Autotune and Quantization

[famous beagle]

I wasn't exactly sure where to put this thread. I thought about the drum forum, but the question seemed a little broader than that.

I was wondering if drummers feel that using quantization--if recording with e-drums, for example--is "cheating" the same way that many people feel autotune is for vocals.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

It's all cheating, and I'm fine with that. The problem is making it so perfect it's sterile. Robot music is for robot listeners.

 

[DM60]

I will say that is like saying frets on the guitar is cheating, you should know where ot put your fingers like on a violin.

 

[famous beagle]

I will say that is like saying frets on the guitar is cheating, you should know where ot put your fingers like on a violin.

Ok ... so ... are you saying that you don't consider autotune cheating? Or ... what exactly?

(BTW, I don't agree that frets on a guitar is cheating, as a guitar and violin are two completely different instruments, but that's another topic.)

 

[jimmys69]

Ok ... so ... are you saying that you don't consider autotune cheating? Or ... what exactly?

(BTW, I don't agree that frets on a guitar is cheating, as a guitar and violin are two completely different instruments, but that's another topic.)

Well yes, he said he does not find that cheating.

Frets on a guitar is not cheating the instrument nor is shitty playing of a violin, just that accuracy of the two can be manipulated if needed.

It was just an analogy.

Using the correct tool for a job is not cheating. It is just using a tool to get the job done.

If a screw is stripped out, pound it in with a hammer. If you don't have a hammer, buy Melodyne.

 

[DM60]

Well yes, he said he does not find that cheating.

Frets on a guitar is not cheating the instrument nor is shitty playing of a violin, just that accuracy of the two can be manipulated if needed.

It was just an analogy.

Using the correct tool for a job is not cheating. It is just using a tool to get the job done.

If a screw is stripped out, pound it in with a hammer. If you don't have a hammer, buy Melodyne.

Pretty funny and to Jimmy's point, it is just a tool. I prefer not to use it, but ...

I think it is mainly about the final product.

 

[famous beagle]

Well yes, he said he does not find that cheating.

Frets on a guitar is not cheating the instrument nor is shitty playing of a violin, just that accuracy of the two can be manipulated if needed.

It was just an analogy.

Using the correct tool for a job is not cheating. It is just using a tool to get the job done.

If a screw is stripped out, pound it in with a hammer. If you don't have a hammer, buy Melodyne.

Well he didn't outright say that. That's why I was just trying to get clarification.

I haven't said whether I think either is cheating; I was more interested in whether drummers consider quantization cheating. I was just curious, because, while I prefer to program my drum parts (in EZDrummer 2 using a KAT percussion pad) as naturally as possible, I'm not against using a little partial quantization (50% or 60%, for instance) if necessary to save some time.

However, I don't consider myself a drummer at all, and maybe that's the difference. I consider myself (besides just a musician in general) primarily a guitarist, vocalist, and songwriter, and I won't use autotune at all because it does feel very much like "cheating" to me --- not to mention that it's not doing me any favors as a vocalist. In other words, if I'm never forced to get the vocal better than "almost there," then I think it will most likely inhibit by growth as a singer.

Maybe the drum forum would be a better place for this thread after all? I dunno.

 

[Farview]

I've noticed that what people consider 'cheating' is directly related to what they see themselves as. If they are a drummer and have pride in their skills, they will likely think quantizing is cheating. Same with singers.

If they see themselves as songwriters or producers, they don't think it is cheating because their art is about the manipulations of sounds and parts to create the production. Whereas a musician's art is about manipulating the instrument. (obvious broad generalizations)

 

[DM60]

I've noticed that what people consider 'cheating' is directly related to what they see themselves as. If they are a drummer and have pride in their skills, they will likely think quantizing is cheating. Same with singers.

If they see themselves as songwriters or producers, they don't think it is cheating because their art is about the manipulations of sounds and parts to create the production. Whereas a musician's art is about manipulating the instrument. (obvious broad generalizations)

I think that nails it pretty good.

 

[Brian Miller]

I've noticed that what people consider 'cheating' is directly related to what they see themselves as. If they are a drummer and have pride in their skills, they will likely think quantizing is cheating. Same with singers.

If they see themselves as songwriters or producers, they don't think it is cheating because their art is about the manipulations of sounds and parts to create the production. Whereas a musician's art is about manipulating the instrument. (obvious broad generalizations)

This nails it. Great post.

 

[miroslav]

Seeing how like many others here, I also tend to wear several hats in the studio....songwriter, musician, engineer, etc.....
..."cheating" is a rather loose and often meaningless term most of the time.

It's more about realizing your final prodcution goal...and the journey getting there, is what it is.
Loosing sleep over things like how many takes you did or if you had to pitch-correct some sour notes...etc....is silly, IMHO.

The entire process of a music production involves "manipulation of audio" on one level or another....so you tell me who's cheating.

 

[famous beagle]

I agree that it's all relative and depends on how someone views themselves. However, I must say that I don't think it serves anyone for the better --- in the long run, that is. If someone creates a great-sounding album or song by using all the studio tricks they can, it may result in a big hit for them, but it can backfire when they perform live and people realize that they can't really sound that good live. I've seen this happen a few times.

Obviously, the posterchild of this phenomenon is Milli Vanilli (sp?), but I've seen it happen other times to some extent as well. Third Eye Blind comes to mind especially. The singer sounded good on the albums, but oh my how he really sucked every time I heard him live. I heard a lot of other people saying the same thing.

 

[Armistice]

I agree that it's all relative and depends on how someone views themselves. However, I must say that I don't think it serves anyone for the better --- in the long run, that is. If someone creates a great-sounding album or song by using all the studio tricks they can, it may result in a big hit for them, but it can backfire when they perform live and people realize that they can't really sound that good live. I've seen this happen a few times.

