Mind Blowing!

[Daisy]

Now, here's another painful reminder that that guy has been replaced with fat faced Johnny pumpin' doritos into his mouth while he humps his pseudo-phallic piece of guitar hero plastic imitation guitar in the hopes of concocting some sense of self importance and validation. Now he'll have chord correction to boot when he records his debut release on his Micro Mac Attack using only a USB 3.0 dildo for both, instrument and audio interface. Rock on Johnny! Can't wait to share a ding dong with ya at the next online GH competition

Revenge of the nerds.

.

 

[blue4u]

At the risk of being flamed:

I thought I'd share my thoughts on the use of Melodyne and similar technology. I fully admit that I use the plugin on many of my vocal tracks (I'll go one step farther and admit I have no vocal talent what so ever).

I feel that Melodyne can be used as a creative tool, and that is the way I tend to use it most. Being in a one man band situation, I'll typically record a scratch vocal close to what I am hearing in my head. It a rare occasion that I actually get it right on the scratch vocal take I try to double it and move on. When I don't nail it is where I use Melodyne as a composition tool. It allows me to try different melodies and rhythms to tweak the lines to my liking. I usually then sing along to the altered scratch track for several takes and comp the best bits together. And yes, i may use it to fix intonation issues on the final takes if there is a need.

My point is that Melodyne can be a creative tool for composition that allows experimentation that would otherwise be difficult for many to achieve. I'm not using it to try to fool anyone, I am simply attempting to compose a song thats conveying the mood, feeling and ideas that originally inspired the song. I am in awe of, and take my hat off to those real singing talents that can nail the perfect emotional, moving vocal on the first take. Unfortunately I don't have one of those at my disposal.

Fireproof underwear now on, flame away!

Try a vocal coach. Practice breathing exercises, intervals and scales. Buy a book. Take up yoga. Find one of those old school Opera teachers who practically abuses you into singing the right notes. Make it sting a little. Go for it! You'll be a better human being and maybe you'll help "save the music" as the commercial says.

"Vocal talent" is some bullsh$t term that people came up with to justify not putting in the time to LEARN the art of singing by understanding your instrument. EVERYONE has a voice and everyone has a "sweet spot" in their voice that can be developed with old fashioned concepts such as practice and technique. Sure, once in a while some lil' kid has a golden voice right out o' the chute. Great! Let your envy inspire and motivate you to work harder! You'll never sound as good but you'll probably write better songs and have more character. Audiences find that more interesting anyway

As for using tools to experiment with different melodies...try singing it a different way Who knows you might have a happy accident and come up with a song that YOU actually wrote without having to give Melodyne the co-writing credit.

Let's call this out for what it is and quit the games about how it is really a "composition tool" if you can just "be creative". GAG! It's a "quick fix it" tool no matter how you wanna shake it down. Maybe you can justify making that fix in some cases. Ok, I get it. But don't be all soft about it and try to make yourself feel better because you're compensating. Just own it! "Saving the perfect take" someone said?!? F*ck the perfect take!! Let it be imperfect and tell everyone that you had a "vibe" on that lick. It's beautiful the way it is. Smack the singer in the back of the head once and tell them to quit wasting your time if they can't nail that note. If you DO use Melodyne you should make it a point to chastise and tease the vocalist (in front of their peers) for having to resort to fixing their botch job. Build some character. Why do we enable each other to be so damn wimpy?

Here's a good rule: If you can't pull off singing a line A cappella (unaccompanied) in a coffee house then maybe you ought to rewrite the melody or work on it a little while longer BEFORE you record it. It takes a little integrity and self-honesty to make that call but if you do, you can have a big cocky ego like MINE when you tell people (or show them) that YOU really do sing your own parts

Now, back to writing that next punk jingle...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

A realm of sound mangling possibilities went through my head, but sadly, I fear that "fix bad performance" is going to be its most common application.

Again, we are of the same mind (and you too, Danny ) Of COURSE tools like this have a number of both legitimate uses, common and esoteric (more on the esoteric in a minute, George ). But let's be honest about two things: 1) The main purpose that Melodyne was created is to correct errors in performance, and 2) the vast majority of end users of these products stretch the concept of "correcting errors" into "replacing technique". you don't see Melodyne used so much to make small corrections to Aretha Franklin's vocal takes as you do to make it sound like Ashlee Simpson can actually sing.

