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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.

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
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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)
 
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.
 
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.
 
'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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?

Taking away processing. Taking more and more away.

The digital process INHERENTLY adds more processes to it. Taking these options away is what I'm talking about.

Like I said, I don't want to get lost in digital audio theory here. If you want me to, I will- but it will be very complicated and probably unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top