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

[RAMI]

I think the mods should set up a weekly auto-neg-rep for you...that should cover most of your weekly forum indiscretions.

Maybe if you collect enough and get ahead of yourself....you'll earn a free week where you can cause all kinds of trouble without punishment.

I like it. Rep credit. In this economy, it would be quite a perk.

 

[miroslav]

Like a pay-it-forward neg-rep bank.

 

[Greg_L]

You're one of the outliers Greg, so you don't count in the results.

Oh, I count, motherfucker. I count for at least three people. Maybe four. More on weekends.

 

[zed32]

I use that shit a lot!

 

[4tracker]

One might say that anything is valid in the creation of an overall piece of art.

I think this is true. If it sounds good, who cares how it got to that point?

The problem with the auto tuning is that it usually doesn't sound good.

 

[Bobbsy]

I wish you'd posted that on the first page 4tracker. It could have saved us six pages of drivel!

 

[famous beagle]

I think this is true. If it sounds good, who cares how it got to that point?

The problem with the auto tuning is that it usually doesn't sound good.

Well, this thread is getting far too close to being resolved. Time to stoke the fire again.

I think the problem is what it's doing to the music community as a whole. It's the dumbing down of the collective musical talent. You now have mega pop stars that really can't sing well without autotune. You hear them live and, assuming they're not lip-syncing, it's a pretty rude awakening. That was not the case in the days of yore. No autotune means the following:

1. Better singers getting signed by labels (i.e., those who had really put in the time to learn their craft and/or those a**holes who just happened to be blessed with amazing talent ) because they (generally) wouldn't sign someone who couldn't sing well.
2. More vocal takes in the studio to get the right take because the computer couldn't fix it for you. This translates into more practice in general, which perpetuates better singing ability.

Instead, you have people getting signed who really shouldn't be in the first place because they're not really ready, and they're not even made to get keeper takes in the studio because, as long as they get 85% there (depending on the genre, obviously), the computer can do the rest for them.

This is not to say that we don't have great singers around today; of course we do. But we have many more that really have no business being stars based on that ability because they're not capable of sounding the way they do without the computer.

I could say the same thing with regards to computer editing---i.e., nudging notes forward or backward. It's just hurting the musicianship of the player.

And IMHO, the problem with "if it sounds good, it is good" is this: How far do you want to take that? We're living in more of a paint-by-numbers musical world than ever before, and it shows no sign of slowing down. We work with drum patterns, we use bassline samples, we use keyboard riff or guitar riff samples, etc. It's already been possible for a while now for someone who can't play or sing a lick of music to "compose" a piece of music by doing nothing but clicking and dragging with a mouse. It won't be long before you won't even need to do that. You'll just be able to say "I want a funky groove in E minor at 90 bpm," and the computer will be able to generate something for you. You could then say, "I don't like the B section; try something else," etc. Before you know it, you'll have a completed piece of music. At that point, can anyone even take credit for it but the computer?

 

[Greg_L]

And IMHO, the problem with "if it sounds good, it is good" is this: How far do you want to take that? We're living in more of a paint-by-numbers musical world than ever before, and it shows no sign of slowing down. We work with drum patterns, we use bassline samples, we use keyboard riff or guitar riff samples, etc. It's already been possible for a while now for someone who can't play or sing a lick of music to "compose" a piece of music by doing nothing but clicking and dragging with a mouse.

Yup, I think it's sickening and pathetic.

 

[4tracker]

Well, this thread is getting far too close to being resolved. Time to stoke the fire again.

I think the problem is what it's doing to the music community as a whole. It's the dumbing down of the collective musical talent. You now have mega pop stars that really can't sing well without autotune. You hear them live and, assuming they're not lip-syncing, it's a pretty rude awakening. That was not the case in the days of yore. No autotune means the following:

1. Better singers getting signed by labels (i.e., those who had really put in the time to learn their craft and/or those a**holes who just happened to be blessed with amazing talent ) because they (generally) wouldn't sign someone who couldn't sing well.
2. More vocal takes in the studio to get the right take because the computer couldn't fix it for you. This translates into more practice in general, which perpetuates better singing ability.

