My Revenge on Jamal
- Thread starter chrisharris
- Start date
fenderlikingood
New member
crawdad
Dammit, Jim, Shut Up!
There were probably people that once thought that singing through a microphone was cheating or that overdubbling and multitracking was cheating. The Beatles got grief when they recorded Sgt. Pepper with outside musicians. Some thought it was sacrelege. Hell, the electric guitar was considered a bastard instrument. (now its an instrument played by bastards but thats another chapter
)
The synthesizer and the Mellotron were attacked when they started getting used on records. Now, digital recording is slammed by purists.
Its all just tools to make music. Autotune is merely another. You might be surprised by the number of records that use pitch correction on voices, by the way. Autotune as an effect, for me, falls in the same category as the vocorder or even the talk box used by Frampton. You either like it or you hate it, I suppose. I just don't wanna hear anybody calling it a crutch, then quantizing their drums or using loops, cut and pasting or using MIDI to make their music! All that matters is the finished product.
I'd love nothing more than to be in a band that goes into the studio and records everything live, but the only way I'm gonna make any music that is close to what I envision is to use the tools at my disposal. Being a one man band is as much of a farce as Autotune, if you want to get right down to it--buts its a charade I can live with and have fun with.
) The synthesizer and the Mellotron were attacked when they started getting used on records. Now, digital recording is slammed by purists.
Its all just tools to make music. Autotune is merely another. You might be surprised by the number of records that use pitch correction on voices, by the way. Autotune as an effect, for me, falls in the same category as the vocorder or even the talk box used by Frampton. You either like it or you hate it, I suppose. I just don't wanna hear anybody calling it a crutch, then quantizing their drums or using loops, cut and pasting or using MIDI to make their music!
All that matters is the finished product.I'd love nothing more than to be in a band that goes into the studio and records everything live, but the only way I'm gonna make any music that is close to what I envision is to use the tools at my disposal. Being a one man band is as much of a farce as Autotune, if you want to get right down to it--buts its a charade I can live with and have fun with.
Pedullist
Stop it, I can't breathe
Exactly, Crawdad!
A one band has different rules than a professional one (consisting of multiple people). You might be an amazing guitarist, but a lousy singer. Or a fine bassplayer, but a lousy pianist (O, you bet I am...I really need to quantize!). We need all the tools we can get to make it sound right. On day I hope to be good enough to skip the quantising. But why can't we call it cheating whilst on the other hand say that it's perfectly OK for us to that? Why is cheating such an ugly word? OK, I'll say: I cheat with my drums & keyboards, and I sometimes loop a part because I'm too lazy to sing the big ass 20 voice chorus again but HEY, I DON'T FUCKIN' CARE! (as Chris would probably say that
) I don't even really care about you doing it either. Brings me to my other point....
Secondly: my opinion on Chris' talent and my opinion on autotuners are totally unrelated. There's a reason why I posted it as an individual thread (now it gets a bit cluttered with people saying: "autotuners suck, but not you Chris, not you"). Yes, I know he's using autotuner (sometimes). Yet that didn't prevent me from downloading and enjoying his music every day. Good music = good music.
Further: it's indeed, just an effect. Just like the big triggered gated snare drums and the 'let's quantise every part to a grid of 16ths'-kinda stuff in the 80s (and calling that "Getting into your groove", bwahahaahaha ). Producers are a little too happy with their new tool these days, IMH, but I'm sure that will pass. It's been a while since I last heard a big gated 80's snare, you know? Above that: nowadays I like to call the drumsounds in most recordings 'real' whilst knowing that it has been processed to the bone with ducking compressors and equalisers and all. It's just like you said, Crawdad. You can call the whole recording process 'unreal' if you want...
So in the end I'd rather not hear it (as much I'd rather not hear my own keyboard parts quantised ), but if you must use it: be my guest.
Again, nice discussion. I think I actually altered my opinion about the subject thanks to your good arguments.
A one band has different rules than a professional one (consisting of multiple people). You might be an amazing guitarist, but a lousy singer. Or a fine bassplayer, but a lousy pianist (O, you bet I am...I really need to quantize!). We need all the tools we can get to make it sound right. On day I hope to be good enough to skip the quantising. But why can't we call it cheating whilst on the other hand say that it's perfectly OK for us to that? Why is cheating such an ugly word? OK, I'll say: I cheat with my drums & keyboards, and I sometimes loop a part because I'm too lazy to sing the big ass 20 voice chorus again but HEY, I DON'T FUCKIN' CARE! (as Chris would probably say that
) I don't even really care about you doing it either. Brings me to my other point....Secondly: my opinion on Chris' talent and my opinion on autotuners are totally unrelated. There's a reason why I posted it as an individual thread (now it gets a bit cluttered with people saying: "autotuners suck, but not you Chris, not you"). Yes, I know he's using autotuner (sometimes). Yet that didn't prevent me from downloading and enjoying his music every day. Good music = good music.
