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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
That's fine, just run her vocals through autotune at the live shows too!

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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
From the article:
"Craig Anderton, a producer and music writer, observes that Auto-Tune “gets no respect because when it’s done correctly, you can’t hear that it’s working.

“If someone uses it tastefully just to correct a few notes here and there, you don’t even know that it’s been used so it doesn’t get any props for doing a good job,” Anderton notes. “But if someone misuses it, it’s very obvious — the sound quality of the voice changes and people say ‘Oh, it’s that Auto-Tune — it’s a terrible thing that’s contributing to the decline and fall of Western music as we know it.” "

I'll agree with that. Makes me wonder how often beat matching software is used to correct drummers in the studio.
 
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.
 
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!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top