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

[miroslav]

I only do instrumental tracks many of you guys can't get your heads around.

I checked out your Soundcloud stuff, since I didn't want to sell you short on any vocals/singing you might have done (but there was none)...and like I said, you play well enough, but if you think that stuff is too deep for most of the guys here......you really need to get out more often.
Most of it was rather "lounge lizard muzak" flavor (maybe it's all the songs with synth-only tracks that make it seem that way)...and even if the playing was done well..there's nothing there really complex.

I started recording vocal tracks years before you guys were even born.

........................

I have recorded vocals and hundreds of bands since 1963.

I would think after 50+ years of recording you would have more than synth-only tracks to post.

Nothing wrong with synths/MIDI...and I think you're saying it's OK to do some pitch correction as long as it's not noticeable...and I'm in agreement with that... but then you can't really take the position that it's "fake".
If anyone is going to be a stickler for "real" VS "fake"...and then grab amp sims and tons of MIDI synths that emulate the real thing...why draw the line at vocals?
I also said earlier that based on the amount of manipulation people do in the DAW to "get their sound" it is no different...but some folks think they retain a higher level of integrity if they stop the manipulation at vocals...ok whatever, everyone needs to find their own morality/ethics comfort zone.
I also think that talking about it on open forums brings out the religion to a much higher level...but in the studio, behind closed doors, we're all "sinners" at one time or another.

I say it's ALL good when done in moderation if it serves the production without hitting some absolute level of faking and cheating where little of what's left is real/original.

 

[Guitargodgt]

Yup. Don't even care.

You try getting this many vocals to play nice:

https://soundcloud.com/nerolstudio/o-come-o-come-emanuel
https://soundcloud.com/nerolstudio/the-things-we-are
https://soundcloud.com/nerolstudio/living-reflection-of-ghosts
https://soundcloud.com/nerolstudio/blood

 

[Bobbsy]

I have recorded vocals and hundreds of bands since 1963.

And I thought I was old!

 

[famous beagle]

Yup. Don't even care.

You try getting this many vocals to play nice:

https://soundcloud.com/nerolstudio/o-come-o-come-emanuel
https://soundcloud.com/nerolstudio/the-things-we-are
https://soundcloud.com/nerolstudio/living-reflection-of-ghosts
https://soundcloud.com/nerolstudio/blood

Wow ... I tried listening to "Oh Come Emanuel," and I couldn't get past about 15 seconds. The moment the vocals came in and I heard autotone blatantly clamp down on a note, it just soured it for me. That's just me; obviously, a lot of other people don't have an issue with it.

To your point, though, many many people managed to get lots of vocals to play nice together before the days of autotune. It may take a bit more time (in practice/preparation and/or tracking), but it sounded natural and good.

The thing is, when I listen to your stuff, all I'm left wondering is "I wonder what they (he/she/etc.) sound like without the autotune." It could be that you (and your brothers) are very talented vocalists, but when I listen to this, there's no way to really know.

Again, this is just my opinion. Others may feel totally differently.

 

[Lt. Bob]

Again, this is just my opinion. Others may feel totally differently.

such as me ..... although I seriously didn't care for the arrangement I didn't hear auto-tune in excess.

But you're correct ..... MANY bands did things with large groups of vocals way before autotune existed.

 

[Greg_L]

How did Queen or The Beach Boys survive without pitch correction? Wait, I know, they could sing. It's not impossible. It's just that this stuff can turn a shit performer into a recording "artist" so the standards have been way lowered.

 

[miroslav]

Wow ... I tried listening to "Oh Come Emanuel," and I couldn't get past about 15 seconds. The moment the vocals came in and I heard autotone blatantly clamp down on a note, it just soured it for me. That's just me; obviously, a lot of other people don't have an issue with it.

Not saying you can't hear it on that (I haven't checked the clips out)...but you already knew pitch-correction was in play on a wide scale since Guitargodgt admitted to using it across all those tracks.
I'm saying, you went in knowing it was there..though in his clips, with all those vocals, it also may be easier to hear.

