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

[Schwarzenyaeger]

I know what you were going for.
There are few art forms where one person is the sole creator from start to finish in every detail.

 

[miroslav]

It used to be that you didn't even walk through a studios doors if you didn't even halfway have your shit together.

Did you watch "The Wrecking Crew" movie?
A handful of hired session musicians played for a lot of band recordings...and that kind of stuff has been normal biz in studios going back 50 years or more to the present day.
Not saying there aren't ever any competent bands that do all their stuff...but certainly, even some of the best/biggest names will bring in session musicians all the time...and you and I never knew that. We just listen to the finished music.

Knowing that now...does it make all that music over the years any less "real"...?
For me, it doesn't. I always listen to the music and focus on just what I'm hearing.
I don't lose sleep over how many takes they needed, or if the drummer was a band member or a hired gun....etc.

Again...here, today...we are not talking about some absolute fakeness, where the so called "artist" can't do a damn thing on their own, and it's all invented, programmed and tweaked into perfection.
Rather, it's about the realities of recording, especially for the solo musician...and about utilizing the variety of tools YOURSELF, to make YOUR music sound as good as YOU can.

Frankly...I think the wave of "solo" musicians both in home rec and pro worlds is what often makes things suck more than usual. Mainly because one person isn't able to sound like a band...at least not the way an actual band would sound.
I'm not saying a competent solo musician can't record a solo album...just saying that the days of real sessions with a bunch of musicians in the studio, seem to have faded. Ideally, that's when the best stuff comes out. When you have a bunch of people playing off each other and contributing to the whole.
Of course...it's not easy to make that happen these days. Seems like everyone who can play, is off working on their own shit....or playing in 5 different bands!

 

[Greg_L]

Did you watch "The Wrecking Crew" movie?

No. Being a fan of Phil Spector - the producer AND the murderer - I'm already well aware of The Wrecking Crew.

A handful of hired session musicians played for a lot of band recordings...and that kind of stuff has been normal biz in studios going back 50 years or more to the present day.
Not saying there aren't ever any competent bands that do all their stuff...but certainly, even some of the best/biggest names will bring in session musicians all the time...and you and I never knew that. We just listen to the finished music.

Knowing that now...does it make all that music over the years any less "real"...?

No because I already knew that, and it's still real people playing real stuff so I'm good with all that.

For me, it doesn't. I always listen to the music and focus on just what I'm hearing.
I don't lose sleep over how many takes they needed, or if the drummer was a band member or a hired gun....etc.

Me neither. I have no problem with session players. My favorite band ever - The Ramones - sometimes used extra uncredited guys to add guitar parts and sing backups and shit. Johnny would do his bit and get the hell out. Then he'd come back later, see what else they did, and give it the yay or nay.

Again...here, today...we are not talking about some absolute fakeness, where the so called "artist" can't do a damn thing on their own, and it's all invented, programmed and tweaked into perfection.

That's what I'm talking about. Fuck that shit.

Frankly...I think the wave of "solo" musicians both in home rec and pro worlds is what often makes things suck more than usual. Mainly because one person isn't able to sound like a band...at least not the way an actual band would sound.
I'm not saying a competent solo musician can't record a solo album...just saying that the days of real sessions with a bunch of musicians in the studio, seem to have faded. Ideally, that's when the best stuff comes out. When you have a bunch of people playing off each other and contributing to the whole.
Of course...it's not easy to make that happen these days. Seems like everyone who can play, is off working on their own shit....or playing in 5 different bands!

I don't totally agree or disagree. I don't have any problem with a band multitracking. I don't believe a band has to record live like they're playing a gig. They just have to know what they're doing. Remember, not all music is a loose jam where people "feed" off each other. The type of music I play has to be on point. There is no room for a nod and a wink and an extended guitar solo. 99% of the time the song is the way it is. If you know what you're playing and how to play it, it's not unreasonable to lay it down in a few takes or less. I do it all the time and I pretty much suck. My problem with the solo musician isn't totally the musician himself, but the acceptance of mediocrity at the tracking level which results in the rampant fix-it-later mentality epidemic. There's a lot of "good enough" going on in the home rec world. And since it happens so much, it's become the norm. I love modern digital recording. I don't love how it's allowed every halfassed schmo on earth the ability to flood the cosmos with his plastic sounding garbage music.

 

[miroslav]

again...here, today...we are not talking about some absolute fakeness, where the so called "artist" can't do a damn thing on their own, and it's all invented, programmed and tweaked into perfection.

that's what i'm talking about. Fuck that shit.