Further: it's indeed, just an effect. Just like the big triggered gated snare drums and the 'let's quantise every part to a grid of 16ths'-kinda stuff in the 80s (and calling that "Getting into your groove", bwahahaahaha
). Producers are a little too happy with their new tool these days, IMH, but I'm sure that will pass. It's been a while since I last heard a big gated 80's snare, you know? Above that: nowadays I like to call the drumsounds in most recordings 'real' whilst knowing that it has been processed to the bone with ducking compressors and equalisers and all. It's just like you said, Crawdad. You can call the whole recording process 'unreal' if you want...So in the end I'd rather not hear it (as much I'd rather not hear my own keyboard parts quantised ), but if you must use it: be my guest.
Again, nice discussion. I think I actually altered my opinion about the subject thanks to your good arguments.
crawdad
Dammit, Jim, Shut Up!
Pedullist--Yeah man! The point is to make music that feels right as an end product. I don't care how the means are used as long as the ends are great. In a simpler time, we had experts to play every part and the engineers got the levels right and captured that magic. Then they mixed using the basic (by todays standards) tools at their disposal. I'd like some of that Neve mojo, though!
Today we have lots of tools. Part of the learning process is figuring out WHEN the tools need to be employed and when its all just overkill. Just because we have a big toolbox and we spent a gazillion bucks on all those plug ins doesn't mean we have to use them all in every song. And it all depends on the song and the desired effect. Today's big effect is tomorrow's albatross. Despite all that, I HAVE to quantize my drums. I often quantize other things too, but I sometimes shift them to make them work better, especially strings and horns. I'm never satisfied, LOL!
As for Chris, he's a package of talent. The biggest part of that package is his songs and ability to communicate them. In the end, I think thats the biggest factor and it matters little what style of music you make. If you don't have the writing at the foundation, all the glitz and glitter is irrelevant.
OK. I'm just gonna shut up now and get some sleep. Another 15 hour day awaits....
Today we have lots of tools. Part of the learning process is figuring out WHEN the tools need to be employed and when its all just overkill. Just because we have a big toolbox and we spent a gazillion bucks on all those plug ins doesn't mean we have to use them all in every song. And it all depends on the song and the desired effect. Today's big effect is tomorrow's albatross. Despite all that, I HAVE to quantize my drums. I often quantize other things too, but I sometimes shift them to make them work better, especially strings and horns. I'm never satisfied, LOL!
As for Chris, he's a package of talent. The biggest part of that package is his songs and ability to communicate them. In the end, I think thats the biggest factor and it matters little what style of music you make. If you don't have the writing at the foundation, all the glitz and glitter is irrelevant.
OK. I'm just gonna shut up now and get some sleep. Another 15 hour day awaits....
B.SABBATH
New member
crawdad said:
wow!! I really didn't want to reply to this thread anymore, but this is such an inaccurate statement, I have to respectfully, but very strongly disagree.. This statement just ain't true to me..
crawdad said:You might be surprised by the number of records that use pitch correction on voices, by the way. Autotune as an effect, for me, falls in the same category as the vocorder or even the talk box used by Frampton. You either like it or you hate it, I suppose. I just don't wanna hear anybody calling it a crutch, then quantizing their drums or using loops, cut and pasting or using MIDI to make their music!
IMOP, comparing quantizing to auto tune is a very bad analogy.. I could see if quantizing changed the sound of the drums, but it does not..
Not trying to piss anyone off, but that's a bogus analogy..
Comparing Auto tune to quantize, is like comparing an auto mechanic to a Car Wash..
maybe one day they will improve the effect where it won't make everyone who uses it sound the same..
it is a great 'effect', but most people don't use it that way..
crawdad
Dammit, Jim, Shut Up!
Sam--I think you missed my intent here. Where I am coming from is responding to people who believe that any tool is a crutch. I know autotune and quantizing are different. They are similar only in the fact that they fix human imperfection. They are both tools, nothing more, nothing less. I say use whatever works. Like, does creating music have a code of ethics that states one tool is OK and another is wrong?
