DRUMMERWORLD OFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM

DRUMMERWORLD OFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM (http://www.drummerworld.com/forums/index.php)
-   Off Topic Lounge (http://www.drummerworld.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Something to Ponder (http://www.drummerworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50590)

GRUNTERSDAD 06-02-2009 07:50 PM

Something to Ponder
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30969073/

joshisaces 06-02-2009 08:04 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
It's a shame, but it's good that I'm not into mainstream crap they call music.

wolfmoon 06-02-2009 08:10 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Yeeeep! This secret has been out for a while now. When you see certain bands live, it's easy to see who uses this program on their recordings which in today's music.... it's just about everyone!!

I was reading an interview with Elton Johns drummer and he says these days when you record, you only actually play "half" of the song. The computer programs do the rest. Needless to say he doesn't like it. This is also the reason why sometimes a bands music sounds like *&%$ in a live show. The stuff is too layered and perfect in the recording and it's nearly impossible to recreate live.

wolfmoon 06-02-2009 08:15 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by joshisaces (Post 581959)
It's a shame, but it's good that I'm not into mainstream crap they call music.

everyone is doing it these days... sadly. Just like every bands music is mastered the same way which is loud... too loud. Today's music hardly has any dynamics to it. This includes everything I listen to. I have a cd recorder with a level display on it. every cd I play, the levels are straght up just under 100 %. People in the record industry actually thinks this sounds good. The bands themselves have little or nothing to say about this.

theindian 06-02-2009 08:21 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Yes it seems like only pop artists with no substance are the ones that are using it anyway.
However I think that Killswitch Engage used the Autotune on their live DVD.

caddywumpus 06-02-2009 08:25 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
I don't use auto-tune in my studio when I record myself or any projects that come through. I'm not opposed to it, though, when used in moderation. If a vocalist gives the most emotion-filled performance of their career in the studio, and their top note in that take is a few cents flat, I don't see any reason why a little pitch correction would hurt anyone. I'd rather release the recording with that corrected take with the energy and passion in it than one of the next few takes that sound flat and lifeless compared to it.

With that said, I think that WAY too many artists are using it as a crutch rather than an aid...

Big_Philly 06-02-2009 08:35 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
If you have little time, find musicians with some actual talent. An album can be recorded in a week if you have the right people. I know I could lay down good drum tracks for a pop album in 3 days... and I am an amateur.

joshisaces 06-02-2009 09:19 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfmoon (Post 581965)
everyone is doing it these days... sadly. Just like every bands music is mastered the same way which is loud... too loud. Today's music hardly has any dynamics to it. This includes everything I listen to. I have a cd recorder with a level display on it. every cd I play, the levels are straght up just under 100 %. People in the record industry actually thinks this sounds good. The bands themselves have little or nothing to say about this.

It's a BOLD thing to say that everyone is doing it, because that's not true... Autotuning is used solely with pop and rap/hip hop music; Top 40 radio hits, although some other artists are using it.

Mediocrefunkybeat 06-02-2009 10:03 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by joshisaces (Post 581983)
It's a BOLD thing to say that everyone is doing it, because that's not true... Autotuning is used solely with pop and rap/hip hop music; Top 40 radio hits, although some other artists are using it.

The use of Autotune is much, much deeper than you think. Although I don't think it's necessarily a bad tool either. It's just used for the wrong purpose - it is a perfectly applicable tool; a graded pitch shifter and pitch shifting is a very old technique; it goes right back to the earliest tape manipulation, only now all that has changed is the ability to pitch shift and keep the original speed. The Beatles used pitch shifting on numerous tracks, and they even used the technique to put various parts in tune with other parts. There's nothing 'wrong' with Autotune itself, I hope people realise this.

jonescrusher 06-02-2009 10:49 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mediocrefunkybeat (Post 581995)
The use of Autotune is much, much deeper than you think. Although I don't think it's necessarily a bad tool either. It's just used for the wrong purpose - it is a perfectly applicable tool; a graded pitch shifter and pitch shifting is a very old technique; it goes right back to the earliest tape manipulation, only now all that has changed is the ability to pitch shift and keep the original speed. The Beatles used pitch shifting on numerous tracks, and they even used the technique to put various parts in tune with other parts. There's nothing 'wrong' with Autotune itself, I hope people realise this.