I can guarantee that used sparingly/subtly you would never know it is there.
Which is why it's kinda hard to take a total singing loser, and turn him/her into a beautiful singer. That's just too much to overcome, and sad to say, lots of people try to do that both in the home rec world and in the pro world...which creates this extremely negative view of pitch correction for some.
There are folks who actually LIKE the sound you get when overusing it...it's become a conscious FX in a lot of R&B/Pop...and like you, many people hate it (I do to). IMO...the novelty wore off a long time ago...but it still gets used.

It's just that this stuff can turn a shit performer into a recording "artist" so the standards have been way lowered.

And that's where folks can draw the line...though as I said above, I don't think you can take a total shit performer and without any notice, turn them into a singing phenom. You could hide some of it some of the time, but not all of it all the time.

There's nothing wrong with modern tools, and nothing wrong with using them tastefully without blatant abuse for the sake of completely "faking" something.

 

[jimistone]

never. It has a weird processed sound that I don't care for. I usually sing a song 4 or five times, to have several vocal tracks. Then, if the best take, which I use as the vocal track, has a pitch problem anywhere I can cut and paste from one of the other vocal tracks and fix it.
It's been my experience that it's very difficult to sing a flawless vocal in one pass. my vocal will usually have an off pitch note, a phrasing I don't like, a popped P, a nasal sounding word.....or sometime all of the above.
But if I sing it through 4 times I can usually end up with a vocal I'm happy with.
Although I have had a passage I don't like in all 4 passes.
time to work on that one line then.

 

[Omniwang]

I only do instrumental tracks many of you guys can't get your heads around.

I'm not hearing a prevalence of difficult riffs or melodies nor am I hearing overly intricate time sig or tempo changes in your music. What part is it that a simpleton like me wouldn't be able to wrap his head around?

... and I thought us metal heads were bad.

 

[famous beagle]

never. It has a weird processed sound that I don't care for. I usually sing a song 4 or five times, to have several vocal tracks. Then, if the best take, which I use as the vocal track, has a pitch problem anywhere I can cut and paste from one of the other vocal tracks and fix it.
It's been my experience that it's very difficult to sing a flawless vocal in one pass. my vocal will usually have an off pitch note, a phrasing I don't like, a popped P, a nasal sounding word.....or sometime all of the above.
But if I sing it through 4 times I can usually end up with a vocal I'm happy with.
Although I have had a passage I don't like in all 4 passes.
time to work on that one line then.

That's very similar to the method I use.

 

[bmwerx]

I would think after 50+ years of recording you would have more than synth-only tracks to post.

I do. But you won't hear them. BTW, They're not all synth tracks. You're just not listening. I don't care.

 

[bmwerx]

I'm not hearing a prevalence of difficult riffs or melodies nor am I hearing overly intricate time sig or tempo changes in your music. What part is it that a simpleton like me wouldn't be able to wrap his head around?

Any of it. Don't think you can hear complex time signatures and you probably wouldn't know an intricate melody if you heard it. I won't hold that against you tho.

 

[AstraLeadGuitar]

Hello, Lt. Bob, miroslav, TKeefe,
I've just checked out this thread again.

actually that's the opposite of what she was saying

Yes, that's right. The meaning intended is that the ear will not get bored like when it hears the same things copied and pasted. As I said, I prefer to record all the choruses so they are ever so slightly different. It just seems that short-cuts can be a temptation which gets in the way of taking the time to put in a good performance. By the way, I dont compare pitch correction with post-recording effects such as EQ, reverb, etc., because they are improving the sound and not the musician's performance. Edit: I've just seen that this is basically what famous beagle and gecko zzed have said too.