To an extent. My musical vision at the moment involves me playing about a dozen guitars, half a dozen keyboard or synth parts, bass, very complex MIDI drums and layers and layers of vocals on any particular song, and no other human being doing a damn thing.... this music will never be played live, or be a hit, so if I need to tune up some of the backing vocals to get the effect I'm aiming for, I'm fine with it.

I'm already "cheating" by using MIDI drums, MIDI piano, MIDI synthesizers (guitars are real and amped/miked through small amp at whatever volume I think my apartment neighbours will tolerate on the day ) to get sounds that I can't actually play myself but can hear in my head, so a bit of pitch correction on my wavering harmonies is the least of my concerns.

I'll use whatever tools I want to, in whatever way I want to, based on whatever limitations I face, to get whatever result I want. I'm just happy I can, because a couple of decades back, I couldn't.

And therein lies the curse of modern music - anyone can play, even if they're crap*...

*Obviously, I'm not crap and neither are you, dear reader - it's everybody else...

 

[famous beagle]

I'm already "cheating" by using MIDI drums, MIDI piano, MIDI synthesizers (guitars are real and amped/miked through small amp at whatever volume I think my apartment neighbours will tolerate on the day ) to get sounds that I can't actually play myself but can hear in my head, so a bit of pitch correction on my wavering harmonies is the least of my concerns.

That's what's funny. I don't consider using MIDI instruments "cheating." IMHO, they're just alternative instruments. Think about the Mellotron, or Chamberlin before that. Those were instruments that were designed to emulate other instruments (flutes, strings, etc.) by playing back samples from a tape spool. Now, however, they're coveted instruments in their own right, and we have software emulations of those instruments!

To me, the only thing I really consider "cheating" is the rhythmic or pitch manipulation of a take after it's been recorded, which basically includes quantization, pitch correction, and time-based editing. I'm not saying I don't ever do any of those things (although I don't ever autotune; it just rubs me the wrong way), but I really try to avoid them at all costs, especially when I'm recording my stuff. My most common "cheat" is the partial quantization of a drum part that I program. I try to avoid it whenever I can, but sometimes I'll relent if I'm short on time.

I don't look down upon anyone else who uses pitch correction or whatever; it's just not something I choose to do. I prefer to record analog, but when I have to record digitally, I try to use it as much like a tape machine as possible---i.e., only punching in instead of dragging notes around, etc. That's just the way I prefer to work.

 

[Farview]

Mr. Beagle, that is all because you view yourself as a musician first, and a live musician at that. If you saw yourself as a songwriter first, you would be focused on getting the song the way it needed to be in the most efficient way possible and wouldn't be caught up in a musician's ethical debate about what is or is not real musicianship.

The song would be the focus for a pure songwriter, its not up to him to make it work live.

A pure producer wouldn't care about the musicianship debates either. He is just there to make sure the song is presented in an exciting manner. Generally, he wouldn't care how it gets done or whether it's repeatable in a live setting. This is how you end up with a string section playing on a metal album of a band with no keyboardist. That never happens live, producer doesn't care because he is trying to sell an album, not a concert.

It's all perspective.

 

[famous beagle]

Mr. Beagle, that is all because you view yourself as a musician first, and a live musician at that. If you saw yourself as a songwriter first, you would be focused on getting the song the way it needed to be in the most efficient way possible and wouldn't be caught up in a musician's ethical debate about what is or is not real musicianship.

The song would be the focus for a pure songwriter, its not up to him to make it work live.

A pure producer wouldn't care about the musicianship debates either. He is just there to make sure the song is presented in an exciting manner. Generally, he wouldn't care how it gets done or whether it's repeatable in a live setting. This is how you end up with a string section playing on a metal album of a band with no keyboardist. That never happens live, producer doesn't care because he is trying to sell an album, not a concert.

It's all perspective.

Sure, of course it's all perspective. I view myself as both a musician and a songwriter somewhat equally. As I said, I don't consider my way the "right" way and anyone else's the "wrong way." It's just what makes sense to me. However, I don't think it's safe to say that anyone who views themselves as primarily a songwriter would only be concerned with the final product. I think it's probably more of a personal thing, and everyone is likely different in how they go about it. I would think the same can be said for producers. Some producers, like Mutt Lange, will just build the whole album one note at a time if that's what it takes to get it perfect, whereas others, like Ethan Johns or Daniel Lanois, are generally more interested in having the band create a vibe by playing live as much as possible.

 

[Farview]

Sure, of course it's all perspective. I view myself as both a musician and a songwriter somewhat equally. As I said, I don't consider my way the "right" way and anyone else's the "wrong way." It's just what makes sense to me. However, I don't think it's safe to say that anyone who views themselves as primarily a songwriter would only be concerned with the final product. I think it's probably more of a personal thing, and everyone is likely different in how they go about it. I would think the same can be said for producers. Some producers, like Mutt Lange, will just build the whole album one note at a time if that's what it takes to get it perfect, whereas others, like Ethan Johns or Daniel Lanois, are generally more interested in having the band create a vibe by playing live as much as possible.

Well, the guys who are just song writers will often write parts for instruments they don't play, so they have no personal morality about the mechanics of playing the part, they just want the part played.

Same thing with the producers. They come from a production standpoint, not a purity of musicianship standpoint.

Nothing wrong with any of it, and I didn't mean to single you out. I have a double standard about this. If I'm playing, I will keep doing it until I get it done right, with only very minimal editing. If someone else is playing, I will offer to fix stuff instead of making them play it another 40 times. It took me a long time to stop forcing my idea of musicianship on other people.