Auto-tune

  • Thread starter Thread starter MG Eddie
  • Start date Start date
How can you do a tom roll without at least two toms? :eek:
 
autotune is great for an added effect but if it's used to make you better than you are i dont recommend it
 
What serenity now said is what I mean. So therefore sinister plot to dumb us all down. Also why wasn't john bohnam allow to use two kick pedals?
 
How can you do a tom roll without at least two toms? :eek:
The great jazz drummers of the early days managed it.

Also why wasn't john bohnam allow to use two kick pedals?
I don't know. Black Sabbath's Bill Ward was his mate and he got the two kick pedals and states that Bonham moaned because he wasn't allowed them in Zeppelin. This was early 70s. Some people thought they were unnecesary and tempted drummers to play over busy patterns that interfered with the music, cluttering it up.
 
but when it gets used to cover up mistakes and make someone sound better than they really are bothers me.

So do you get the same sense of bother at drop ins and 2nd takes and editing between takes... oh and overdubs in general... oh and reverb. These are all techniques to make things sound better then they are. What's the problem with having a blindingly emotional vocal and smoothing a few notes with auto tune?

In my opinion I think auto tune and melodyne are f**cking brilliant. I don't reach for it unless I need to, but it means I don't have to sit through take after take after take of vocal overdubbing. Get a Great performance and make it better.
 
If it's a great performance, why not just leave the minor flaws in?

And why not just fix a couple of bits? The point is it's a tool in the box like overdubbing and reverb. You tune the bits you wanna tune and you leave the bits that are fine. No point digging your heals in for 'purist' reasons.
 
What's the problem with having a blindingly emotional vocal and smoothing a few notes with auto tune?

If it's a great performance, why not just leave the minor flaws in?
Both these views are opposite sides of the same coin and are perfectly valid. Sometimes a few minor flubs won't really matter, if they're left in, it won't take away from the overall performance. Indeed, it might even add to it. On the other hand, an otherwise great performance might contain one jarringly 'off' note at a critical point in the song that either has to be retracked or autotuned. So like just about everything in recording, it depends.
I think objections are less to do with the morality {which, with pitch shifting and multitracking, can't really be justified} and more to do with overuse.
 
Well, there's nothing exceptional or impressive about a perfect vocal performance where the perfection has been faked. There's plenty to be impressed about in a vocal performance that is excellent overall but has a few rough edges. A truly great performance is Truly Great.

I see what this all really all about though. It's about saving a few bucks on labor, not about getting a truly great performance. Pure cost analysis, nothing more. Everyone is an armchair MBA these days. Our culture has been consumed by their mindset. It destroys everything it touches and spiritually impoverishes everyone who gets sucked into it.
 
Woah diggy dude. We're only making records. So what if we use a bit of autotune or not. There's more to selling records than a good vocal. If you've got a superb charismatic performer that's brilliant on stage, write amazing songs and has such character in their voice it makes the hairs in the back of your neck run off, but get's the odd note a bit flat, why not tune :-).

The thing is all these arguments 'against' auto tune could be said for compression and EQ. IT'S JUST A TOOL. Compressions does volume, EQ does Frequency specific balancing, Auto Tune does pitch. They are one and the same.
 
Anyone use autotune on instruments?

Yep. Same principal. It's great for things like wooden flutes or other instruments that aren't tuned in the well-tempered way. Only works on monophonic tho obviously. If your string quartet are out.. tough :-)... oh no hold on that brings Melodyne Direct Note Access into the conversation... sH*t.
 
The thing is all these arguments 'against' auto tune could be said for compression and EQ. IT'S JUST A TOOL. Compressions does volume, EQ does Frequency specific balancing, Auto Tune does pitch. They are one and the same.

No, they're not. Compression and eq don't conceal mistakes in the original performance. They simple make it sit well in the mix. Not even close to the same thing.
 
Compressors change then dynamic range of a signal. EQ changes the natural frequency balance. If you're singers so great they should have sung bright enough and without such varying dynamic range.

I love how autotune get's people so mad. It's like a red rag to a bull... or a spinning jenny to a luddite.
 
Compressors change then dynamic range of a signal. EQ changes the natural frequency balance. If you're singers so great they should have sung bright enough and without such varying dynamic range.

Give me a freakin' break. We don't compress and eq signals because the singer sucked, and you know it. Thanks for playing.
 
Dang the game is over all ready?

Heh. This business of the singer "not singing bright enough" is whacked. People have been singing since the Dawn of Man - a mighty long time before electronics were invented. The singer is probably the person who wrote the song in the first place. To say the human voice isn't bright enough is patently absurd and shows how far out of touch with reality the AutoTune generation is. If the singer's voice is too dark, hire another singer. Or more likely the singer should hire another engineer. :laughings: :laughings: :laughings:
 
Exactly! And that's why we have the classification of different voices with in the choir.
 
We should all just pull a Milli Vanilli and lip-sync to a real singer. Same difference. And the morons buying music today would probably let it slide when we got busted too.
 
Back
Top