Yes, I agree, I was left a bit confused as to what the article was getting at. Tuning correction goes on in every genre of music, even when recording artists that are thought of as excellent singers. Definitely nothing wrong with that if used sensitively - time constraints, not losing an otherwise great take etc.
At the same time, is there anything wrong with using pitch correction as an effect, rather than a 'corrector'? T-pain makes cash from having his own sound, kids love it (I personally fail to see the appeal).
Pop music is often forgettable and musically devoid, but musicality is not it's purpose. Spice Girls and Girls Aloud are two of the biggest selling pop groups ever in the UK - they're also perhaps the two most talentless in terms of singing. A huge amount of studio trickery has gone into getting their vocals to sound acceptable. They sell because of the looks and attitude that makes up the brand.

joshisaces 06-02-2009 10:58 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mediocrefunkybeat (Post 581995)
The use of Autotune is much, much deeper than you think. Although I don't think it's necessarily a bad tool either. It's just used for the wrong purpose - it is a perfectly applicable tool; a graded pitch shifter and pitch shifting is a very old technique; it goes right back to the earliest tape manipulation, only now all that has changed is the ability to pitch shift and keep the original speed. The Beatles used pitch shifting on numerous tracks, and they even used the technique to put various parts in tune with other parts. There's nothing 'wrong' with Autotune itself, I hope people realise this.

Well, yeah, I agree, but Britney Spears (for example) can't sing worth anything without autotune.

I think it's totally fine to use for small corrections, but it's really false advertising (in a sense) if you like Britney's recorded songs then find out she makes your ears bleed live. I mean, you're paying money to go see her...

PQleyR 06-02-2009 11:21 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
That's fine, just run her vocals through autotune at the live shows too!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonescrusher (Post 582004)
Spice Girls and Girls Aloud are two of the biggest selling pop groups ever in the UK - they're also perhaps the two most talentless in terms of singing. A huge amount of studio trickery has gone into getting their vocals to sound acceptable. They sell because of the looks and attitude that makes up the brand.

Funny you should mention that, looking back on the Spice Girls, they seem to have so much more personality than an equivalent girl group now...I mean, they actually had distinct voices and personalities, for a start! It's rare to find a boy/girl band like that that isn't just a leader and some backing singers. Manufactured they might have been, but it seems like standards are slipping even in that most overtly commercial of genres!

Deathmetalconga 06-02-2009 11:28 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Sounds like Garage Band for singers. Or maybe Garage Band is karaoke for musicians.

This has been going on with all kinds of instruments and vocals for decades, processing them to get different effects. This is just using the tools to attain perfect pitch, which is guess if you don't have the talent to do it yourself.

Deathmetalconga 06-02-2009 11:28 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GRUNTERSDAD (Post 581957)

What do you think about this?

Clayton_C 06-02-2009 11:39 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Long live indie, acoustic rock, and jazz! Oh, and CLASSICAL!

drumhead61 06-02-2009 11:58 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
We all know its done, but its to what degree it is done that gets me...if you hear it all the time it is not something I am thrilled over, if it is used as a tool as stated earlier to aid then cool with that.

Pavlos 06-03-2009 12:20 AM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
From the article:
"Craig Anderton, a producer and music writer, observes that Auto-Tune ďgets no respect because when itís done correctly, you canít hear that itís working.

