gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
I mean, if we are taking about "fake VS real"...why is it OK to take a thin sounding track and fatten it up with EQ, adjust its level irregularities with compression, de-ess the lispy stuff out, and toss in a tube/tape plug to add some character to it....
...but god no, we draw the line at ANY pitch correction...?
I tend to agree that there is a kind of evangelical aversion to using pitch correction that contrasts with the amount of manipulation that is done to the sound using others forms of digital massaging.
There is a difference though. With pitch correction, you are disguising, perhaps misrepresenting, a singer's ability as a singer, whereas EQ, compression, and so on may improve the overall sound, but they don't disguise the performance.
I see recording as having two functions: documentary and creative (which don't always play nice together)..
With documentary, the aim is to recreate faithfully the performance. This is typically the aim when recording classical concerts for example. Some people, when they come to be recorded, want the sound to be as close as possible to how they sound live.
With creative, the recording process is seen not so much documenting a performance, but as a means of exploring musical ideas. Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was a great example of this. Some people, when they come to me to be recorded, are not interested in recreating how they sound live, but are more interested in creating musical landscapes.
When the creative objective is foremost, then the process is a means to an end, and all that counts is the end, and any form of sound manipulation is fair game in achieving that end.
I regard pitch correction as just another tool in the arsenal of tools available to a recorder. Like any other tool, it can be misused, or overused. I'll use it if someone wants me to, and I'll set it aside if they don't want me to use it.