Instead, you have people getting signed who really shouldn't be in the first place because they're not really ready, and they're not even made to get keeper takes in the studio because, as long as they get 85% there (depending on the genre, obviously), the computer can do the rest for them.

This is not to say that we don't have great singers around today; of course we do. But we have many more that really have no business being stars based on that ability because they're not capable of sounding the way they do without the computer.

I could say the same thing with regards to computer editing---i.e., nudging notes forward or backward. It's just hurting the musicianship of the player.

And IMHO, the problem with "if it sounds good, it is good" is this: How far do you want to take that? We're living in more of a paint-by-numbers musical world than ever before, and it shows no sign of slowing down. We work with drum patterns, we use bassline samples, we use keyboard riff or guitar riff samples, etc. It's already been possible for a while now for someone who can't play or sing a lick of music to "compose" a piece of music by doing nothing but clicking and dragging with a mouse. It won't be long before you won't even need to do that. You'll just be able to say "I want a funky groove in E minor at 90 bpm," and the computer will be able to generate something for you. You could then say, "I don't like the B section; try something else," etc. Before you know it, you'll have a completed piece of music. At that point, can anyone even take credit for it but the computer?

Hm, I just find this argument "stuffy" and elitist. Again, who cares how they get from A to B so long as they get there and B is pleasing?

Here's an example: I'm a writer (Now I've opened myself to a strawman where you can attack my grammar and spelling! Hey, I did not edit this comment at all!). I've written a novel. I wrote it in MS Word, which corrected spelling errors. Does that mean I'm not a writer? Did you know the man considered the greatest American author, F. Scott Fitzgerald, was a notoriously ATROCIOUS speller? His editor freaked when he got the final manuscript. His editor also went through and corrected all of it.

Now my wrists have been hurting me lately, and I am thinking of using narration/dictation software for my new book. Say I just talk, and the computer dictates that into MS Word, and MS Word then corrects any errors. Does that mean I didn't write a book?

At the end of the day, something has been created. You wrote books, Beagle. Did you have the software correct errors?

If you want to take this purely to the analog world, take an instrument like an accordion or reed organ where you push one button and get a chord. Well, that is a short cut. A "real" musician would have to hold down 2 or three notes, but now it's just 1 button! Is the argument "he took a shortcut, he's not a real musician"? Again, I find that elitist.

Because:

a. Maybe he never claimed to be a musician. Maybe he just likes to make sounds, songs, art.
b. If his final product is good and I want to listen to it over and over, I don't care how it was made
c. Maybe he is a great songwriter but not a great musician. Should the world never hear his songs?

Here's what Jim Morrison said on the future of music IN 1969!! Is he scared by it? No. He embraces it. Skip to the 50 second mark if you don't want to hear the entire thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWmMVmiGJD0

The one valid part of your argument is that it tricks fans. If they go to a live show and the person is awful, that IS a problem. Those who rely on machines should probably just remain recording artists and not play live. I think that's the only valid criticism. Everything else sounds like elitism or fear of technology. I voted #3 that it's a tool to be used when appropriate. I'd rather get takes down without the help of anything, but if the autotune transparently corrects something I'd use it. The problem for me is it is rarely transparent -- as others noted, it can be for one or two notes, but if you do an entire song with it there are always robotic, glitchy parts. And forget it for anything polyphonic.

Beagle, one more final note: where would "multing" a vocal fall in your perspective? Because that's been around for a long time. Even singers "from back when singers could sing" had to do handfuls of takes. Were they cheating their talent level? Could they duplicate that exact vocal live? If not, what does that mean? If you make a topic and ask if anyone blends many different vocal takes, would there be such backlash? I doubt it, but why?

 

[4tracker]

Yup, I think it's sickening and pathetic.

Then you should only work with virtuosos. Really, this is all your right and you can work with whomever you want. If something made me sick, I wouldn't work with it or the people who use it. It's a very simple solution.

