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

[gecko zzed]

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.

 

[miroslav]

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 know a lot of folks here do like to split that hair... ...but IMO, all the other types of fixing/manipulation that is regularly done to audio, can be used to easily disguise the sonic quality of the original vocal...and IMO that goes hand-in-hand with the performance quality of the vocal.
That's why I find it all the "integrity" arguments hypocritical.

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.

Right.
There is valid use within "normal" bounds (whatever that means)...but certainly a potential for misuse and overuse.
IMO...all those who truly object to pitch correction are most likely referencing its misuse and overuse...which I object to also.
Sorta like the difference between fixing an out of place note or two on an otherwise very well played guitar solo...VS...inputting most of the solo note-by-note and turning it into a complete performance.

 

[famous beagle]

I know a lot of folks here do like to split that hair... ...but IMO, all the other types of fixing/manipulation that is regularly done to audio, can be used to easily disguise the sonic quality of the original vocal...and IMO that goes hand-in-hand with the performance quality of the vocal.
That's why I find it all the "integrity" arguments hypocritical.




Right.
There is valid use within "normal" bounds (whatever that means)...but certainly a potential for misuse and overuse.
IMO...all those who truly object to pitch correction are most likely referencing its misuse and overuse...which I object to also.
Sorta like the difference between fixing an out of place note or two on an otherwise very well played guitar solo...VS...inputting most of the solo note-by-note and turning it into a complete performance.

Here's the way I see it (for what it's worth):

Altering the pitch or time of any track is the same, IMO, and that's altering the performance itself. I don't like to do that because, as I said earlier, I see it as the computer performing my instrument for me.

Altering anything else, such as EQ, compression, etc. is altering the recording (IMO). And that stuff is all subjective.

A note can be in-tune or not, and a note can be in time or not. This obviously varies by degrees, but if a note is 50 cents flat, everyone will agree that it's flat.

Effects and processing, though, are entirely subjective. Some people want the sound of a mega-compressed drumset, while others want it totally untouched. Some want to drown their recordings in verb, while others want them totally dry.

That's the difference to me.

So, to reiterate, yes I do consider the slight nudging of a guitar note to be the same level of manipulation/cheating/whatever word you want as pitch correction. However, I only feel that about my stuff. I don't hold others to same standards. It's just the way I feel, and so it's a choice I make.

 

[miroslav]

Altering anything else, such as EQ, compression, etc. is altering the recording (IMO) of the performance.

(I fixed that for you).

When you alter how someone/something sounds AFA as the original tone/volume control/character/sibilance)...it's no different than altering pitch. Either way, you are *changing* what was recorded...and the change is an objective choice....while the type/amount of change is subjective in any case....and the computer is doing it all for you no matter what.
Pitch is just one component of the complete track. Why people want to segregate it out...is beyond me.

Look...anyone who wants to feel good about drawing some integrity line only when it comes to pitch alteration...that's their choice (though IMO, hypocritical).
I just don't see the need to fuss about any of this stuff, and I'm OK with judicious/tasteful use of any/all tools for any aspect of the recording.

Anyway, I think we've gotten all the points out here...so I'm going to leave you to your poll, which by the way is now split 50/50, with just one oddball straddling the fence (that must hurt).

 

[RAMI]

I think what Famous said about "performance vs. recording" is extremely easy to understand and I agree with it. But, of course, anything can be shot down if you we nit-pick with semantics. I'm not against anyone using auto-tune, especially if I can't hear it. But his analogy still makes complete sense and is very accurate, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[GuitarLegend]

I had a guitarist stressed out about one note in a solo that he played accidentally. It was bothering him. So I simply took the note out. That doesn't mean that he couldn't play the solo, or that the remaining performance was not him. It was one note that if he recorded again would not be played. Should I have recorded the whole solo again for that one accidental note or was it ok to just cut it out? Does that break any rules or just short cut a process?

 

[Bobbsy]

Next time you're at a live concert listen really critically. Even some of the best musicians in the world sing or play the occasional bum note. The thing is that live the mistake is instantly gone, never to be heard again. Add in the excitement of the event, the lights, the live sound etc. and it doesn't really matter.

(Note that I'm talking about good/great performers making very rare mistakes, not the likes of Britney needing autotune to even sound human.)

However, recording is different. That one mistake on the third verse is something you'll hear every time you play the track...and once you've heard it, it'll become more annoying every time you listen. Fix it. By all means fix it rather than leaving an annoyance in an otherwise good recording.

As posted earlier, given a choice I'll edit rather than pitch correct but that's just a personal preference. The main thing is that, as somebody said, no performer is perfect and it makes sense to use the tools available to get the best possible recording rather than insisting on being "real".

 

[Lt. Bob]

Personally I don't care how a band/artist achieves a recording.
If it's great then it's great ............. a recording is a different type of art than live playing IMO.
And as such, I appreciate it in a different way.
To complain about studio tricks would be meaningless to me because being in the studio is in and of itself a usually a situation that's unique to being in the studio.

However, when I see someone live, they'd better be good without tricks or I'm not interested.

 

[BroKen_H]

On the other hand, there was Boston.