ďIf someone uses it tastefully just to correct a few notes here and there, you donít even know that itís been used so it doesnít get any props for doing a good job,Ē Anderton notes. ďBut if someone misuses it, itís very obvious ó the sound quality of the voice changes and people say ĎOh, itís that Auto-Tune ó itís a terrible thing thatís contributing to the decline and fall of Western music as we know it.Ē "

I'll agree with that. Makes me wonder how often beat matching software is used to correct drummers in the studio.

Mediocrefunkybeat 06-03-2009 12:33 AM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jonescrusher (Post 582004)
Yes, I agree, I was left a bit confused as to what the article was getting at. Tuning correction goes on in every genre of music, even when recording artists that are thought of as excellent singers. Definitely nothing wrong with that if used sensitively - time constraints, not losing an otherwise great take etc.
At the same time, is there anything wrong with using pitch correction as an effect, rather than a 'corrector'? T-pain makes cash from having his own sound, kids love it (I personally fail to see the appeal).
Pop music is often forgettable and musically devoid, but musicality is not it's purpose. Spice Girls and Girls Aloud are two of the biggest selling pop groups ever in the UK - they're also perhaps the two most talentless in terms of singing. A huge amount of studio trickery has gone into getting their vocals to sound acceptable. They sell because of the looks and attitude that makes up the brand.

T-Pain is a good example. He sings flat on purpose FOR the Autotune effect, but I can't pretend to be a fan of him in the slightest - just not my thing. That is fine in my book because it's being used as a creative effect and T-Pain probably can sing in tune for what it's worth, although the talent of individual singers is not really what this is about for me.

I had this debate a while ago with somebody, he was advocating using Autotune as a way of reaching notes that the singer cannot sing. To me, I don't think that is necessarily a fair representation of the singer and that's defeating the point of what I think Autotune should be used for - which is an effect, not necessarily as a corrective tool. Personally, my aesthetic leans toward imperfection and I like so-called 'mistakes' in music, in fact I think perfection is a mistake in itself and can completely add to the experience. Joy Division not exactly being the greatest players absolutely adds to the listening experience for me and their ways around that are what formed the ideas that New Order used (obviously, that and the death of Ian Curtis, but they were going towards samplers anyway). Sadly, somewhere in the 80's, the idea of the 'perfect take' became obsessive and singers who actually can sing (like Madonna, love it or hate it, she really can) were replaced with flash. Which is commercialism. Music being relegated to a financial asset rather than art is really where the issue is, Autotune is just one misused symptom of that.

GRUNTERSDAD 06-03-2009 01:18 AM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Clayton_C (Post 582016)
Long live indie, acoustic rock, and jazz! Oh, and CLASSICAL!

Amen................................

bobdadruma 06-03-2009 01:26 AM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
One of my bands (Blues on Fire) recently performed at The Connecticut Blues Challenge. (An annual event that is sponsored by The Ct Blues Society) Our singer isn't the best singer on the planet! He has an honest, sincere approach to our music. He has a way of singing that people seem to relate to. He connects with the audience. People don't seem to notice when he misses a note! We competed against five other bands that night that all had singers that were much better that ours. The audience noticeably responded to us in a positive way. They were dancing and acting differently than they did for the other bands. They liked the reality of our performance. I think that a non perfect singer can be an asset. People seem to relate to a not so perfect singer in a warmer, human, feeling way. It makes them feel like they are part of the music. Perfect isn't always the right answer. People like some flaws.
Of course, We didn't win, We didn't expect to! It was our first year in the competition. It was still noticeable that we were the crowd pleaser. The judges were obligated to give the night to the band with the American Idol vocalist. That's just the way that things work! We expected that to happen!

aydee 06-03-2009 04:15 AM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
to err is to be human. to be human is to be real. to be real is to touch another human soul.





..but that aint the music biz, which is about something else.