Again, It's not Melodyne's fault, it's not that the technology is inherently bad. It's that some of us see that while the democratization of recording technology is an overall positive thing, a huge negative unintended consequence is the ever-increasing belief that the technology can make up for technique to the point where technique becomes mostly ignored. We are becoming waaaaay too reliant upon - and put waaaay too much faith in - our gear, which can only water down the overall quality of the end product over time. "Fix in the mix" has turned into a multi-headed monster that says that it's OK to accept broken because broken can be fixed. It ignores the obvious fact that something that's broken then fixed just doesn't sound as good as something that ain't broken to begin with.

I mean, come on. In another thread there is a current student of this stuff who says his teachers are telling hem that it's proper technique to throw every mix through an MBC as part of mastering. No questions asked. What did these mooks do before 1990 when MBCs didn't even exist? Did the masters back then suck because we didn't have MBCs? Did they take significantly longer to finish without MBCs? The answer to both of those questions is a solid "No".

That's not the fault of MBC technology. Nor is that to say that MBCs don't have their practical and creative uses. That's only pointing out the adaptation of it's misuse by the end user.

And, to address George's point of it's use as another way to mangle sound creatively: of course it is. Anything and everything in the signal chain is a potentially unique way of doing that, and Melodyne is no exception. One can also drive their car at high speed over their neighbor's property and call that a new way of ripping fence posts out of the ground, re-landscaping the front yard and flower bed, and even, if you're lucky, another creative way of putting Spot to sleep. But that's all way down on the bottom of my list of thoughts when I see the new '09 car models hit the showroom.

G.

 

[legionserial]

You know, it never crosses my mind to use an autotune (which I don't even own one of) to fix any cockups I make, or beat detection to fix timing issues. I honestly feel like I'm betraying myself if I use a computer to fix something I screwed up in the performance. I'd much rather do it again and get it right. I don't care how long it takes. It's not like I'm paying for my own time. But I do feel like I'm paying for it if I cut corners to take less time. Because mixing becomes hell that way.

However, I can't and won't speak from a perspective of someone who is paid to record people.

 

[xstatic]

I guess I have a bit of a different viewpoint here. To me music is not just about playing, but about creation. This just seems like another tool for people to express that with. In the end, I don't really care how something got there, but more about what was acheived. I don't personally see myself doing any compositions using one note or chord and Melodyne, but I can certainly see the potential uses as Melodyne as a creative tool. If it really works as well as the demo shows, this will be one hell of a tool too. In my opinion, this kind of thing is not going to replace true players, but once again will be a tool in an arsenal.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'd much rather do it again and get it right. I don't care how long it takes.

And if it takes too long, that's probably a good indication that one has stepped in front of the microphone prematurely, that they weren't ready to record. And not being ready to record will show in more than just the number of mistakes to be corrcted, it'll show in the look and feel of the performance as well.

However, I can't and won't speak from a perspective of someone who is paid to record people.

Interesting phrase, "paid to record people". Nothing in that phrase that indicates that the engineer should actually sit in for and replace the performer. Sure, we need to make them sound as good as we can, but not replace them with a computer. Yeah the people who get the big bucks (well, maybe not all that big) to make Madonna sound like she can actually carry a tune without a wheelbarrow may be into that, but is that really where we want the industry to continue to go? Are any of us actually in this for the money? (if you are, boy, did you pick the wrong racket )

G.

 

[ObeseArmadillo]

Blue,

Try a vocal coach. Practice breathing exercises, intervals and scales. Buy a book. Take up yoga. Find one of those old school Opera teachers who practically abuses you into singing the right notes. Make it sting a little. Go for it! You'll be a better human being and maybe you'll help "save the music" as the commercial says.

I don't disagree with you on this. You make some very valid points. Don't get me wrong, I agree that there is no substitute for real skill and the practice required to get there. Those Opera teachers scare the crap at out of me though.

 

[avieth]

This is terrible. What ever happened to a good performance and skillful production? Long live analog tape!

 

[bennychico11]

more samples:

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=6281

the Chet Baker sample sold me!

