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

[Bobbsy]

As long as within the 17 takes there's at least one good version of each phrase then editing might be a preferred option to pitch correction. Frankly, I prefer that to pitch correction.

Having said that, I'm not adverse to using a bit of manual correction for an occasional problem...it's the automatic version fixing everything that so often sounds like a special effect.

 

[GuitarLegend]

As long as within the 17 takes there's at least one good version of each phrase then editing might be a preferred option to pitch correction. Frankly, I prefer that to pitch correction.

Having said that, I'm not adverse to using a bit of manual correction for an occasional problem...it's the automatic version fixing everything that so often sounds like a special effect.

That is the method I use most often, at least 95% of the time. I much prefer getting a recording of a natural voice but if, after half a dozen takes later, I don't get a perfect take, then I get the best of all the takes, mixing and matching phrases or even single words here and there. If there is still an off-pitch note here and there then I may use pitch correction to bring it in line. At the end of the day, you do what you do get the best recording. But if that means uttering a monotonic dialogue all the way through and then pushing everything into tune, then I consider that a total cheat. If you have heard the Symphony of Science series, they do exactly that - taking speeches from various scientific notables and creating songs from them. That's just entertainment. Anything else is a cheat

 

[miroslav]

As long as within the 17 takes there's at least one good version of each phrase then editing might be a preferred option to pitch correction. Frankly, I prefer that to pitch correction.

That's been my method for years...3-5 good takes, comp down to one.
The pitch correction came about thanks to a Waves sale, and the had the Wave Tune for something like $79 (it was real cheap) a couple of years ago during the holidays...so I figured I might as well add it to the tool box.
Now I still do the 3-5 good takes, comp to one...then I'll use the Wave Tune to only spot fix things that need it, but I never run it across the whole track. I find that you really need to leave some pitch error in the corrected spots, and then when you combine with the un-corrected, it all blends very naturally and impossible to spot.

That said....there's folks who will argue the comping tracks is also not a "real" performance....so like pitch correction, they object to it in favor of doing 80 takes unitl they get that one lucky "perfect" one.
I just don't see that getting one lucky take out of a whole bunch of bad ones, means you're somehow a better performer then comping from a bunch of good take.

In the end....will it really matter if you did one take...30 takes...or 5 takes and then comped with a bit of pitch correction added....?
I mean, non of that has anything to do with taking a completely talentless singer/player, and manipulating the audio until they sound accomplished.
I think folks are looking too much at extreme cases of bad studio decisions.

 

[BroKen_H]

Yes....but would they have been 17 perfect takes...or 17 takes that still needed some pitch correction?

You don't need perfect takes if you can hack and slash perfect pieces. I just try to make my vocals listenable

 

[Rick Finsta]

If I can't sing it then I shouldn't sing it.

 

[Beck]

I have a theory you people that can't hear the most (allegedly) subtle pitch correction aren't as annoyed as I am by digital visual effects in movies either. By annoyed I mean I'm so distracted it ruins the movie. I might suffer through it for someone who wants to see the movie but I'm their enjoying their company and hating the movie. Movies are movies... I mean right, they've never been real life, but as the trend went from less on-location and human to digitally rendered it became more annoying. I'd rather see claymation. It's more convincing.

I've never played video games either... never! Statistically most of you have... like a lot! Those that have spent a good part of their lives video gaming are as acclimated to the fake movie effects as many of you are acclimated to digital audio effects in your music. You can't hear it much like video gamers can't see how artificial movie effects look. I've never played video games but I know enough people who do and have looked over enough shoulders to see that movies look like video games these days... well for many years now.

As far as the how many takes does it take if not using pitch correction, the answer is as many as it takes. Sometimes it's a first magical take and sometimes people come back the next day because they are too tired for another take.

But I was married for many years to a classically trained coloratura soprano (One of the ones I wore out because I'm a cat trapped in man's body... some day I'll have rights too! I'll go under the knife and come out of surgery looking like a gray Chartreux with crazy yellow eyes). But anyway, I'm accustomed to perfect takes live at the opera. I saw/heard it all the time through my cat eyes and my cat ears. Our experiences are just different.

 

[GuitarLegend]

I have a theory you people that can't hear the most (allegedly) subtle pitch correction aren't as annoyed as I am by digital visual effects in movies either. By annoyed I mean I'm so distracted it ruins the movie. I might suffer through it for someone who wants to see the movie but I'm their enjoying their company and hating the movie. Movies are movies... I mean right, they've never been real life, but as the trend went from less on-location and human to digitally rendered it became more annoying. I'd rather see claymation. It's more convincing.