But the bottom line is that everyone does what they feel is right and appropriate for their music. One might say that anything is valid in the creation of an overall piece of art. There's a particular local band here in France - they're really great but their singer isn't up to their standard. If I recorded them, I might easily add pitch correction to some of his notes because he cannot put in a good performance. They're such nice lads that I wouldn't want to offend them by saying, sorry, your singer is incapable of getting this part right! (Although a producer might!) What I personally decide to do with my own music is a different case scenario from recording other bands (as some here have observed about recording other groups). Although, if I were producing a band, I would encourage and gee them up to get an enthusiastically good performance recorded (as good as feasible!). Then, with the assurance that one has a basically good result, the "tricks of the trade" can be applied as is seen fit.

 

[Omniwang]

Any of it. Don't think you can hear complex time signatures and you probably wouldn't know an intricate melody if you heard it. I won't hold that against you tho.

This is what complicated music sounds like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZKrwJzGg0k

Dream Theater is one of my favorite bands and I've been listening to them for over a decade, so yes I am very familiar with tempo, key and sig changes. You just have your head up your ass which I will admit is an impressive feat considering how massive your head seems to be

 

[Omniwang]

Back on topic,

I am going to record some vocals for the first time in a long while in the next week or so. I am not a vocalist by any stretch. I was watching a video on YouTube about pitch correction and saw a ghetto way to get the ambience and body of two separate takes but through use of pitch correct. The guy took one recording that was supposed to represent several chopped up takes done by a vocalist who wasn't quite there. He duped the track and on the second one he added auto-tune. Has anyone tried something like this (2 tracks, only 1 auto tuned) with a vocalist who wasn't as proficient as the music he was trying to sing would demand? What were your results if you have tried this?

EDIT: I suppose I should pitch in my opinion on use of auto tune as well here. I'm not a fan of it. Used in small amounts or even in large amounts I can see what it can add artisticly to a song but I feel a person who is primarily or only a vocalist should practice to get those notes. I'm primarily a guitarist. I would never use pitch correction on my guitar unless I felt it would have some crazy effect that I couldn't achieve with any other pedal. I don't think this situation will ever come up. On the flip side, for a person who isn't a vocalist but needs to record the tracks themselves, I think it's better to use auto tune than have the vocals ruin the song because you can't sing (like me for instance). I would never sing any of my music live, I would hire or recruit someone to do this for me live who can actually hit the notes.

 

[kcearl]

Ive used melodyne, it comes with Studio One in a basic version...works great, works on instruments too (my moog SP doesnt always stay in tune )

 

[jimmys69]

I would think after 50+ years of recording you would have more than synth-only tracks to post.

I do. But you won't hear them. BTW, They're not all synth tracks. You're just not listening. I don't care.

Ok, this makes me wonder who you are and why the F**k you are here?

Please answer. If you want to be a part of this community then be it.

I think we all would love to learn from your experience. I sure would.

 

[Guitargodgt]

Wow ... I tried listening to "Oh Come Emanuel," and I couldn't get past about 15 seconds. The moment the vocals came in and I heard autotone blatantly clamp down on a note, it just soured it for me. That's just me; obviously, a lot of other people don't have an issue with it.

To your point, though, many many people managed to get lots of vocals to play nice together before the days of autotune. It may take a bit more time (in practice/preparation and/or tracking), but it sounded natural and good.

The thing is, when I listen to your stuff, all I'm left wondering is "I wonder what they (he/she/etc.) sound like without the autotune." It could be that you (and your brothers) are very talented vocalists, but when I listen to this, there's no way to really know.

Again, this is just my opinion. Others may feel totally differently.

Yeah probably my fault for not telling you were I was singing. I'm the final verse around 2:40. My role on a lot of that track was harmony not melody.

I have no problem using judicious use of auto tune on other voices either though.

 

[mdainsd]

Auto tune:

As an effect, a distant maybe. Just not into Mr Robotica sound.

As a performance enhancer, never.

 

[CMolena]

I hate vocals that sounds flawless, so that means I think I'll never use pitch correction on my vocals.