Autotune on live recordings

One of the things Fil, the YouTube creator referred to, does is distinguish between Auto-Tune and manual pitch correction. The difference is that with Auto-Tune, the computer decides what's off pitch and what to do with it. With manual correction such as what you can do with Melodyne, the engineer can choose what to fix, how to fix it and what to leave alone.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
One of the things Fil, the YouTube creator referred to, does is distinguish between Auto-Tune and manual pitch correction. The difference is that with Auto-Tune, the computer decides what's off pitch and what to do with it. With manual correction such as what you can do with Melodyne, the engineer can choose what to fix, how to fix it and what to leave alone.
Click to expand...
I use Melodyne and I can also apply a general setting to the entire file if I want. Any % between 1-100%, it'll move the detected sounds that much closer to a whole note. Sometimes I'll use it in that manner for a verse, like a 30% nudge, and other times I'll manually move a few notes around. It can also adjust the vibrato you've sung, say a long held note, and you can flatten that vibrato line a little.
 
andrushkiwt said:
I use Melodyne and I can also apply a general setting to the entire file if I want. Any % between 1-100%, it'll move the detected sounds that much closer to a whole note. Sometimes I'll use it in that manner for a verse, like a 30% nudge, and other times I'll manually move a few notes around. It can also adjust the vibrato you've sung, say a long held note, and you can flatten that vibrato line a little.
Click to expand...
Right, Melodyne can be applied with automatic settings to the whole recording or just phrases, but it also allows more manual control. That's the distinction Fil was making.

Also, I think it's fair to apply a different standard of performance to professionals than to home recordists. If someone can't give a performance that needs little to no correction, what are they doing presenting themselves as a professional?
 
Here I have to disagree. Those 'names' that get everywhere either mime, or are heavily autotuned are professional performers. Their status and bank balance says this is correct. Other decent singers really struggle live. Remember thos 60s/70s hippy types who used to sing with a hand cupped over one ear because they needed something to pitch to. One time on stage at a festival, they really messed up my in-ear mix - I had me, my bass and the drums and had to play the entire set like that, and I pulled one ear out to try to hear. One song had loads of very low notes on the low strings and I played it in Eb not E on my 5 string - I only knew when I looked down at my hand on the last note - as I was singing throughout and could not look down till the end. I'm told the singing was in tune but my bass was a semi-tone out the entire song and I did not notice because I couldn't hear properly. Autotune would have failed in this example, but I'm convinced that with careful application it's a positive thing, live, as long as it's a long way from the cher setting.
 
By "professional" I meant a professional singer, not just someone who mimes singing (which is fine with me if the advertising is clear about it). What makes live music interesting* is the risk of failure. A few imperfections here and there show that the musicians and singers are actually taking that risk. If you want a perfect performance, studio recordings are available.

*To me. This is just personal preference.
 
Last edited:
TalismanRich said:
If you're going to make your living as a professional singer, you really should be able to sing without every note being corrected
Click to expand...
I'd go one brutal stage further and say that if you are going to make a living as a professional singer, you should be able to hit every note.
And even if you're not a professional, if you sing on a home recording or even in an amateur choir or in a church service in front of 27 people that aren't rigidly critiquing you, you should be able to hit the notes. Can you imagine the bass player saying they can't hit G ? :spank:
Naturally, there will be times when one misses a note. It's not a big deal.
I am a singing purist though. I'd rather have arguments with the singer and eventually they hit the note, than use autotune, although I think fixing one obviously bad note is acceptable. It's perhaps not rational, given that I'd use all kinds of artifice in just about every other aspect of recording.
But using it live is particularly anathema to me. It's like using a condom when you've already had the vasectomy !
 
I just knew someone would make a comment about women and miss the point of the analogy. And you're the one person I would have guessed it would be, but I didn't allow myself to go there because I'm a gentleman.
 
I have been using Waves plug in, for me when I am doing a original, I really need it. As I am trying to find the vocal sound, I am all over the place. I use the autotune to see where I am off because, after a few takes of wrong, it begins to sound right. I am less objective. So I use the plugin to fix and get it closer to where it probably should be, then I can do another take with a better reference.

I don't have an issue using it to "touch up" here or there. I put it at about 90%, if I don't use some correction, I have no good point of reference. After a few takes with the vocal correction, the plugin is hardly being used, but it still makes some correction.

A recording is not like a live performance, if there is a mistake, you will hear it forever. Live, half the time most wouldn't even notice it or quickly forget it.
 
rob aylestone said:
There's a guy on YouTube who extracts vocals from tracks and then analyses them and his favourite 'hit' is autotune. It seems he's discovered that live recordings are now being remastered including autotuning - so he's singled out Michael Buble and Simon and Garfunkel as examples of this 'terrible' destructive process and how dreadful it is.

He used an example of the orginal Art Garfunkel extracted audio where he did not hit the right note, but the later version had fixed it. I prefer the fixed version personally. He also used a bad example of Buble where clearly the autotune was excessively applied and it was switched off half-way through the live broadcast.

I've not had any examples of singers - especially the better ones where they've not wanted to take advantage. One opera singer, when shown the technique in comping had a very exciting time, highlighting the best phrases from each take - to a degree I could not do, so think very subtle phrasing on certain words. We put together the best out of lots of takes, and then she sat next to me and tweaked all the tuning. She was over the moon with the results, and actually a little shocked how certain words were slightly out of tune.

I'm very happy to condemn over use, or badly done tuning - but what studio artiste would want live work that was not as good?

Extracting vocals can be done now with decent quality in most cases, but then the artistes are getting slammed when the assistance is revealed?

Fair or not fair comment? What do we think here, being recording folk?

The fella with the videos is this one.

Click to expand...

I've been playing in bands since 1965 and I have a lot of recordings. Some Of the ones from my early days are not quite up to par. I recently took a 1968 mono recording split, it into drums, bass, guitar, vocals. The music isn't that bad but the vocalist was flatter than a pancake. So I used Melodyne to fix the vocals. Then I was able to remix everything into stereo add some delay etc. Now I have a recording that I can play for others without cringing. This was also a great learning experience. I have nothing against fixing some errors in order to save an otherwise great recording. I do have issues turning a Mrs. Miller into a Streisand. Oh for you young people, Google "Mrs. Miller".
 
That's my feeling - there are lots of well known sub-par performances - I heard one of mine and cringed - I think making less cringeworthy recordings is important - I'm not convinced that forensically investigating recordings is that positive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top