I've never played video games either... never! Statistically most of you have... like a lot! Those that have spent a good part of their lives video gaming are as acclimated to the fake movie effects as many of you are acclimated to digital audio effects in your music. You can't hear it much like video gamers can't see how artificial movie effects look. I've never played video games but I know enough people who do and have looked over enough shoulders to see that movies look like video games these days... well for many years now.

As far as the how many takes does it take if not using pitch correction, the answer is as many as it takes. Sometimes it's a first magical take and sometimes people come back the next day because they are too tired for another take.

But I was married for many years to a classically trained coloratura soprano (One of the ones I wore out because I'm a cat trapped in man's body... some day I'll have rights too! I'll go under the knife and come out of surgery looking like a gray Chartreux with crazy yellow eyes). But anyway, I'm accustomed to perfect takes live at the opera. I saw/heard it all the time through my cat eyes and my cat ears. Our experiences are just different.

Zero tolerance rarely works in practice. Don't tell us we are deaf because we work with what we've got. If we have to spend that much studio time on a single song then its probably never going to be right. But I can tell you that an off-pitch note is definitely more irritating than a gentle correction. If your ears are that sensitive to a correction, then an off-pitch note must be torture for you. Speaking down to people will never convince them of your point of view. It is easy to understand why you were married to a classically trained singer. I couldn't live with that crap either

 

[BroKen_H]

Hmm. Didn't sound like Beck was putting me down. Maybe you took it that way. I heard an analogy to electronic music running the same "artificial" gamut that movies started down in the late 70s (and before). About the same time Lucas was blowing up space, 10cc was tracking vocals you could "sing" with faders... I guess I just don't take things personally.

I wonder how any of these people did listening to Dylan or Young.

 

[Greg in PDX]

Why would I want to hear out of tune vocals when I don't have to? It's a tool. Use it.

 

[miroslav]

I have a theory you people that can't hear the most (allegedly) subtle pitch correction aren't as annoyed as I am by digital visual effects in movies either. By annoyed I mean I'm so distracted it ruins the movie. I might suffer through it for someone who wants to see the movie but I'm their enjoying their company and hating the movie. Movies are movies... I mean right, they've never been real life, but as the trend went from less on-location and human to digitally rendered it became more annoying. I'd rather see claymation. It's more convincing.

I've never played video games either... never! Statistically most of you have... like a lot! Those that have spent a good part of their lives video gaming are as acclimated to the fake movie effects as many of you are acclimated to digital audio effects in your music. You can't hear it much like video gamers can't see how artificial movie effects look. I've never played video games but I know enough people who do and have looked over enough shoulders to see that movies look like video games these days... well for many years now.

As far as the how many takes does it take if not using pitch correction, the answer is as many as it takes. Sometimes it's a first magical take and sometimes people come back the next day because they are too tired for another take.

But I was married for many years to a classically trained coloratura soprano (One of the ones I wore out because I'm a cat trapped in man's body... some day I'll have rights too! I'll go under the knife and come out of surgery looking like a gray Chartreux with crazy yellow eyes). But anyway, I'm accustomed to perfect takes live at the opera. I saw/heard it all the time through my cat eyes and my cat ears. Our experiences are just different.

C'mom then...ask for the Pepsi Challenge.
Let's see how good your "cat's ears" are compared to my ability to do unrecognizable pitch correction.

 

[famous beagle]

Why would I want to hear out of tune vocals when I don't have to? It's a tool. Use it.

Well, because many of us don't like the idea of a machine making up for our deficiency in our vocal skill. How do you improve if you always let the computer fix it for you? It's the same reason guitarists want to learn to bend in tune or why we practice to a metronome.

 

[AstraLeadGuitar]

Hello, famous beagle. I see that this thread has already got nine pages of replies! But I'll put in my two cents anyway!

No, I don't use pitch correction and I wouldn't consider doing it for my own voice because I would feel it’s a cop out. If there’s the slightest part of a line which is awry, it should just be re-sung. I practice a lot and do enough takes to get a result which is what I and my producer feel is best for the song. This means getting a take which represents more than being simply in tune. It's also about getting the right tone of voice, and attack, if required; choosing the right approach for the song and then performing it in tune. It seems to be a bit of a cliché but if a person can't sing in tune, well they probably shouldn't be a singer in the first place, although that never seemed to affect certain famous people!

If a person feels that they have something to offer, for example, they're a great songwriter, but a lousy singer, then choosing another singer to do the song seems logical. However, if that's not possible, that's where there might be a logical reason for using pitch correction to help out.

Another reason for not using it is that the effect can sometimes be "heard" and noticed. The danger is that people get to rely on the effect and actually don't take the time required to put in a decent performance which they could actually have done perfectly well with a bit more effort. This is similar to my view on copy/paste choruses. How boring can you get?! You need variety, and sometimes a singer can think up a nice twist on a theme in repeated choruses if he sings them all. But even if the variety is barely noticeable on repeated lines, the ear and brain will not get bored of hearing the same thing copy/pasted.