 

[Alton42]

I only use pitch shifting if it really, really becomes necessary. Never for an entire vocal.

 

[BroKen_H]

And there is my point. I liked Neil Young live, even though he can't sing, play guitar or harmonica and makes a living at it. His music was interesting and part of the interest was his pitchy and quirky singing and playing. OTOH, when I went to see Boston, if I'd closed my eyes I might have well been at home in front of the record player. They just perfectly performed the music and it was meh.

 

[Btyre2013]

I voted 'I use it when needed. It's just a tool like EQ, compression, etc'

if someone can't sing in tune, doesn't mean I'm going to autotune every single note, just the really sour ones using variaudio 2 which for me is more than good enough, I'm sure melodyne is a bit better but I can't justify spending money on it at the moment.

 

[witzendoz]

I voted 'I use it when needed. It's just a tool like EQ, compression, etc'

Yes and no, EQ and compression are to enhance the sound of the recording, autotune is to cover up someones bad performance.

Alan.

 

[GuitarLegend]

Yes and no, EQ and compression are to enhance the sound of the recording, autotune is to cover up someones bad performance.

Alan.

Never had to record an imperfect singer Alan?

 

[witzendoz]

Never had to record an imperfect singer Alan?

Thats not what I am saying, what did they do before autotune? Learn to sing springs to mind. Now it's lets leave it to the engineer to make me sound good.

If I am doing vocals for someone I get them to sing the song several times and the pull together a good performance from the takes. The people I record get satisfaction that the recording process is part of the learning curve, they improve their skills along the way. Not sing it once and sit on the iPad net surfing while the engineer spends hours trying to make them sound good, instant satisfaction.

Alan.

 

[miroslav]

If I am doing vocals for someone I get them to sing the song several times and the pull together a good performance from the takes. The people I record get satisfaction that the recording process is part of the learning curve, they improve their skills along the way. Not sing it once and sit on the iPad net surfing while the engineer spends hours trying to make them sound good, instant satisfaction.

I don't want to get back into this thread with the back-n-forth that goes nowhere...but I just want to say that I get the feeling you are connecting the dots by skipping a bunch of them in-between.
IOW...you always come back to the most extreme example, and use that as your point against pitch correction.

Heck...I'm with you on the extreme thing...the single take that gets tweaked into perfection by the engineer.
That's total BS.
However, I don't think a single pitch correction proponent has ever once suggested or supported that in this thread.

It's more about like what you are already doing...taking a few good takes and pulling a good performance from them...and then if there needs to be an additional pitch correction tweak here-n-there to smooth out the final little bumps in the composite track...that's it.

I mean....if you wanna just keep doing more and more takes in order to avoid the pitch correction, OK, but then you (the engineer) still has to do the work of creating a final "performance" from many, many takes.
I mean...at that point, you really are splitting some serious hairs when you object to pitch correction, but opt for many takes in order to assemble a performance.

I'm totally OK with the multiple takes approach...and also the pitch correction.
It's small stuff we are taking about...it's about working with *good* takes...and not about faking the whole thing.

I just find that after about 5 vocal takes, the vocal performance starts to go downhill, making comping that much more cumbersome. Not to mention, it's not like you can always on the next take, get what you missed on the previous take , without losing what you already had. Every take sees some change in the whole performance.
I just find that keeping the takes to a small number, and then if I need to pitch correct a few spots to polish it all off...a way to cut to the chase and keep the vocals fresh.

Have a good one.

 

[GuitarLegend]

Thats not what I am saying, what did they do before autotune? Learn to sing springs to mind. Now it's lets leave it to the engineer to make me sound good.

If I am doing vocals for someone I get them to sing the song several times and the pull together a good performance from the takes. The people I record get satisfaction that the recording process is part of the learning curve, they improve their skills along the way. Not sing it once and sit on the iPad net surfing while the engineer spends hours trying to make them sound good, instant satisfaction.

Alan.

What did they do before recording? EVERY performance was live... you didn't have to listen to the same mistake twice

 

[RFR]

All I know is you people got too many damn toys.I have pitch control on my deck. Does that count? ?

 

[witzendoz]

What did they do before recording? EVERY performance was live... you didn't have to listen to the same mistake twice

And then after that they recorded live with the band to tape, and any mistake would have been there forever?

I give up, just use auto tune to fix it and move on.

Alan.

At least there will be some people out there keeping the art of singing alive:

 

[Bobbsy]

(As an aside to divert this topic, I'm booked in October to do the live mix plus multitrack record an evening of acapella male voices (several choirs and several quartets, including a Brisbane group that's representing Australia in the world championships this year. I did the gig last year sort of under protest as a favour to a friend but was so impressed by the quality of singing that I'm looking forward to doing it again!)

Now, onto an extension of the original topic...what about punch ins? Rather than autotune or multiple full tracks they can be another tool.

I recall some years ago I was recording a female vocalist who really did have a good voice--but the composer had written one note that was at the upper limit of what she could do. As mentioned above, after a number of full takes the results were getting worse not better so the solution was a break, a cup of tea and a chat then a punch in of just the difficult phrase. Starting fresh she aced it.

(The fact that she was VERY pretty had nothing to do with my willingness to keep trying!)