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

[Chaos351]

As someone who strictly records his own music, I can say that I do use Melodyne. I don't sing, but my band's singer does. He's a good singer, can hit all the notes, but sometimes I feel (especially when double tracking) that they could be cleaned up. I try not to make it SUPER obvious, but I do want it to sound on point.

I don't see the point in limiting yourself. Yeah, it's horribly overused in pop music, but I feel it does have merit elsewhere. Like many things, it's best when used in moderation. In a perfect world, we'd be recording with all analogue gear, real drums, real guitar amps, "real" vocals, real pianos, and real everything else. We don't live in that world anymore, though. It's arguably for the better or the worst, however I personally like that your average Joe can make a decent sounding record now.

 

[Mickster]

If there was a program that corrected guitar leads.........when a guitar player played a wrong note in a live (or even recorded) performance.........would that be cheating? I'd say so. The right / correct note was never played by the player. EQ.....Compression.....Reverb and Delay do not alter the base performance. They only enhance. If enhancement is cheating.......well then.........what isn't???

 

[jimmys69]

If there was a program that corrected guitar leads.........when a guitar player played a wrong note in a live (or even recorded) performance.........would that be cheating? I'd say so. The right / correct note was never played by the player. EQ.....Compression.....Reverb and Delay do not alter the base performance. They only enhance. If enhancement is cheating.......well then.........what isn't???

Umm, the full version of Melodyne can change notes within a guitar chord. I fixed an accidental open 'A' in a live acoustic performance for a guy I met on this forum that spent his life savings to go to the UK from his home in Australia.

Is that cheating to save a once in a lifetime event from being ruined by a accidental performance?

Killed the whole thing there huh? lol

All of our plug-ins are just tools. Just the same as outboard gear. Use what you need to create a tone or change it. It doesn't matter how you get there. Calling them a cheat is just not cool. It is all a cheat. Unless you are in the room with any particular musician, then you have already cheated by recording it and playing it back for others no? That isn't natural...

I am not here to judge. Not my place...

 

[BroKen_H]

I'm a songwriter. I'm NOT a singer/songwriter. If my stuff is ever going to get someone's attention vocals have to be tweaked. I'm not trying to sell my music and go on tour as some great vocalist. I want people who DO to hear my music and say, "Hey, cool tune and I could sing that amazing!" or whatever...
Anyway, if I want to have a chance of someone ever hearing and liking one of my songs enough to perform it, I'm going to need them to WANT to hear it all the way through.

 

[Chaos351]

If there was a program that corrected guitar leads.........when a guitar player played a wrong note in a live (or even recorded) performance.........would that be cheating? I'd say so. The right / correct note was never played by the player. EQ.....Compression.....Reverb and Delay do not alter the base performance. They only enhance. If enhancement is cheating.......well then.........what isn't???

Do they not alter the performance though? The original performance, ie the guitar signal, didn't include the EQ, compression, reverb, and delay unless they were recorded through the mic at the time the performance was recorded. The use of Melodyne and Autotune arguably only enhance the vocal performance (Or other instruments). The purists out there will disagree with that statement, of course, but at the end of the day they do make the pitch of the vocals (or other instruments used in it) more in tune with how they should be. Is it lazy on the performer's end? Sure, but it can make an alright take sound good.

 

[timvracer]

So? Why do you care? Folks are making music, especially at home - we have tools to make it sound better. People enjoy listening to it.

Why not? I just don't get this perspective.

If there was a program that corrected guitar leads.........when a guitar player played a wrong note in a live (or even recorded) performance.........would that be cheating? I'd say so. The right / correct note was never played by the player. EQ.....Compression.....Reverb and Delay do not alter the base performance. They only enhance. If enhancement is cheating.......well then.........what isn't???

 

[jimmys69]

So? Why do you care? Folks are making music, especially at home - we have tools to make it sound better. People enjoy listening to it.

Why not? I just don't get this perspective.

Different perspectives and opinions. It what makes us human.

Some like purity of a performance. I surely do. But...