 

[legionserial]

And if it takes too long, that's probably a good indication that one has stepped in front of the microphone prematurely, that they weren't ready to record. And not being ready to record will show in more than just the number of mistakes to be corrcted, it'll show in the look and feel of the performance as well.

True, however, I'm not a professioal musician and I don't have a time scale to work to. If a guitar part I've written is challenging to me, then I rise to the challenge and practice that part until I can do it in my sleep.

For me, the best way to motivate myself to do that is to record take after take after take until I get it done. Yeah, so I may spend hours recording (practicing) one part, but once I've got to the point where I can do it with my eyes closed, I know I'm one step towrds being a better guitarist.

The bulk of improving my abilities as a lead guitarist has always been done spending hours trying to nail a solo that I knew I would have to push myself to do when I wrote it.

Writing and recording music has always been an excercise in pushing my own personal envelope to me, however, if I had someone else recording me, I'd make damn sure I spent whatever time neccessary beforehand to be able to get it right with a minimum of fuss in the studio. Mostly because I don't like irritating people, and because I would be paying for the time spent.

Interesting phrase, "paid to record people". Nothing in that phrase that indicates that the engineer should actually sit in for and replace the performer. Sure, we need to make them sound as good as we can, but not replace them with a computer. Yeah the people who get the big bucks (well, maybe not all that big) to make Madonna sound like she can actually carry a tune without a wheelbarrow may be into that, but is that really where we want the industry to continue to go? Are any of us actually in this for the money? (if you are, boy, did you pick the wrong racket )

I completely agree. However I don't record for money. More importantly I don't record anyone else but myself, and I know from a recent thread that different engineers have different views on the matter. Which is why I declined to comment.

However. If you were offered a million dollars to record some hack who was going to need their performances massively fixed in post, would you turn the job down? I know I wouldn't. Once you've done that million dollar shitty job, it's the last one you'll ever have to do. To me a fun job is more fun when you can pick and choose the work you do because income isn't an object.

 

[danny.guitar]

I also keep recording take after take until I think it's perfect. Unless I'm feeling lazy and I don't mind a couple of small mistakes/imperfections in there.

I wouldn't mind being able to fix those 1-2 small mistakes instead of completely re-recording, but really, you know there will be a bunch of people (people who will most likely just pirate the software) that will take their shitty ass performance and turn it into something that never took place. That's my only problem with it.

I think the first version of Melodyne was amazing enough, but I think this is incredible. I never thought being able to separate notes within a chord would be possible.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I completely agree. However I don't record for money. More importantly I don't record anyone else but myself, and I know from a recent thread that different engineers have different views on the matter. Which is why I declined to comment.

What I find puzzling and compelling on the home recker level - i.e. your average decent DAW owner who works for $25/hr (give or take) to record Joe Garageband for a vanity or MySpace recording - is that they tend to (if you believe what is said on this board) make such corrections gratis. That is if it takes them an extra hour or two in post to Gog every drum smack or autotune every vocal pharse because the performer sucks, they do not charge them for it.

What I understand perfectly about that is that may largely be because Joe Garageband is lcuky to be able to afford lunch, let alone another hour or two of post. The huge irony is that these guys and gals are the ones most in need of the largest amount of post correction.

Me, I'll tell them that they are paying $45/hr plus expenses for my time (that's my usual rate), and if they want me to spend two hours replacing their performance with that of my computer, that's an extra $90.

At that point one of two things will happen: they will leave a couple of puffs of smoke in my room and a Joe Garageband-shaped hole in my wall, or they will understand that's how the game is played. If it's the later, then I'll explain that for $90, I can bring in a professional session drummer/singer for an hour that will give me three tracks that'll blow away anything Melodyne or Drumagog or Autotune could ever do with what they laid down. WHich brings us to...

However. If you were offered a million dollars to record some hack who was going to need their performances massively fixed in post, would you turn the job down?

Though that would never happen, because that job would only go to those who have a record of doing that kind of thing no questions asked - which I certainly do not have and never will - as long as it didn't take more than 5,000 hours of post (for someone willing to throw that much good money after bad, I cost $200/hr + expenses ).

But again, I gotta ask; if the person is that awful of a performer, why not just replace them with someone who can do it? It's cheaper and more believable with better results than fudging it by computer.

Your actor can't jump off the balcony because his kness are bad? Which would you do, get a stuntman for $1000 or CGI it for $10,000?