PQleyR 06-03-2009 11:40 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
And on that note (ha!), here's a heart-warming pop video which I think you'll agree is relevant to this discussion.

caddywumpus 06-04-2009 12:06 AM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
If you've never seen the film Before the Music Dies, you should. Here's a clip from it that relates to this whole discussion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irk3_p15RJY

HeadRush 06-04-2009 12:32 AM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
I have a strong opinion about this kind of thing
if you can't sing it on your own
you obviously don't have the talent in which you should be putting out that music.
I feel that those who can't sing their own music don't deserve to have it fixed.
this is the kind of thing that is putting talented people down so the ones who cheat can make it.

-Erik

larryace 06-04-2009 12:52 AM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
As much as it pains me to see what we love to do quantified and sterilized and electronically "corrected", this kind of thing will only become more prevalent. It's a brave new world where you too can be a pop star without any of the required talent of generations past. But there will always be that (shrinking?) portion of the population who will seek real music played by real imperfect human beings.

GRUNTERSDAD 06-04-2009 01:52 AM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by caddywumpus (Post 582373)
If you've never seen the film Before the Music Dies, you should. Here's a clip from it that relates to this whole discussion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irk3_p15RJY

That is really sad. Folks with real voices who just don't have looks, or THE look, will be passed over like stale bread. More power to the struggling artists out there.

Drifter in the Dark 06-04-2009 02:13 AM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Just an example from my own personal experience: I never used to be a big fan of Jason Mraz, but once I heard his 2008 release We Sing, We Dance, We Steal Things my mind was changed completely. Why? Because he didn't allow the record to be over-produced! If he did use pitch-correction software, I couldn't tell. At one point on the last song, "A Beautiful Mess", he actually flubbed a note, but he kept the take, which I greatly admire. I'If someone has a good voice and they put genuine emotion into the music, then if they miss a note here or there it's no big deal. The human voice is an unpredictable instrument, and I think that more musicians should accept and embrace that.

White Rabbbit 06-04-2009 02:37 AM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Its all about money and in these times of MTV and the internet image is that big selling point. Sadly alot of people with great images are lousy musicians, and big record companies have clearly stated their preference.

Days of hearing Zeppelin and the Doors on your big hits radio station are over. Best we can do is hope the money shifts back to musical ability because sadly money is what moves the beast. Sorry if this seems a little jaded.


"And that makes sense. After all, today we have models and actors whose faces and bodies were never intended by nature, reality TV that’s not real, and sports “heroes” whose strength comes from pills not practice. It’s totally understandable that the commercial pop world would embrace an unnatural aesthetic. Whether audiences will someday want pop singers who are first and foremost singers remains to be seen."

MSPaintClock 06-04-2009 10:33 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Blink 182s Tom DeLonge uses it, I mean thank god though, he sounds awful.

georgeman 06-14-2009 06:07 AM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mediocrefunkybeat (Post 582033)
T-Pain is a good example. He sings flat on purpose FOR the Autotune effect, but I can't pretend to be a fan of him in the slightest - just not my thing. That is fine in my book because it's being used as a creative effect and T-Pain probably can sing in tune for what it's worth, although the talent of individual singers is not really what this is about for me.

I had this debate a while ago with somebody, he was advocating using Autotune as a way of reaching notes that the singer cannot sing. To me, I don't think that is necessarily a fair representation of the singer and that's defeating the point of what I think Autotune should be used for - which is an effect, not necessarily as a corrective tool. Personally, my aesthetic leans toward imperfection and I like so-called 'mistakes' in music, in fact I think perfection is a mistake in itself and can completely add to the experience. Joy Division not exactly being the greatest players absolutely adds to the listening experience for me and their ways around that are what formed the ideas that New Order used (obviously, that and the death of Ian Curtis, but they were going towards samplers anyway). Sadly, somewhere in the 80's, the idea of the 'perfect take' became obsessive and singers who actually can sing (like Madonna, love it or hate it, she really can) were replaced with flash. Which is commercialism. Music being relegated to a financial asset rather than art is really where the issue is, Autotune is just one misused symptom of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mediocrefunkybeat (Post 581995)
The use of Autotune is much, much deeper than you think. Although I don't think it's necessarily a bad tool either. It's just used for the wrong purpose - it is a perfectly applicable tool; a graded pitch shifter and pitch shifting is a very old technique; it goes right back to the earliest tape manipulation, only now all that has changed is the ability to pitch shift and keep the original speed. The Beatles used pitch shifting on numerous tracks, and they even used the technique to put various parts in tune with other parts. There's nothing 'wrong' with Autotune itself, I hope people realise this.