Then there are some that could use a bit of help to make a project sound as good as it can be in a limited budget. That is what musicians pay me for. Myself having a 'fairly adequate home studio', I am dealing with all types of musicians with different levels of talent. I am acting as and engineer/producer most of the time. I use the tools that I have to make the performance and outcome of the production as good as I can possibly make it with what I am capable of. Most clients do not have the budget/time to sing every line over and over until it is absolute perfection. Nor am I payed by a major label to take the time to do that.

That being said I am personally ecstatic when a singer comes in that needs no pitch correction. But that just is not what happens the majority of projects I have worked on. So a nudge here, a shift there-presto! Perfect vocal.

I also have those that demand to have no vocal correction because they believe it is cheating. That's fine with me. Though I must admit I've added a smidgen sometimes if I feel something is just not good and the client never knows. Shh...


That being said I do not ever want to hear a live performance lip synced or tuned on the spot. Now that to me is cheating. Either do your best or go home. And don't charge me to see you fake it. I also love to see super talented musicians have some flaws when they perform live. Keeps it feeling 'real and personal'.


Just my opinion though. Others have a right to theirs as well. I don't argue with them. Different strokes for different folks. All good.

 

[timvracer]

Yes, great perspective. I would never presume to tell someone that must use pitch correction, I just have an issue with those who condescend to those who do.

 

[fat_fleet]

If there was a program that corrected guitar leads.........when a guitar player played a wrong note in a live (or even recorded) performance.........would that be cheating? I'd say so. The right / correct note was never played by the player.

Believe it or not, there's software out there that makes it possible to program entire drum performances that never happened. I'd say correcting a few wonky notes in a real performance must sit at a somewhat lower level of deception, no?

 

[BroKen_H]

One of my most liked and commented on (tone and playing) guitar solos was completely midi...played on a piano.

 

[famous beagle]

Yes the whole thing is entirely subjective. The MIDI thing is really interesting because a lot of people consider that cheating --- writing and recording a part on an instrument that you can't play yourself. My response to that is this: Ok, well if that's cheating, then I guess Mozart, Brahms, Beethoven, and Stravinksy, etc. were all cheaters, because they certainly wrote for many instruments they couldn't play. Granted, they could play a few, but they certainly couldn't play all of them.

That being said, Autotune certainly feels like cheating to me, which is why I don't use it. The same goes with editing (moving) guitar notes and things like that. That feels like cheating to me as well, so I don't do that. If I make a mistake, I'll do another take until I get something that sounds good to me. But having the computer fix it for me feels like having someone else do my homework for me. Sure, I may get a good grade, but I didn't learn anything. Yeah, the vocal may sound better, but I didn't improve as a vocalist.

I don't consider things like reverb, EQ, compression, etc. as cheating because recording, as someone else pointed out, is already an unnatural thing. But the actual performances will remain regardless of where/how they're recorded. They'll sound different of course, because of the environment, but you're still recording that same performance.

Now you can chase the purist thing as far as you want to go. Saying that someone is not allowed to use EQ, compression, or effects is fine, but where do you draw the line? Can they use different kinds of microphones? Can they place them in different spots? Can they use more than one mic? If not, then which mic do they have to use? Etc., etc. So it's kind of a rabbit hole to me. Therefore, you just have to decide for yourself what's acceptable to you and where the line is (if there is one).

To me, the biggest point is that I don't think all these digital tools are doing our musicianship any favors at all. And that's one of the big, overarching ideas about all this editing power. A lot people say things like, "For me, I like the idea that the average Joe can make a good-sounding record." That's a really interesting statement when you think about it. One of the reasons that the general level of musicianship has slipped so far today is because of this digital editing power. Back in the 30s, 40s, 50s, when machines couldn't fix it for you, the only way to even get into the position of making a record at all was to be really good.

Having machines fix our performances for us makes us worse musicians on the whole, even though the recordings give the opposite indication. It's like Photoshopping magazine covers. I mean, lots of celebrities have come forward now saying things like, "I don't look like that." This is directly because they aren't comfortable with someone passing off a doctored version of them as the real thing. It creates unrealistic expectations that they're supposed to live up to.