 

[famous beagle]

Hm, I just find this argument "stuffy" and elitist. Again, who cares how they get from A to B so long as they get there and B is pleasing?

Here's an example: I'm a writer (Now I've opened myself to a strawman where you can attack my grammar and spelling! Hey, I did not edit this comment at all!). I've written a novel. I wrote it in MS Word, which corrected spelling errors. Does that mean I'm not a writer? Did you know the man considered the greatest American author, F. Scott Fitzgerald, was a notoriously ATROCIOUS speller? His editor freaked when he got the final manuscript. His editor also went through and corrected all of it.

Now my wrists have been hurting me lately, and I am thinking of using narration/dictation software for my new book. Say I just talk, and the computer dictates that into MS Word, and MS Word then corrects any errors. Does that mean I didn't write a book?

At the end of the day, something has been created. You wrote books, Beagle. Did you have the software correct errors?

If you want to take this purely to the analog world, take an instrument like an accordion or reed organ where you push one button and get a chord. Well, that is a short cut. A "real" musician would have to hold down 2 or three notes, but now it's just 1 button! Is the argument "he took a shortcut, he's not a real musician"? Again, I find that elitist.

Because:

a. Maybe he never claimed to be a musician. Maybe he just likes to make sounds, songs, art.
b. If his final product is good and I want to listen to it over and over, I don't care how it was made
c. Maybe he is a great songwriter but not a great musician. Should the world never hear his songs?

Here's what Jim Morrison said on the future of music IN 1969!! Is he scared by it? No. He embraces it. Skip to the 50 second mark if you don't want to hear the entire thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWmMVmiGJD0

The one valid part of your argument is that it tricks fans. If they go to a live show and the person is awful, that IS a problem. Those who rely on machines should probably just remain recording artists and not play live. I think that's the only valid criticism. Everything else sounds like elitism or fear of technology. I voted #3 that it's a tool to be used when appropriate. I'd rather get takes down without the help of anything, but if the autotune transparently corrects something I'd use it. The problem for me is it is rarely transparent -- as others noted, it can be for one or two notes, but if you do an entire song with it there are always robotic, glitchy parts. And forget it for anything polyphonic.

Beagle, one more final note: where would "multing" a vocal fall in your perspective? Because that's been around for a long time. Even singers "from back when singers could sing" had to do handfuls of takes. Were they cheating their talent level? Could they duplicate that exact vocal live? If not, what does that mean? If you make a topic and ask if anyone blends many different vocal takes, would there be such backlash? I doubt it, but why?

The Morrison clip was 1:10; I think I can make it through the whole thing. First of all, he wasn't really "predicting" anything. Moog synths had been available since the mid-60s, and people had been composing on them for years by that time. Wendy Carlos' seminal Switched-on Bach came out in 1968. And people had been experimenting with tapes since the mid 1940s. But I digress...

I'm not trying to be an elitist. I don't work with black and white thinking. I think it's a continuum. What's acceptable to me may not be to you, and so on. I've stated this in other parts of this thread. I don't manipulate my tracks via pitch correction or time correction. I do use multiple takes. That's acceptable to me, but others may feel that if they can't record something (a vocal, guitar solo, etc.) in one continuous take then they shouldn't be doing it. That's up to them. Now, I'm not going to punch-in every single note of a guitar solo or vocal separately. But I am willing to punch in. Multi-track recording is already unnatural anyway, so I'm obviously not a purist or afraid of technology.

I certainly see your point with regards to at what point is credit duly or unduly given. To answer your questions about the writing: No that doesn't mean that Fitzgerald wasn't a great author; it means he wasn't a great speller. Just like someone can be a great musician but not be a great singer. The way you get better at something is to practice it. Autotune works against that philosophy.

I'm not one of those that's strictly against using samples, MIDI, etc. I mean, there are those who think that having a VST play something via MIDI that you can't is cheating. I don't feel that way. If I did, then I'd also have to concede that Mozart and Beethoven were hacks because they wrote for instruments of the orchestra that they couldn't play.

