How many of you use pitch correction for your own vocals?

Do you use pitch correction on your own vocals?

  • I wouldn't touch that shit with a 10-foot pole.

    Votes: 27 33.3%
  • I only use it when absolutely necessary (time constraints, etc.).

    Votes: 7 8.6%
  • I use it when needed. It's just a tool like EQ, compression, etc.

    Votes: 38 46.9%
  • Yes Please! I'll take all I can!

    Votes: 9 11.1%

  • Total voters
    81
I use VariAudio, native to Cubase. I use it when it is needed to make the song sound better overall. Never to the degree that it can be heard (go ahead and debate that one, I could give two shits). I also comp together my drum parts, my bass parts and my guitar parts. I record all of my keyboard parts in midi and tweak the fuck out of them. See, when you bust you ass for other people all day you gotta do what it takes to get it put together in the couple hours left at the end of the day. Use your tools but don't abuse your tool.
 
Mmmm...I could challenge some folks here to try and tell the difference, which I'm sure they wouldn't be able to...
...but it's not that important. :D

I think people confuse the use of some pitch correction with the use of 100% auto-tune, all the time...which are two different things.
 
The problem with pitch correction is, that once people that could sing recorded songs, now people with no talent or ability can record songs.

Alan.
 
That's more a comment on the digital recording revolution than on pitch correction.

Probably both LOL, however talented people can still record to digital as if it were tape, capturing a good performance without thinking that you can fix it later with an edit, or autotune. At my studio I use a digital recorder but have it in tape mode. When you record over something it's gone, if there was doubt that that the take was not good enough then it's not good enough.

True that I sometimes edit the vocals, but I tend to drop in or edit from other takes, same as what I did in the old tape days. I just can't bring myself to use pitch correction.

Alan.
 
That's more a comment on the digital recording revolution than on pitch correction.
well somewhat .... but Taylor Swift is a perfect example of someone who can't sing without auto-tune.
Even her fans admit she can't sing live ...... which actually means she can't sing.


Despite her being gorgeous I doubt she'd have much of a singing career without being auto tuned every step of the way.
Surely there must be plenty more like that.

Once MTV and music videos became dominant, music started right then to be less about how you sound and more about how you look.
So now that the tech is much better it can be completely about how you look without any regard to your abilities.

And yes, there has always been some of that in the studio .... but the tech is so far advanced now with far more ability to make even the worst singer sound great than ever before.
 
Hows that saying go....

When the only tool you use is a hammer....everything looks like a nail. :)

Man...it's all just tools for getting the best product.
If you just want to document a performance, that's cool too...but I chuckle at the folks who will edit this, but not that...who will fix this, but not that....etc...etc. :D

I mean...are we really talking about ethics-n-morality in making music and being creative? :p ;)
 
It is kind of "ethics and morality" when someone, as a listener, is being lied to. It used to be that a band or artist wouldn't even enter a studio unless they had their shit together. Studio time costs money. Now any ol doofus can record his garbage in his underwear and tweak it into being halfway presentable. I personally like/want to believe that the music I listen to is real. I want to believe that those drums were really played. That guitar sound is the result of a blaring amp. The singer is actually singing what I'm hearing. It used to be a given that what you hear is what happened. Sounds were being made and captured. Editing for the best final product is one thing, but complete manipulation, sims, and samples are another thing entirely IMO. Now it's all suspect. Talentless hacks can "record" entire albums without making a sound or placing a mic. That's not a good thing. Obviously certain styles and genres rely on synths and MIDI and digital manipulation. Like EDM or Hip Hop. Electronic pianos and keyboards. They get a pass. But stuff with guitars and drums and bass and vocals - keep it real. I'm increasingly sinking more and more into the minority on this as new "artists" and wannabe "producers" come along and celebrate the inherent mediocrity enabling nature of modern digital recording.
 
I mean...are we really talking about ethics-n-morality in making music and being creative? :p ;)
I don't think so BUT ..... for pretty much everyone there's a line where they won't find it acceptable.

For instance .... you're a guitar player.
You gonna have any respect for some one who basically can't play at all but edits his guitar into a song note by note?
And you have vid of him playing and in reality he just sucks out loud .... but he can play one note at a time so he does it that way?

That's an extreme example but the point remains .... if a git player comps 2 or 3 solos to get one solo out of it, I don't have a problem with that ..... but if he comps 23 solos to get one then I'm not impressed plus I doubt there's gonna be much feeling or groove there.

So the question is not whether we accept editing or not .... the real question is how much editing is there before we say 'too much'.

And like much of music it's a personal taste thing.
Some people might feel that editing is in and of itself an art and don't care how much of it goes into the music.

And me, I'm primarily a live player first and foremost so I tend to like live stuff or minimum editing.
All a matter of taste.
 
Time to read this article. It's not about fixing things up it's about developing talent and skills first. In todays want it now attitude, people don't want to spend time practicing and honing skills, we want to be able to sing NOW, and I can do that with Auto Tune, just like the stars of today do :facepalm:

Alan.
 
I get what you are saying...and no one is talking about taking an absolute non-player, non-singer and turning them into some Milli Vanilli thing.
You seem to be looking at some extreme abuse when it comes to fixing things in the studio.
What I don't see is how doing some edits and fixes is acceptable, but tweaking a few notes (guitar or singing or whatever) is so unacceptable to some people.
Sure seems hypocritical.

It can always be done the real old-school way....put up a couple of mics, and go to 2-track....and that's it, don't touch a thing....but man, in the world of us solo musicians, recording at home...it's not realistic...and even some of the best singers and players rely on some "tweaks" in pro studios.