It's the same thing with music now. It's become this homogenized, glossed-over Photoshopped version of itself in which the end result is more important than how it was obtained. If you take that kind of thinking to the limit, you get the kind of reality present in the movie Surrogate, in which people just lay at home in virtual reality machines all day while their surrogate clone androids went out in the world and lived their lives for them. It was a great movie, but a truly disturbing notion.

Broken H mentioned that he's a songwriter -- not a performer -- and therefore uses the tools to help make his songs more attractive to potential artists. That's fine, but there have been songwriters (not performers) for a long, long time, and they managed to get their songs heard without Autotune. I don't mean this as a dig at all, and I don't look down on anyone who chooses to use it. It doesn't sit well with me, so I don't use it, but to each his own.

 

[BroKen_H]

FB. The photoshop thing is a great example. Because adding a gold tinted filter to the lens makes them look like they don't, too, but no one usually argues there.
Honestly, I'm doing my best to make my tracks pristine. But also, honestly, I'm not going to do 60 takes to get a usable vocal...I'm just using the tools available to get a job done. Auto body mechanics have been sanding out dents for a long time, too. But they use orbital sanders and putty/glass now vs. hand sanding and lead filler in the 50s because the industry, the product, the tools, and the market have changed...

Having said that. There are a lot of shoddy auto body mechanics out there today that would not have survived in the field in the 50s. So, as much as it pains me to say so, I totally agree with your 5th paragraph. I'm slowly rebuilding the piano skills I used to have and learning some skills on the guitar. Drums and bass are still pretty solid, but won't stay there without practice. I need to lose enough weight and do enough exercise (vocal) and practice to get my voice back to where it was in the 70s-80s. That's the bottom line! Using autotune as a crutch is getting me past that hump, but it also slows me down as I'm not as pressed to do so...

 

[famous beagle]

FB. The photoshop thing is a great example. Because adding a gold tinted filter to the lens makes them look like they don't, too, but no one usually argues there.
Honestly, I'm doing my best to make my tracks pristine. But also, honestly, I'm not going to do 60 takes to get a usable vocal...I'm just using the tools available to get a job done. Auto body mechanics have been sanding out dents for a long time, too. But they use orbital sanders and putty/glass now vs. hand sanding and lead filler in the 50s because the industry, the product, the tools, and the market have changed...

Having said that. There are a lot of shoddy auto body mechanics out there today that would not have survived in the field in the 50s. So, as much as it pains me to say so, I totally agree with your 5th paragraph. I'm slowly rebuilding the piano skills I used to have and learning some skills on the guitar. Drums and bass are still pretty solid, but won't stay there without practice. I need to lose enough weight and do enough exercise (vocal) and practice to get my voice back to where it was in the 70s-80s. That's the bottom line! Using autotune as a crutch is getting me past that hump, but it also slows me down as I'm not as pressed to do so...

Yeah I view the filters on Photoshop like EQ and effects on music. The sucking away 30 pounds of fat with Photoshop is more like Autotune and quantizing to me.

You're right that the tools have changed with the industry. A construction company wouldn't be able to compete today if they didn't use power tools and insisted on doing everything the "old fashioned way."

And the line is certainly blurring with regards to what's acceptable to some and not to others. To me, personally, using a computer to fix my performance deficiencies --- whether it's autotuning a vocal or moving some notes of a bass line or guitar solo --- is crossing the line.

Think about it this way. Voice synthesis has been around for a while. I mean ... I don't know how long exactly, but computers have been able to "talk" for decades. For a long time, it sounded completely robotic. Nowadays, it sounds much more real. For me, it doesn't sound like too far of a stretch to imagine a time, not too distant in the future, where this might happen:

1. You sing a few phrases into a computer so it can analyze your voice.
2. You type the lyrics and let the computer know where they go in the song.
3. You program or "play" the vocal notes using a MIDI keyboard (or whatever the interface is by then).
4. The computer "sings" the song for you.
5. You edit and fine tune the performance --- i.e., lengthen a note here, add some vibrato here, etc.--- to your liking.

