before it is allowed to be released, and they have the right to prevent the remixer from releasing the remix if they don't like his/her version of the song.


So anyway, the moral of the story is that if you have your heart set on remixing one specific song, sometimes there are options. But usually, I find it is best to listen to some of the thousands of vocal recordings that are already out there, and choose one of those readily-available tracks to remix.

Good luck with your remixing projects!



---

I'm Jonathan Clark, known online as DJ Bolivia.  Do you want to learn more about DJ'ing and music production?  If so, visit:

djbolivia.ca/training

If you happen to enjoy techno tracks, most of my tracks are available as free downloads from this link:

djbolivia.ca/tracks

Thanks so much for visit, and for your support!  I really appreciate the fan base that I've been able to build up over the years.

Also, if you want to visit any of my other sites, here are a few links:

    YouTube:  youtube.com/djbolivia

    SoundCloud:  soundcloud.com/djbolivia

    Blogger:  djbolivia.blogspot.com

    Main Site:  www.djbolivia.ca