Yes...I know that's what you keep talking about.
My point was/is...that here/today...there's no one that I can think of that is doing that...some total "fake".
Most of us are recording with similar SOPs.

My point has been that each person wants to draw a different line AFA what they will accept or won't...so the whole absolute discussion about what is "real" is flawed, and "real" doesn't even hardly exist in recording if you want to look at it from an absolute position....instead of moving goal posts to fit everyone's view.

Like you say...it's OK to use sessions musicians...but someone else here will say that's "fake" because it's not being done by the artists who are on the album....etc.
One person wants to argue against pitch shifting...yet they'll have no problem punching in 50 times...etc.

All I'm saying, that unless we're talking about absolute faking...where the "artist" requires immense amounts of outside help to produce a piece of finished product...all the other bits-n-pieces that take place in the studio are just normal operations...like hiring a session musician to play the lead guitar parts, or using some plug-in to tweak a track.

My problem with the solo musician isn't totally the musician himself, but the acceptance of mediocrity at the tracking level which results in the rampant fix-it-later mentality epidemic. There's a lot of "good enough" going on in the home rec world. .

I agree with that.
Technology makes that possible, and "tracking" isn't what it use to be.
People are mixing before they've even finished all their tracking.
People are "mastering" before they've finished mixing.

It's all over the place, and many of the newb guys who didn't have any exposure to tape/mixers/analog gear (and I don't say that as some pro-analog argument)...are the ones who don't have any kind recording "process". Rather they just bounce around and think that everything can be solved by adding another plug-in to the track.

 

[Greg_L]

My point has been that each person wants to draw a different line AFA what they will accept or won't...
.

That's normal. That's what people do. Some people want it to be 100% authentic as it happened, some people will tweak and manipulate every little thing they can. None of it is actually right or wrong. But everyone has their own thoughts on it, and that's not right or wrong either. It's all a bunch of fucking lip service anyway. Me being a stickler for authenticity, you being a stickler for just accepting whatever shit rolls down the pipe, none of it actually matters. You do your thing, I do mine, the other guy will do his, none of it matters.

I agree with that.
Technology makes that possible, and "tracking" isn't what it use to be.
People are mixing before they've even finished all their tracking.
People are "mastering" before they've finished mixing.

It's all over the place, and many of the newb guys who didn't have any exposure to tape/mixers/analog gear (and I don't say that as some pro-analog argument)...are the ones who don't have any kind recording "process". Rather they just bounce around and think that everything can be solved by adding another plug-in to the track.

This is the crux of probably 90% of my bitching about n00bs, home recorders, plug-in jockeys, etc. In the context of this site, I don't accept that "whatever comes out of the speakers is all that matters". That's a cheap, lazy, cop-out mentality that just enables more mediocrity because this is a RECORDING site. I happily accept that the lines between musician, engineer, and producer are blurred into nothingness, but for me that doesn't excuse blatant ignorance and a lack of basic recording technique.

 

[miroslav]

Me being a stickler for authenticity, you being a stickler for just accepting whatever shit rolls down the pipe, none of it actually matters. You do your thing, I do mine, the other guy will do his, none of it matters.

I agree that everyone has their own perspectives and lines in the sand....though honestly, you misjudge me if you think I don't value authenticity. My main point has been that "authenticity" seems to float in the recording world...a LOT!

My objection was mainly to the lofty moral/ethical arguments about this or that being more or less "real".
I mean...do what you think you need to do to make your music work.
That's real....that's always real.

I don't deny the fact that unlike many analog snobs, I accept digital totally. There was a time where I was hesitant, but I've found my preferences with the hybrid setup, and the one thing that's driven that hybrid approach is the amount of production tweak-ability digital puts in my hands, that analog never could....and for me, for how I work, that's very real too. Everything I do is done by me. The notion some folks have that "the computer" is doing it for you...are false. I mean...turn on your computer and tell me what it can do without your hand on the mouse and keyboard.

Of course, with my tracking process still falling entirely in the tape/analog domain, it does "hamstring" me (some might say) to a degree...but it certainly ensures that tracking is done in a more thought out and straightforward process...so by the time I get to the DAW, the meat-n-potatoes are already on the plate, and the DAW is more about adding some condiments, side-dishes and dessert to the table.

 

[RFR]

Last post for me in this interesting thread. Not that anyone cares what I have to say, but that's not stopped me before........
Anyway. ..
We, the ones that have some interest and participation in the creative process, can talk about it forever but it means nothing.

Music is a business. End of story. The technology exists to crank it out, crank it out better, cheaper, faster and get a product out to the consumer in a profitable manner.

All available techology WILL be used to achieve that end.