Basically, it's the same we've been able to do for drums, piano, etc. with MIDI for decades. Only now it'll be for voice.

Would people consider that "cheating?" The fact that you didn't even sing the song at all?

A lot of us use excuses now for using fake drums, such as:
I don't have the ability to mic a full drum kit.
I don't know any drummers.
I don't have anywhere to record drums, etc.
I can't play drums.

What will be our excuse for having the computer sing the song for us?
I don't have enough money for a nice mic.
I don't have anywhere suitable for recording nice vocals.
I can't sing well enough and don't know any singers that'll do it for me.

When will it end? How many tools will be acceptable for us to use when creating our music? Computers have already started "composing" music. It won't be too long before they'll be able to do it well. What's involved then? What do we do? Give it some parameters and let it go?

"I want a song about the struggles of the working man. It should be in 4/4 at 118 bpm. Ehh ... let's put it in E major. Give it some southern rock attitude, heavy on the guitars with a kick ass solo that includes a few really fast licks. Add some vocal harmonies in the chorus; you know the kind I like. Go!"

It's a really interesting topic.

 

[BroKen_H]

OTOH, If I ever hear a computer generated song that I really like. It won't stop me from really liking it, even if the song is 100% generated to make me like it. If it has all the elements of a song that I would really like, and they're played in a way that is pleasing to my ear, I'm going to like the song. Sorry, maybe that isn't how it should be, but there I am.

I really understand what you're saying. It isn't right. Taking the human element out of our music (quantizing, perfecting pitch and delivery) are a line that shouldn't be crossed...for the musician that is wanting his music to be pure. It's a sell out. It's a crutch. It keeps us from having to be (and sometimes, from being) quality musicians.

I'm not deluding myself into thinking that I'll be the next Michael Buble or "Christian Ozzy" like I get called a lot. I'm not a great singer. I just have some songs in my head I'd like to write. I'd like to do the best I can to get them recorded before the next set kicks in. People ask what the rush is...why do I feel I should kick these things through even if they're not perfect?
1) because there are more bursting at the dams in my brain trying to get out. If I don't get rid of some, others start building up like fire in my bones as the saying goes.
2) perfection is a fool's errand...you can chase your mixes' tails for decades and never get it "done." Retrack for 10 more years and I'll still have a note or what-not that isn't where I want it. and
3) I waited until I was 50 to START this process. I don't have that many good years before everything starts to fall apart and my ears are down to 12.5k, etc. and I've got a whole new skill set to learn to get these recordings "right"

If someone hears something they like from 5 years ago they aren't going to ask, "could you fix that up a bit so we can get a better feel for what you were after?" If they like it, they'll like it (imperfections and all). Let's be honest. If someone likes one of my songs, MY guitar solo is probably a placeholder for where they'll stick their own guitarist's solo. MY acoustic strumming will be replaced by the strumming of someone who actually plays acoustic guitar. Like I said, no delusions here...

But it's still personal decision and dependent on the use of the recording. Some want to record for others to hear their music. There are some greats around here, like Rami (who I'll use as I don't think he'll be back) who sings amazingly, plays EVERYTHING he wants to play well, writes great music and catchy lyrics. I would be AMAZED to hear he was autotuning or gridding. That's not him.
Yes, I want my music to be as pure as I can get it. Beyond that, if I can't get it where it needs to be, I'm going to find a way to get it there. Songwriters of the past payed (or begged) people who could sing to sing their songs for them. I'm just letting software help me with that.
I actually go play my drum beats out on a real drum set. Then I remember the drum beat and do my very best to program it in. Sounds odd, but that's the system I need to use for now.
I usually sing 4-6 takes and then comp (that would be cheating too, no?). Whatever still needs fixed gets autotuned.
I don't usually have a problem with bass lines or piano stuff. Two or three takes until I'm comfortable, and I usually take the entire last take, and honestly, if there's one off beat note in a three minute song, I don't beat myself up retracking the entire song, I just push that note closer to the grid.
But guitar work is my weakest link. I need 40-50 takes most of the time to get anything decent. I'll go three or four days wearing my wrist out trying to get that take. Then I'll still need to comp, sometimes phrase by phrase. I would LOVE to have someone doing my acoustic work for me. I've asked several times and only once did I get a taker (Thanks, Nick!) Yes, I'm getting better. Honestly, after 3 years I can play the midi guitar solo I wrote, but I'm not going back to retrack the solo...that song is done, and I really like the way it sounds. I still listen to all my songs every morning. I still like most of them

 

[timvracer]

Interesting what I am observing - It's clear that folks have different OBJECTIVES, and thus, clearly the use of tools will then vary.