G.

 

[cello_pudding]

well...the posts got longer than my attention will hold, but i would just say that i never discussed this program being a any sort of compensator for poor musicianship.


i will say that when they "fixed" the notes that were played wrong on the vibraphone sounding recording...i liked the wrong ones better that the fixed ones.

 

[legionserial]

But again, I gotta ask; if the person is that awful of a performer, why not just replace them with someone who can do it? It's cheaper and more believable with better results than fudging it by computer.

That's something that's always puzzled me to some degree. There are tonnes of people out there who are actually talented. Just from some of the work by people on this board is enough evidence of that. Yet for some reason, these labels seem to 'employ' these talentless fucks all the time.

The only feasable reason I can see is that someone with no talent, who knows nothing about what they are doing, will be more easily manipulated. Whereas someone who is actually very good at what they do, may eventually want things like artistic control, a better deal etc etc.

 

[BushmasterM4]

Very nice. Has anyone ever messed with Waves pitch correction ? It looks very similar in function. I know it doesnt do chords, its like the last version of Celemony

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

That's something that's always puzzled me to some degree. There are tonnes of people out there who are actually talented. Just from some of the work by people on this board is enough evidence of that. Yet for some reason, these labels seem to 'employ' these talentless fucks all the time.

Well, when it comes to the Major Leagues of recording, often times they are not looking for people with musical talent so much as they are public performers. If the performer(s) has/have physical appeal to the tweenies and teems whose discretionalry income are what they are targeting and if they can dance and/or put on some kind of visual performance, that's the main package they are looking for. The modern era of this started with producers like Don Kirschner and projects like The Monkees where in the early albums the majority of the instrument tracks you heard were actually done by LA session musicians, and the Monkees themselves had the main job of trying to recreate the Beatles' move "A Hard Day's Night" in an American weekly TV series. Nowdays that has morphed more into individual performers who can do sexy videos and mega-choreographed stage performances, and the technology of things like Melodyne and Autotune and all that are used to create these artificial vocal sounds.

But in the more minor leagues it seems to me that it's just so much better to actually get musicians who can actually play rather than try to fudge things in the studio. Like you say, there's no shortage of good musicians out there if you just look for them, expecially in these days of Internet collaboration where geographic boundaries disappear. I'm not talking about virtuosity; but it'd be nice if one can keep a beat, hit thier kit with intentional volume, play more than 5 chords, and know when their guitar is in tune or not without having to reference their Boss tuner to know.

G.

 

[ecktronic]

Scary stuff!

 

[blue4u]

Well, when it comes to the Major Leagues of recording, often times they are not looking for people with musical talent so much as they are public performers. If the performer(s) has/have physical appeal to the tweenies and teems whose discretionalry income are what they are targeting and if they can dance and/or put on some kind of visual performance, that's the main package they are looking for. The modern era of this started with producers like Don Kirschner and projects like The Monkees where in the early albums the majority of the instrument tracks you heard were actually done by LA session musicians, and the Monkees themselves had the main job of trying to recreate the Beatles' move "A Hard Day's Night" in an American weekly TV series. Nowdays that has morphed more into individual performers who can do sexy videos and mega-choreographed stage performances, and the technology of things like Melodyne and Autotune and all that are used to create these artificial vocal sounds.

But in the more minor leagues it seems to me that it's just so much better to actually get musicians who can actually play rather than try to fudge things in the studio. Like you say, there's no shortage of good musicians out there if you just look for them, expecially in these days of Internet collaboration where geographic boundaries disappear. I'm not talking about virtuosity; but it'd be nice if one can keep a beat, hit thier kit with intentional volume, play more than 5 chords, and know when their guitar is in tune or not without having to reference their Boss tuner to know.

G.

Great post!

 

[blue4u]

i will say that when they "fixed" the notes that were played wrong on the vibraphone sounding recording...i liked the wrong ones better that the fixed ones.

Jazz and Blues music are filled with "wrong" notes! Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix made entire careers (legacies actually) out of "wrong" notes. It feels so right to be so wrong, doesn't it?

 

[RAMI]

Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix made entire careers (legacies actually) out of "wrong" notes.

Hehe...But I bet Jimi was aware of what notes he was playing most of the time. Bob??? I'm not so sure.