there is nothing wrong with autotune. i have just recently downloaded this program and i think its a great program. The program has been widely acceped but there is a group of people who still don't like electronic drum sets or synths or digatal effects and i see it always being this way...and the number one rule for applying effects is to only use it if it makes the song sound better and it was their personal opinion that it made the song sound better and thats why they get paid big $$$$ to do so...major record lables look for limited studio recording time and more opproutunities to make money and auto tune was their in..the program is great when used properly.

-george

bobdadruma 06-14-2009 08:44 AM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
One of the main things that I liked about the Austin Powers movies was the way that they showed how just a few years ago (In the sixties) A person could have bad teeth and other flaws and they could be considered handsome.
Go back even further and we have Humphrey Bogart. John Wayne, and Jimmy Stewart! Would they have been stars today? Catherine Hepburn?
The same thing has happened to the music industry.
Would Frank Sinatra be a star today? How about Neil Young and Bob Dylan, and Steve Tyler? Cass Elliot? What would Simon say about them?

georgeman 06-15-2009 01:30 AM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
a youtube documentary about the misuses of autotone http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irk3_p15RJY. But just like the recent swing toward vinal everyday american people not prodcers like the sound and the companys are reacting to it. so who knows if americans start to buy real singers albums or something along that line it will become just another effect in the autotech's arsonal.

-george

DrumEatDrum 06-15-2009 02:38 AM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by caddywumpus (Post 581971)
I don't use auto-tune in my studio when I record myself or any projects that come through. I'm not opposed to it, though, when used in moderation. If a vocalist gives the most emotion-filled performance of their career in the studio, and their top note in that take is a few cents flat, I don't see any reason why a little pitch correction would hurt anyone. I'd rather release the recording with that corrected take with the energy and passion in it than one of the next few takes that sound flat and lifeless compared to it.

With that said, I think that WAY too many artists are using it as a crutch rather than an aid...

Well said.

If an other wise great performance is marred by a little goof here or there, there is no shame is correcting it. It's not much different than drummers who punch in a drum fill, or mix takes together to make the perfect track, or guitarists who over dub a certain section because the guitar went out of tune 1/2 way through the track.

It is supposed to be an aid, like every other studio trick that has ever been invented.

However, like many things in life, it's become abused to well past the point of it's intention.

eddiehimself 06-15-2009 08:05 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
I have to agree with MFB on this one i think. Really the auto tune is an effect that can be used not just as a pitch correcting device, but to add an effect to the singer's voice, like a talkbox or something. It's sad that it's used in such a way to make un tuneful singers sing in tune. However what you have to remember is that it's not just about singing in tune. Most bands you see are crap not because their singer can't sing in tune, but because their singer doesn't put any sort of effort into their singing. They think it's just like "oh well if i hit the right note with the right word then that's okay". It's something i like to call the "guitar hero effect" it's not been created by guitar hero but i reckon it helps reinforce this misconception that music is just about hitting the right note at the right time. It's got little to do with that. Just like a great guitar player understands the importance of being able to not just play the guitar, but do it WELL, so does a great singer understand the importance of singing with passion and emotion, not just churning out the right words at the right pitch in the way that requires the least effort. I also think that perhaps some singers who are otherwise quite good in terms of performance might find themselves daunted by the whole studio thing and obsess over getting the right notes and exactly the right time and not think so much about how they actually sound. So really i'm with caddy on this one. If i recorded a singer i'd like to have autotune simply so i can say to them "alright, don't worry if you sing one or two notes wrong, just give it your best possible performance" sort of thing.