It's not about art, creativity, integrity OR music. None of that stuff matters. Money is king.

The money kings may praise lady Gaga for her talent. But they are really just feeding that seal some fish for performing well at sea world. When that attraction fades there will be a better, newer one that will line the pockets with more gold.

When technology exists that can completely eliminate the artist, producers, mixers, engineers, drummers etc will all be gone as well.

All we'll have is mktg and music programmers.

 

[Greg_L]

I agree that everyone has their own perspectives and lines in the sand....though honestly, you misjudge me if you think I don't value authenticity. My main point has been that "authenticity" seems to float in the recording world...a LOT!

My objection was mainly to the lofty moral/ethical arguments about this or that being more or less "real".
I mean...do what you think you need to do to make your music work.
That's real....that's always real.

I don't deny the fact that unlike many analog snobs, I accept digital totally. There was a time where I was hesitant, but I've found my preferences with the hybrid setup, and the one thing that's driven that hybrid approach is the amount of production tweak-ability digital puts in my hands, that analog never could....and for me, for how I work, that's very real too. Everything I do is done by me. The notion some folks have that "the computer" is doing it for you...are false. I mean...turn on your computer and tell me what it can do without your hand on the mouse and keyboard.

Of course, with my tracking process still falling entirely in the tape/analog domain, it does "hamstring" me (some might say) to a degree...but it certainly ensures that tracking is done in a more thought out and straightforward process...so by the time I get to the DAW, the meat-n-potatoes are already on the plate, and the DAW is more about adding some condiments, side-dishes and dessert to the table.

I don't know what you're so defensive about, or for whom. I truly could not care less what you do or how you do it. If it means anything at all, your own personal process is just fine with me. I don't judge you for anything like that.

Authenticity does not float around for me. I have my ideas and beliefs and I walk the walk. My respect and judgement for people that work in their own way outside of my own beliefs is on a sliding scale. I judge intent and application.

 

[miroslav]

I'm not being "defensive" about anything......not any more than you are when you describe your process and beliefs in order to explain your position.

Honestly...I have ZERO concern about what anyone thinks about my recording process. I know what I do and how it all comes together, and I'm good with that.

I'm just agreeing that there are many ways to look at "real", and I don't put down anyone here about what they do or try to say how my way is more "real" or more "authentic" than theirs.

 

[miroslav]

Music is a business. End of story. The technology exists to crank it out, crank it out better, cheaper, faster and get a product out to the consumer in a profitable manner.

All available techology WILL be used to achieve that end.

It's not about art, creativity, integrity OR music. None of that stuff matters. Money is king.

Right...and that's where most home rec guys drift off in a different direction...because they are not doing it as any biz or for money....so the perspectives becomes very personal and myopic. That's why so many artists/bands who get that so-called "lucky break" often find themselves in awkward situations and confused about the whole biz side of music....they're still in their home rec world mentally.

Of course, that's the nice thing about home recording without any biz focus....it's mainly about pleasing yourself, in any way or any timeframe that suits you.

 

[Greg_L]

Lol. Okay then. Good talk.

 

[RFR]

Exactly. (To Miro's last post)
We do it for love, fun, and some even for a little bit of money. But it is a passion based activity.

As soon as one gets in the waters with the sharks, its a whole different story.


Whoops. My prevoius post was supposed to be my last.......oh well.

 

[miroslav]

Exactly. (To Miro's last post)
We do it for love, fun, and some even for a little bit of money. But it is a passion based activity.

Yes, I think most home rec guys fall in with that.

In addition to that, my personal expectations with recording were always about expanding my creative options....and never about documentation of a "live" recording, with minimal tweaking after the fact.
OK...back in my 4-track days, I certainly went through that period...mostly out of necessity, so everything was tracked with a live 4-5 piece band perspective...like how would it sound and how would they do it...and that was probably due to my being in bands at the time when I first got into recording.

I rolled with that for awhile...but quickly found myself wanting to take the recording/production process beyond that.
Not because I thought it was more "lofty"...I mean, I still love a good 3-chord rock song with a basic 4-5 piece arrangement, but it kind got...well...boring.
I knew I was not going to ever assemble some 8-12 piece band to realize anything more involved...so the studio became that outlet, and now with digital added, shit...the sky is the limit.
So for me...creativity comes first, and what drives the whole studios process, and it's all good.
Maybe if I was back in a band and we were going to perform our originals live...then I could see myself getting back to that more sparse/basic songwriting/arranging/recording.