No one is going to hell for fixing a sour note or two. ;) :D
 
Time to read this article. It's not about fixing things up it's about developing talent and skills first. In todays want it now attitude, people don't want to spend time practicing and honing skills, we want to be able to sing NOW, and I can do that with Auto Tune, just like the stars of today do :facepalm:

Alan.
that and karaoke has everyone thinking they're a singer.
On gigs I have people ALL the time come up and get me to let their buddy "Who's an awesome singer" sing. I often let them because it's good for business and my tip jar.
They're always horrible and very seldom even know the words because they're used to a karaoke program scrolling the words on a monitor.
And in the karaoke world, if you're vaguely on pitch occasionally you're "an awesome singer". :rolleyes:


And listen to that recent redo of Brian Wilson's song, "God Only Knows" ...... holy crap there was some awful singing on that and these guys are all biggies in the music world.
But they mostly flat out sucked on this.
The original was SO much better while quite a few of the current 'stars' were so off pitch I found it hard to believe the engineers or producers let it thru.
 
Mmmm...I could challenge some folks here to try and tell the difference, which I'm sure they wouldn't be able to...
...but it's not that important. :D

I think people confuse the use of some pitch correction with the use of 100% auto-tune, all the time...which are two different things.

My theory is that people have become acclimated to it, but there is a small percentage that can hear any pitch correction of any kind, and they probably grew up singing in the church choir and had some private vocal training like me. The more you know the voice as a musical instrument... one in which you are well acquainted with how it should sound naturally, IMO the easier it is to hear when the vocal is being tampered with pitch wise. But not only vocalists are sensitive to it. The more musically sensitive and the more outstanding the musician regardless of main instrument, the easier it is to hear.

I've had many a song thrown my way with the person sure I wouldn't hear the most subtle pitch correction. I always hear it, and it's not hard for me. It jumps out at me. That is, I don't have to sit there and think about it or strain to try to find the correction. It's as obvious as a blinding light to the eye.
 
I pitch correct my voice down an octave to sound like Barry White when I'm talking naughty with women friends on the phone. It's great for that!
 
I'm a fan of the blobs; Melodyne, that is. I used to use it a lot when I first started recording my tunes. I felt I couldn't sing for shit, so correcting pitch was faster than take after take. I believe tuning my own vocals helped me to improve my singing. I hear how I'm suppose to sound and I can make adjustments.

Now I use it to adjust the oddball note or two and that's okay.

I have found that that often works when training vocalists. You know, they have what sounds like a promising voice but their pitching is slightly off. So you tune them up, they hear that and imitate themselves. For one particular singer who I have recorded over the years, it has worked well. Now I don't have to pitch correct her at all.
 
The problem with pitch correction is, that once people that could sing recorded songs, now people with no talent or ability can record songs.

Alan.

You are so right on the money there Alan. That is what really really annoys me about many productions today, most notably hip hop (which I detest for a dozen reasons). People who cant sing for peanuts are making money from other peoples' creative work on the music side with a voice they couldn't possibly duplicate on stage.
 
It is kind of "ethics and morality" when someone, as a listener, is being lied to. It used to be that a band or artist wouldn't even enter a studio unless they had their shit together. Studio time costs money. Now any ol doofus can record his garbage in his underwear and tweak it into being halfway presentable. I personally like/want to believe that the music I listen to is real. I want to believe that those drums were really played. That guitar sound is the result of a blaring amp. The singer is actually singing what I'm hearing. It used to be a given that what you hear is what happened. Sounds were being made and captured. Editing for the best final product is one thing, but complete manipulation, sims, and samples are another thing entirely IMO. Now it's all suspect. Talentless hacks can "record" entire albums without making a sound or placing a mic. That's not a good thing. Obviously certain styles and genres rely on synths and MIDI and digital manipulation. Like EDM or Hip Hop. Electronic pianos and keyboards. They get a pass. But stuff with guitars and drums and bass and vocals - keep it real. I'm increasingly sinking more and more into the minority on this as new "artists" and wannabe "producers" come along and celebrate the inherent mediocrity enabling nature of modern digital recording.

In a parallel to that, I have become aware of several local bands charging the venue good money for allowing them to "perform" on stage to recorded music, which they then mime to with guitars, keyboards and vocals. If you cant play the damned song, then put a CD on and get off the stage. At least magicians call themselves illusionists and perform for entertainment. Performing to a recording is just lying
 
I get what you are saying...and no one is talking about taking an absolute non-player, non-singer and turning them into some Milli Vanilli thing.
You seem to be looking at some extreme abuse when it comes to fixing things in the studio.
What I don't see is how doing some edits and fixes is acceptable, but tweaking a few notes (guitar or singing or whatever) is so unacceptable to some people.
Sure seems hypocritical.

It can always be done the real old-school way....put up a couple of mics, and go to 2-track....and that's it, don't touch a thing....but man, in the world of us solo musicians, recording at home...it's not realistic...and even some of the best singers and players rely on some "tweaks" in pro studios.

No one is going to hell for fixing a sour note or two. ;) :D

That's my primary use for Melodyne. I get the singer to do up to six takes and pick the best. They might be just as criminal as Melodyning the whole song but I know they often do retakes or multiple takes in studios. When you get to listen to one recording over and over, as you would with your favourite music, the speed bumps get bigger and bigger. The aim is the get the best possible performance on the song you are going to murder in your living room or whatever. So multiple takes are acceptable. However, sometimes when you get your best take, there is that odd note or two just needs a slight tweak. I don't see anything criminal in that.

Most of my recent work is with live stage recordings. While I mix to what I think is acceptable, I don't tweak any vocals or instruments to take out the live blemishes. That would just detract from it. Having said that, the performers have all been pretty good so that tweaks are just not required.
 
Back
Top