So I'm not disagreeing with you on that. But if you take your line of thinking to the extreme: Imagine someone pushing one button on a computer and the result being a fully-realized piece of recorded music. You may say, "as long as the result is there, I don't care how it came to be." And that's fine. But does the person who pushed that one button deserve the same amount of respect and credit as someone who composed their melodies, played their instruments, engineered the recording, etc.? If a computer can write a piece of music that can fool people, what's the point of us doing it anymore?

And I'm not trying to be a smart ass here. I'm sincerely asking these questions.

---------- Update ----------

Then you should only work with virtuosos. Really, this is all your right and you can work with whomever you want. If something made me sick, I wouldn't work with it or the people who use it. It's a very simple solution.

Again, though, he expressed his opinion. He thinks it's sickening and pathetic. Others may not, but that's the way he feels.

 

[DM60]

So I'm not disagreeing with you on that. But if you take your line of thinking to the extreme: Imagine someone pushing one button on a computer and the result being a fully-realized piece of recorded music. You may say, "as long as the result is there, I don't care how it came to be." And that's fine. But does the person who pushed that one button deserve the same amount of respect and credit as someone who composed their melodies, played their instruments, engineered the recording, etc.? If a computer can write a piece of music that can fool people, what's the point of us doing it anymore?

This is where some are trying to take it, algorithm based music. I see this in the works for the last 20 years. I also see streaming sites who are already using algorithms to predict music tastes (based on your liking of this, try these bands) type thing. Based on listening results, there could be some pattern that emerges that a programmer can use to create music (one button), which would be very sad. But to underscore your point, one button music creation would be a travesty I think everyone would agree with.

 

[Greg_L]

Then you should only work with virtuosos. Really, this is all your right and you can work with whomever you want. If something made me sick, I wouldn't work with it or the people who use it. It's a very simple solution.

Wrong. You don't have to be a "virtuoso" to perform your parts on a recording. You just have to be competent. It used to be that you didn't even walk through a studios doors if you didn't even halfway have your shit together. Not anymore. Hoo-fucking-ray for crutch technology. The point your missing is that real talent, not virtuosity, just talent, gets more and more hidden, marginalized, and buried under the mountains up crap that fix-everything-in-the-DAW-mentality recording provides. You'd think that talent could rise to the top, but it can't because there's just so much shit out there now, and what's worse is some people accept it as the new normal, and even worse still, they fucking celebrate it. That's sickening and pathetic.

 

[4tracker]

So I'm not disagreeing with you on that. But if you take your line of thinking to the extreme: Imagine someone pushing one button on a computer and the result being a fully-realized piece of recorded music. You may say, "as long as the result is there, I don't care how it came to be." And that's fine. But does the person who pushed that one button deserve the same amount of respect and credit as someone who composed their melodies, played their instruments, engineered the recording, etc.? If a computer can write a piece of music that can fool people, what's the point of us doing it anymore?

But someone could choose to push the button and not get respect, but still have a great song. And someone else can choose to learn how to play every instrument, and...still have a great song. At the end of the day, they both have great songs. Does it matter how they got there? Probably only to musicians who care about whether the guy can play or not. To a listener or average fan of music, they aren't very interested in respect. They're interested in listening and enjoying music. So while you or I might marvel at someone who does it all and does it well, the average listener cares about end product -- does it sound good or not? Do I want to listen to it again or not? Even as a huge fan of music and many different styles from delta blues to underground to world music, and one who plays instruments, that's still all I care about. Do I want to listen again or not? I only dig in to learn how it was recorded if/when I already love it.

I think you can have both:

1. Guy who pushes a button and has a song.
2. Guy who actually writes a song and plays instruments.

The latter will have more "cred" with musicians for sure. I'm not against the first group, though, because they (or their computers algo) might create good songs. I'd need more info on this algo and whether it's random or not. But even if it is random, you can then make the argument that if that person didn't push the button at that exact moment the great song the PC produced would not have been produced. That gets into philosophy a bit. Weird.