Of course, if you look at a lot of Rock bands over the years...many took that same kind of journey...initially simplistic/basic, straightforward stuff....but then their studio albums got more and more involved...to where some bands hated playing out, because they knew their music ideas were too involved to take live with a 4-5 piece band.
I mean...we've all heard studio albums from 4-5 piece bands compared to the same music played live...and it's often much different sounding, because they couldn't pull it off....but IMHO, I never saw that as a negative on the band, or some indication that their studio albums were any less real than their live performances.

It's all good...I mean, it's about the intent, and that's not always 4 guys recording as-it-falls.

 

[RFR]

I've done a lot of "live" in the studio recordings. I was fortunate to have a big, good sounding live room

At the same time, I love writing in the studio and coming up with stuff that a band wouldnt be able to easily do live.

I'm strictly analog tape based right now, cause I understand that, but look forward to going hybrid like you, with the options available to me. And if I i can't find a good vocalist, I have no problem using tricks to fix my shitty vocals

 

[Bobbsy]

In the perfect world, I think we'd all rather do recordings where the vocalist can hit every note properly every time. However, even the best singers make mistakes and, if you have technology to fix it, be it editing, punch ins or pitch correction, I'd rather use that than hear the one bum note every time I play the track.

This applies even more so since this is a home recording forum.

Where I do get upset is today's generation of so-called recording stars who can't do anything without autotune. Musicians should be, well, musical...and not just the product of a lot of plastic surgery and a good PR department.

 

[jimmys69]

I must say that I just despise the term 'autotune'. It infers that the actual program by that name is used in the form of an effect that it became popular for by the hippy hoppy guys. I can't friggen stand that effect myself.

I would never use pitch correction in a way that is obvious. Only as a tool to make the best of a performance when time and money do not equate to getting it perfect.

A nudge here, and a sprinkle of seasoning there.

By the way, I feel I am really proficient with Melodyne. In my experience you can't make a shitty singer sound like a great one with pitch correction. It does not work that way. You can however take some rough edges off an otherwise great performance of a really good singer.

 

[RFR]

I have a freind proficient with melodyne.
He's gotten real good to where he has to tell me where he has used it.

I can't tell. I guess that's the magic of using something right.

 

[jimmys69]

I have a freind proficient with melodyne.
He's gotten real good to where he has to tell me where he has used it.

I can't tell. I guess that's the magic of using something right.

I wish I didn't have to use it. But, when push comes to shove and the record has a budget. I spend a bunch of 'geek' time editing vocals.

I must say that unless users have experience with the full version of Melodyne Editor, it is hard to explain what it is capable of. If used right and the performance is already good, it can make such a big difference. It isn't just about correcting pitch. If the performance sucks? Well...

 

[miroslav]

By the way, I feel I am really proficient with Melodyne. In my experience you can't make a shitty singer sound like a great one with pitch correction. It does not work that way. You can however take some rough edges off an otherwise great performance of a really good singer.

Right.
Contrary to what some seem to think...it's not easy to take an absolutely lousy singer and make 'em sound great.
It doesn't work that way.
However, when used like a "tweaking" process...it can smooth out minor issues and make the overall result more presentable.

I went with Waves Tune...which is very much like Melodyne. It's like a 50/50 thing between them, so no bad choice either way.
I think my DAW (Samplitude ProX) may be planning to integrate Melodyne right into the app...and if that happens, I'll be able to work with them side-by-side...but hopefully the integration of Melodyne would be more robust and tightly connected to the DAW. Waves Tune is good, but it's a Rewire thing, and sometimes when freezing/bouncing the track, you can get artifacts, but overall it's actually quite good and can do very transparent correction if you massage it just right and don't try to pull off crazy stuff (like I said, it doesn't work that way, it's not magic).

 

[jimmys69]

Right.
Contrary to what some seem to think...it's not easy to take an absolutely lousy singer and make 'em sound great.
It doesn't work that way.
However, when used like a "tweaking" process...it can smooth out minor issues and make the overall result more presentable.

I went with Waves Tune...which is very much like Melodyne. It's like a 50/50 thing between them, so no bad choice either way.
I think my DAW (Samplitude ProX) may be planning to integrate Melodyne right into the app...and if that happens, I'll be able to work with them side-by-side...but hopefully the integration of Melodyne would be more robust and tightly connected to the DAW. Waves Tune is good, but it's a Rewire thing, and sometimes when freezing/bouncing the track, you can get artifacts, but overall it's actually quite good and can do very transparent correction if you massage it just right and don't try to pull off crazy stuff (like I said, it doesn't work that way, it's not magic).

I have never tried Waves Tune, and do not know how it works. I may need to try a demo to see.