Yeah... who needs talent when you have software!
18th century harpsichordist: "Who needs talent when you have a pianoforte!"
Early 20th century Edison engineer: "Who needs talent you have recording tape and a razor blade!"
Mid-20th century studio musician: "Who needs talent when you have a punch-in button!"
Latter-20th century copyist: "Who needs talent when you have a software amanuensis!"
First, there is a difference between craft and talent. "Craft" is how you make the music -- being able to press the right keys on the instrument, or the ability to match pitch. "Talent" is how you interpret the music, if you're a musician, or what combination of notes and rhythms produce a pleasing song. All technology does is make the division between the two more obvious, and the need for craft less compelling. The goal is always the same: produce music that reaches listeners and moves them (which is the goal of all art).
I've played keyboards all my life, but I'm still a rather poor musician -- my craft is lacking, notwithstanding many decades of playing. However, I think I'm a pretty good composer. With the advent of MIDI sequencers in the early 80s, I was able to separate the craft of playing from the art of composing. Thanks to the evolution of music software, I can now produce fully-orchestrated scores that capture, much more precisely, the music I hear in my head when I compose and, best of all, I can play my scores for others and say, "Okay, what do you think of that?" Melodyne and Autotune are just tools that make it easier to reach the goal of creating music that moves people, no different in concept than the improvement over the harpsichord represented by the invention of the piano, which added dynamics to keyboard scores.
Because I record at home, I have a technical interest in how a piece of music was produced. However, that has nothing to do with whether I like a piece of music -- the former goes to the craft, the latter goes to the art (or, if you will, talent).
And one final note (pun intended): It seems like most of the posters here are aspiring artists who want to succeed as performers in the popular music industry. Though that's where the money is, it hardly represents the entire world of music. I write for the musical theater (well, I try to write for the musical theater). Part of that process is workshopping works in progress which, for my writing partner and myself, entails producing demo CDs. Because I hear my music in my head fully orchestrated when I compose, a piano reduction is insufficient to communicate my music. Because my writing partner and I, though trained as singers a long time ago (we were both professional actors), no longer have the vocal chops we once had, a dry recording of us singing is insufficient to communicate my music. Accordingly, I use every tool available to me to produce our demos. I compose in Finale (for traditional orchestration) and Sonar X2 (for electronic music), using all the tools available in each to ensure I get the right dynamics and articulations (and notes). I mix in Audition CS6 and master in Audition CS3, using all the tools available in each to ensure that I get a clean, well-balanced sound. And I use
Melodyne on every single vocal track to ensure that lack of craft on the part of my writing partner and myself doesn't distract from our lack of craft. If this process results in a show that people think is a good, it won't be because of the craft involved in producing the actual sounds on the CD, but because of the talent involved in composing music and writing lyrics. And if people think it's not good, it will reflect our lack of talent, independent of craft. Craft and talent are two entirely different things -- the former supports the latter, but it doesn't substitute for it.