Again, the bottom line whether it’s pitch correction or copy/paste, etc., a better result can be had by investing time and effort!

 

[miroslav]

...the ear and brain will not get bored of hearing the same thing copy/pasted.

You're kidding...right?

So you want to take one good section of a vocal, and copy/paste it multiple times in a track, and that's acceptable to you as being a "real performance"...but doing some subtle spot pitch correction is not?

Also...it's not an "effect"...it's not about the autotune "chirps" and all that crap.
It's no different than nudging things around to time-align, using EQ to adjust tone, adding compression to fix poor level control...etc...etc.
So...you don't do any of that either to fix *any* other kind of audio "deficiencies" in your recorded tracks...right?

Yeah, right.

 

[RAMI]

You're kidding...right?

So you want to take one good section of a vocal, and copy/paste it multiple times in a track, and that's acceptable to you as being a "real performance"...but doing some subtle spot pitch correction is not?

Also...it's not an "effect"...it's not about the autotune "chirps" and all that crap. It's no different than nudging things around, EQ to adjust tone, compression to fix poor level control...etc...etc.

You don't do any of that either...right?

I have a feeling she didn't word it the way she meant it. I'm pretty sure she agrees with you.

I'm saying that because of the last line:

bottom line whether it’s pitch correction or copy/paste, etc., a better result can be had by investing time and effort!

 

[miroslav]

I have a feeling she didn't word it the way she meant it. I'm pretty sure she agrees with you.

I'm saying that because of the last line:

Well...OK....maybe it didn't come across as it was meant...but I'm just going by the written word.
Also...even if you take the time/effort to get it right (which I'm sure most people do, I know I do)....there's nothing wrong with using the tools at hand to improve it even more.
It's not about doing one half-assed take and correcting it into perfection.
This notion that pitch correction = taking the most awful sounding tracks and turning them into Pavarotti, is what keeps driving the silly responses in this thread.

I don't have a problem with people just saying "I don't use pitch correction."
OK, great. Your choice.
But all this getting on a soap box and going on and on about some morality/ethics of not using pitch correction...
...meanwhile you're hitting your tracks with other FX/processing and audio manipulation to get them fine-tuned and sounding as best as you can for the final mix...
...is a bit hypocritical, IMO.

 

[RAMI]

Ok calm down.

 

[miroslav]

Been calm throughout.

 

[Lt. Bob]

You're kidding...right?

So you want to take one good section of a vocal, and copy/paste it multiple times in a track, and that's acceptable to you as being a "real performance"..

actually that's the opposite of what she was saying

 

[TKeefe]

Tend to agree with miroslav, what she meant aside. It reminds me of the reverb battle that often ensues. In the end it's really about how the tune sounds. Use it, don't use it, whatever makes your music sound like you want it.

Don't record others anymore (sold studio) but if a band came in with their limited funds and the vocalist is almost on pitch most of the time, I would definitely fire up Melodyne or Waves Tune, correct a note, let them listen, if they like it, well played and on to the next tune. No hard fast rules.

When recording my own songs, I have time to get it right but after I've gotten to mixdown and I've missed a note that is bothering me pitch-wise, I'd certainly give pitch correction a shot and see how it sounds. If it stinks, go back and punch in.
I would say the same for using quality reverb.

TKeefe | Free Listening on SoundCloud

 

[miroslav]

actually that's the opposite of what she was saying

I already said it when RAMI mentioned it. If something else was meant, if I misread that one comment....my bad...sorry.

But still, all the morality/ethics judgements here are funny over some pitch correction VS cut/paste comping of vocals. Not to mention when compared to ALL THE OTHER FX/processing/editing that goes on in a typical production...then why do people get their integrity all on edge over some pitch correction?

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'm saying...it's all tools, and as long as you have a decent/good raw track to begin with, then any fine-tuning that is needed to reach your goals, falls within the "moral/ethical" boundaries of what makes for integrity in audio production.

I'm also saying...appreciate the end result, the work that went into it, whatever that was, and the artistic intent.
No one really wonders, was it a live recorded snare or a sample of a recorded snare, was it a tube amp or a sim, was it pitch corrected or not, and was it one take or was it comped from many.
I think those thoughts only come out when we have a topic about these things...but I doubt we think about them when we just listen to a recording.
I mean, of all the tracks I've heard here on HR...I never once wondered about those details...I just listened to the overall music...though sometimes I might have thought, "shit, he should have used some pitch correction on his vocal"!!!.
I"m kidding, of course.