Of course i know a lot of you like to have raw recordings. That's fine too. I guess there is something quite nice about listening to an old recording.

Ironcobra 06-15-2009 11:07 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
I guess it's unfortunate so many people are using it now. However, I do like the way T-Pain uses it. He doesn't use it to correct his voice, more to create a unique sound. (yes I know that was already said, but I didn't read the entire thread)

Mediocrefunkybeat 06-16-2009 02:52 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Quote:

Of course i know a lot of you like to have raw recordings. That's fine too. I guess there is something quite nice about listening to an old recording.
'Raw' and 'Old' are not necessarily synonymous, either. Take the very idea of glitch (a pet topic of mine at the moment) and you start to realise that the aesthetic of imperfection spreads far further than you think. Glitch purposely accentuates the flaws in the digital processing model (alias, clicks, etc) to create something that is purposely 'raw' - although that's probably one of the worst ways of describing it. Go and listen to some of Thom Yorke's solo album (I suggest 'Atoms for Peace' and 'Cymbal Rush') to hear glimpses of (accessible) glitch. There's whirring, buzzing, clicks and pops going on all over the shop and it's a good introduction to what post-digitalism can do. Of course, that's only a small part of the music, and it's not 'glitch' in the strictest sense, but it does have glitch elements.

joshisaces 06-16-2009 05:38 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Okay, so for a project I'm doing I'm using gsnap. It's addddddicting. It makes a freaking amazing sound that's unique. I just like the sound of it.


I can't wait till we're done.

eddiehimself 06-16-2009 06:02 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mediocrefunkybeat (Post 586427)
'Raw' and 'Old' are not necessarily synonymous, either. Take the very idea of glitch (a pet topic of mine at the moment) and you start to realise that the aesthetic of imperfection spreads far further than you think. Glitch purposely accentuates the flaws in the digital processing model (alias, clicks, etc) to create something that is purposely 'raw' - although that's probably one of the worst ways of describing it. Go and listen to some of Thom Yorke's solo album (I suggest 'Atoms for Peace' and 'Cymbal Rush') to hear glimpses of (accessible) glitch. There's whirring, buzzing, clicks and pops going on all over the shop and it's a good introduction to what post-digitalism can do. Of course, that's only a small part of the music, and it's not 'glitch' in the strictest sense, but it does have glitch elements.

Personally i really don't like that sort of thing. It's like the recording is trying to be something it just isn't.

Mediocrefunkybeat 06-16-2009 06:11 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eddiehimself (Post 586482)
Personally i really don't like that sort of thing. It's like the recording is trying to be something it just isn't.

I don't think you're quite understanding the concept. It's exploiting the flaws in the recording process to show that digital flaws are inherently there. That's what the recording IS. Glitches aren't invented, they are just demonstrated. They are there the whole time along - I won't get into digital audio theory unless you really want me to, but essentially digital recording is only possible because of the amount of time that goes into actually correcting the flaws in the conversion processes. Dithering is a good example of quantisation error correction, and anti-aliasing is another example of correction. Most of what we record into the computer is corrected heavily by processing.

eddiehimself 06-16-2009 08:06 PM

Re: Something to Ponder
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mediocrefunkybeat (Post 586485)
I don't think you're quite understanding the concept. It's exploiting the flaws in the recording process to show that digital flaws are inherently there. That's what the recording IS. Glitches aren't invented, they are just demonstrated. They are there the whole time along - I won't get into digital audio theory unless you really want me to, but essentially digital recording is only possible because of the amount of time that goes into actually correcting the flaws in the conversion processes. Dithering is a good example of quantisation error correction, and anti-aliasing is another example of correction. Most of what we record into the computer is corrected heavily by processing.

of course this is true but i just really don't see the point in trying to make a recording sound "raw" by adding processes to it?


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Bernhard Castiglioni's DRUMMERWORLD.com