Same thing with the "one man band" idea. There are some who just don't get it. To them I say "go back to purist land". I mean, it doesn't matter. We are gonna make our music as we see fit, using whatever tools help to sculpt it to our own visions.
So, I don't think we disagree. If we do, then we do and thats OK. (did that make ANY sense?)
Same thing with the "one man band" idea. There are some who just don't get it. To them I say "go back to purist land". I mean, it doesn't matter. We are gonna make our music as we see fit, using whatever tools help to sculpt it to our own visions.
So, I don't think we disagree. If we do, then we do and thats OK. (did that make ANY sense?
)
erichenryus
New member
crawdad said:
that's what i was trying to say earlier, then sam posted a picture of tits, then i got fired, but now i don't feel so alone anymore.
thanks crawdad.
i also don't have a problem with using any and every tool that i can afford, i just can't afford all that much
.but for all the semi-purists out there haggling over which crutches are acceptable and which aren't, take a trip to the opera, no microphones, no amplifiers, no speakers, no second takes, no punch in, no vocal doubling, etc.
btw, I still think quantize is an 'effect'. and i still love sam
.
SLuiCe
New member
crawdad said:
Which people indicated they believe that?
The debate is getting redundant. Nobody is talking about crutches. We're talking about tone quality.
I feel partly responsible for this "debate." So let me make it clear...I personally don't care if you had your dog sing your harmonies for you and your dead grandmother played the washtub bass, and you claim to have done it all by yourself in 1.5 hours on a Tascam 2 track with a pc gaming microphone. Who cares!
Does it sound good to me? I'll let you know, and hopefully so will everyone else.
Me saying that the abundant AT is killing me is no different than me saying the bass is too loud for me.
As far as I can tell no one outwardly is accusing anyone of "cheating." I don't consider this a game. It's music.
Chris announced that he used AT heavily on this. After hearing it I told him I didn't like it. But I didn't say "Chris you suck for using AT and I'm never going to listen to your music again and I think we should boycott you for cheating."
Or "Sam...is that real reverb on the vocals? No? oh well you cheated."
I either like the sound or I don't. I don't care how you got it.
Last edited:
muzeman
New member
I know I'm late,but I had to put my 2 cents in anyway!
Quote-
"manually doubling a vocal is not cheating at all.. It is hard to do, and takes a lot of time usually..
not that I think Auto Tune is cheating.. To each his own.. Plenty of people hate what I do.."
I have to agree with Sam here-doubling is Tough!
But definitly worth the effort.
For somebody like me who has a less than pro voice,it really helps.
As far as Autotune,I think if it sounds good,go for it.
I myself have tried any number of things to sing on pitch.
My latest is recording an organ part playing the melody and singing to it.
Helped a lot.
If I could get natural sounding vocals out of an Autotune,I'd definitly use it.
Though learning to sing properly does have it's advantages.
Pete
BTW-Anybody that hate's what Sam does is off my Christmas list,Permenently!
Quote-
"manually doubling a vocal is not cheating at all.. It is hard to do, and takes a lot of time usually..
not that I think Auto Tune is cheating.. To each his own.. Plenty of people hate what I do.."
I have to agree with Sam here-doubling is Tough!
But definitly worth the effort.
For somebody like me who has a less than pro voice,it really helps.
As far as Autotune,I think if it sounds good,go for it.
I myself have tried any number of things to sing on pitch.
My latest is recording an organ part playing the melody and singing to it.
Helped a lot.
If I could get natural sounding vocals out of an Autotune,I'd definitly use it.
Though learning to sing properly does have it's advantages.
Pete
BTW-Anybody that hate's what Sam does is off my Christmas list,Permenently!
crawdad
Dammit, Jim, Shut Up!
SLuiCe said:
Sorry for the confusion. I didn't mean people in this thread. More just a smattering of attitudes I've run into from various musicians and engineers through the years. I'm just using what I have heard as part of the lil' ol' discussion we're having.
I've lived through a bunch of musical decades and the common thing is that whenever something comes along, like the Mellotron, the synthesizer, the drum machine, Autotune, etc, there is some degree of resistance at first. More than anything, I just find that kind of interesting, ya know? In 20 years things like Autotune will either become as passe as the gated snare or as common as dirt--not sure which.
Someday, there may be a voice modeler that you sing into that gives you the voice of anybody you want. "Let's see? I think I'll set this one to Steve Perry for the chorus and Joe Cocker for the verses!" I personally think its a horrible idea, but somebody will come along and make it into a new artform or something, LOL! Gotta stop here...I just made myself ill...