Some have an objective/goal of musicianship, and they value that. As such, they don't appreciate tools that take away from one becoming better and more excellent at musicianship.

However, others are not concerned with that (it's a nice notion and all), but they want to achieve a vision for their MUSIC (not their musicianship), and as such, will use whatever tools get them to expressing the vision they have for their tunes.

I guess we should recognize that if our objectives are different, then there are probably going to be many areas of disagreement on tactics/tools, it's probably worth understanding the objective of someone with an alternative view.

 

[famous beagle]

Interesting what I am observing - It's clear that folks have different OBJECTIVES, and thus, clearly the use of tools will then vary.

Some have an objective/goal of musicianship, and they value that. As such, they don't appreciate tools that take away from one becoming better and more excellent at musicianship.

However, others are not concerned with that (it's a nice notion and all), but they want to achieve a vision for their MUSIC (not their musicianship), and as such, will use whatever tools get them to expressing the vision they have for their tunes.

I guess we should recognize that if our objectives are different, then there are probably going to be many areas of disagreement on tactics/tools, it's probably worth understanding the objective of someone with an alternative view.

Very well said. I think this is at the crux of our differences of opinion on the subject.

By the way some people phrase their argument, you can clearly see this. You'll hear people say things like:

Autotune is just a tool like any other to help your music sound better and more polished. Why not use it?

To which, I answer:
Because it prevents me from becoming a better musician and feels like cheating ... like someone doing my homework for me.

It's funny how both statements seems obvious to each person. They're both valid points.

 

[Chili]

Because it prevents me from becoming a better musician

I quite disagree. I know I've said this numerous times across the site and probably several in this thread, though it is probably buried back on page 1.

I feel that using Melodyne has helped me to sing better. When I hear how my tune is suppose to sound, I can practice until good enough to do it without tuning. My last few tunes have had no tuning (maybe there's an exception for some really high notes), and I am okay with how they turned out. I think tuning is a useful tool for practicing.

Now mind you, I still have some cringe worthy notes, but overall, I'm happy with my progress over the years.

 

[famous beagle]

I quite disagree. I know I've said this numerous times across the site and probably several in this thread, though it is probably buried back on page 1.

I feel that using Melodyne has helped me to sing better. When I hear how my tune is suppose to sound, I can practice until good enough to do it without tuning. My last few tunes have had no tuning (maybe there's an exception for some really high notes), and I am okay with how they turned out. I think tuning is a useful tool for practicing.

Now mind you, I still have some cringe worthy notes, but overall, I'm happy with my progress over the years.

Well that's a very interesting take, and I must admit you're the only person I've ever heard say that. To me, it's completely counterintuitive, but if it works for you, then that's all that matters!

 

[BroKen_H]

Honestly, to me, it sounds like Chili did a little "outside the box" thinking. I would never have thought that through, but it makes sense. I may even try that. Get my real vocals close enough by practicing with the "faked" vocals. Sounds reasonable, actually.

 

[TKeefe]

Been lucky enough to make some dough writing jingles and some soundtrack tunes. It is extremely competitive and sometimes you have to leave your personal preferences at the door. Your vocals better be in tune and sometimes deadlines, etc. cause you to reach for a tuning tool to fix a note here and there.

If you go beyond a semi-tone, you can usually hear the plug working and it's do again time. We also write and play a lot of tunes that stretch our real musical tastes to the max to get picked but that's another poll for another time.

TKeefe | Terry Keefe | Free Listening on SoundCloud