On the flipside, though, there are many musicians who can't play well or sing well (e.g. Dylan, Beck, Lou Reed, etc) yet are historic due to their songwriting and melodies.

I just think it takes all kinds and sometimes a bizarre trait is beautiful (just like Adrien Brody's bizarre nose!). Perfect music begins to sound sterile, and I'd say this gets more to the core problem of autotune -- it sucks spirit, style, individuality out of the recordings. But that's another subjective thing so probably not worth discussing. These conversations just go in circles and I can tell we're on the cusp of that! Love ya, Beagle.

 

[4tracker]

Wrong. You don't have to be a "virtuoso" to perform your parts on a recording. You just have to be competent. It used to be that you didn't even walk through a studios doors if you didn't even halfway have your shit together. Not anymore. Hoo-fucking-ray for crutch technology. The point your missing is that real talent, not virtuosity, just talent, gets more and more hidden, marginalized, and buried under the mountains up crap that fix-everything-in-the-DAW-mentality recording provides. You'd think that talent could rise to the top, but it can't because there's just so much shit out there now, and what's worse is some people accept it as the new normal, and even worse still, they fucking celebrate it. That's sickening and pathetic.

I guess I can't relate because I don't work in a studio. Maybe if I did I could understand your frustration. But can't you just decide who you want to work with?

 

[Greg_L]

I guess I can't relate because I don't work in a studio. Maybe if I did I could understand your frustration. But can't you just decide who you want to work with?

Sure, and I do. But it's not just that...for my own listening pleasure, just sounding good in the speakers isn't enough. I want to believe that what I'm hearing has actually happened. I want a real performance. I want to believe that whatever I'm listening to can be performed live by whoever recorded it. I don't want to listen to "recording artists". I want to listen to people that can take it out and play it.

 

[4tracker]

Sure, and I do. But it's not just that...for my own listening pleasure, just sounding good in the speakers isn't enough. I want to believe that what I'm hearing has actually happened. I want a real performance. I want to believe that whatever I'm listening to can be performed live by whoever recorded it. I don't want to listen to "recording artists". I want to listen to people that can take it out and play it.

So just record those types of bands in your studio, or record live bands, or hell, even go out on the road and archive all the awesome, undiscovered talent like Alan Lomax did. There are some fantastic players out there playing live at bluegrass and cigarbox festivals, underground rock, etc. They'd probably love to be recorded well.

 

[Schwarzenyaeger]

4tracker, about your example with the book:
being able to write a book isn't about typing skills or being able to spell. It's about creating a story and an interesting plot. You can be dyslexic and still be an amazing novelist.
Poor typing is more akin to using poor pickups and old strings. The song and performance can still be great even if the sound itself isn't crisp.
If I borrowed somebody's superior guitar and amplifier, that doesn't make my performance fake just because I'm being helped. They aren't altering the performance, only the tone.

 

[Greg_L]

So just record those types of bands in your studio, or record live bands, or hell, even go out on the road and archive all the awesome, undiscovered talent like Alan Lomax did. There are some fantastic players out there playing live at bluegrass and cigarbox festivals, underground rock, etc. They'd probably love to be recorded well.

And that's who I prefer to deal with. My own bands, my own solo stuff, and anyone I record has to be real. They don't have to be virtuosos, they just have to be real. They have to WANT to be real. But I can't control what I listen to, and if I get fooled, then great. I hope I do. But I don't like to be lied to, and I certainly don't want to hear blatant musical lies.

 

[4tracker]

4tracker, about your example with the book:
being able to write a book isn't about typing skills or being able to spell. It's about creating a story and an interesting plot. You can be dyslexic and still be an amazing novelist.
Poor typing is more akin to using poor pickups and old strings. The song and performance can still be great even if the sound itself isn't crisp.
If I borrowed somebody's superior guitar and amplifier, that doesn't make my performance fake just because I'm being helped. They aren't altering the performance, only the tone.

You're right on all of it, and it wasn't a good analogy, but I was just trying to give some related [if not exact] ideas from what I know (I've also played reed organs where 1 button produces 3 notes, a full chord).