Thoughts on vocal tuning/heavy editing and an interesting analogy (I think)

[famous beagle]

Hey everyone, I wanted to share some thoughts on this subject and present an analogy to help illustrate my point. What's my point? I think tuning vocals and/or heavily editing vocals and other instruments is doing us all a great disservice as musicians overall. If we get used to just getting close enough and then let the computer fix all our errors, we rob ourselves of opportunities to grow, improve our craft, gain more experience, foster new relationships with other musicians/engineers/etc. Anyway, here's my take:
I've heard many people on here claim that Autotune/Melodyne/etc. are no different than other tools like EQ, compression, etc. or effects like delay/reverb. I think this absolutely not true, and I'd like to present an analogy to demonstrate my point.

To me, there are three main aspects a singer needs to command:
1. Rhythm (singing in time, behind the beat, etc.)
2. Tone/attitude/timbre (i.e., the "sound" of their voice)
3. Pitch (singing in tune)

I'd like to compare this to a baseball pitcher, whom I think needs to command three main elements as well:
1. Speed (how fast he throws it) = Rhythm
2. Movement (curve ball, slider, fastball, etc.) = Tone
3. Location (where it ends up in the catcher's mitt) = Pitch

Using autotune to correct vocal pitch is like a pitcher only needing to worry about speed and location. He doesn't need to worry about placing it in the corner of the strike zone. All he needs to do is get it to the pitcher's mitt, and the ball would automatically snap to whichever corner of the strike zone he wants.

I'd say that pitching it to, say, the left lower corner (but still a strike) when he meant to pitch it to the opposite corner would be like a singer singing the right note but being flat or sharp considerably.
If the pitch is a ball (but still within the catcher's grasp), that would be like a singer missing a note by a half step (sang an F when he meant an E, for instance).
A wild pitch (beyond the reach of the catcher) would be like missing the note by a whole step or more.

For a natural sound, even pitching a ball (missing a note by a full half step or slightly more) is perfectly acceptable, and you likely wouldn't notice any artifacts after it's tuned.
Obviously, the wilder the pitch, the more likely you are to hear artifacts after tuning. Of course, a lot of hip hop, pop, and R&B don't even worry about that, since that zero wiggle-snapped tuning effect has become so popular. And if you use Melodyne to edit the timing as well, then the pitcher wouldn't even need to worry about his speed. He could throw a 75 mph "fastball" and just have the computer speed it up to 102 mph.

So, by using Melodyne to correct pitch and timing, you're allowing the computer to fix two of the three elements a singer is responsible for.
Contrast this with any other "effect" like reverb, delay, EQ, etc. You're not changing any aspects of a singer's performance with those tools; you're simply shaping what the singer provided. You're not acting as a crutch for the singer as Melodyne is.

The one super common effect that I would argue can slightly alter a vocal performance is compression, because at higher settings it can affect the tone/attitude of the vocal a bit. But compared to pitch and rhythm, the effect is fairly negligible I would say.

Then of course there are other effects that can change the sound of a vocal considerably (like phaser, tremolo, etc.), but again, they're not serving as a crutch to help the singer achieve their three objectives. They're simply changing the sound. I would equate this to a pitcher or a team changing their uniform. It'll make him look very different, but it's not going to help him with speed, movement, and location at all (unless maybe he was wearing a small when he needs an XL

).

So, anyway, I'm curious to hear what folks think of this analogy. Does it ring true? Am I missing something? Thanks for any replies!

 

[VomitHatSteve]

This analogy seems incredibly forced. I think you're over-complicating a fairly simple breakdown of your point.

You say a singer is responsible for 3 things: Pitch, timing, and tone. And that allowing automated tuning to fix pitch and editing to fix timing fundamentally robs them of their craft: their ability to control and grow their performance in those areas.

I would counter-argue that most other effects are for shaping tone, and the same argument applies to them. Have trouble getting the pitch right? Melodyne. Have trouble getting enough "body" in your delivery? EQ and reverb
Further, you're missing a 4th responsibility: volume. (which compression/limiting are the crutch for)

 

[famous beagle]

This analogy seems incredibly forced. I think you're over-complicating a fairly simple breakdown of your point.

You say a singer is responsible for 3 things: Pitch, timing, and tone. And that allowing automated tuning to fix pitch and editing to fix timing fundamentally robs them of their craft: their ability to control and grow their performance in those areas.

I would counter-argue that most other effects are for shaping tone, and the same argument applies to them. Have trouble getting the pitch right? Melodyne. Have trouble getting enough "body" in your delivery? EQ and reverb
Further, you're missing a 4th responsibility: volume. (which compression/limiting are the crutch for)

Thanks for your thoughts. I don't know ... I still think there's a fundamental difference between EQ/verb/etc. and Melodyne.

Think about it this way. If you have a singer that has terrible pitch and EQ it to have the perfect amount of body and give it a nice reverb, you're still gonna have a completely unusable vocal because no one cares about how nice the verb is or the vocal tone is if the singer can't do one his primary jobs of singing in tune.

Contrast that with a pro vocalist who doesn't have a pitch problem. Even if they're vocal is dry as a bone, it's still going to sound better (to anyone with a half-developed ear) than the out-of-tune version that's been EQ'ed/verbed to perfection.

I did think about volume as a fourth ingredient and considered adding that, but I figured I would just consider that to fall within the tone/attitude category. In other words, are they belting out fully with lots of energy, or are they singing softly and sweetly?

Here's a question for you, though, in that regard. Let's say you have a great singer who delivers a nice take, but a few of the ends of the phrases are disappearing a bit, or she maybe got a little too loud at a few points. Do you think that, if the engineer/producer pointed out those points and ask her to punch in an redo those lines, she'd be able to get it right within a short period of time? I don't see why not.

Now imagine you have a singer that delivers a vocal with terrible pitch all over the place. Do you think if the producer said, "Your tone wasn't bad, but you're out of tune all over the place. Can you fix that up for me, please?" Would the singer be able to do it quickly? No, they wouldn't. Why? Because they're lacking the vocal technique and/or ear to do it, which takes years of practice to develop (for most mortals anyway).

 

[VomitHatSteve]

I think you're over-stating how difficult it is for most people to get their pitch.

Let's compare apples to apples. If someone's pitch goes off on just a few notes in a song, it doesn't take a pro singer to punch in those fixes; same way it doesn't take a pro to punch in a few spots that were over or under projected or that had awkward timing. As long as they're not tone deaf, most untrained singers can hear a sour note in their own playback. (Well, assuming they can get over the awkwardness of hearing their own recorded voice that so many people struggle with)

Honestly, for most singers tone is going to be the singular one of those skills that they just can't fix in performance. If your voice is just thin in a certain register, you won't be able to punch-in a more full-bodied performance of those notes.

But I do think you're right that pitch being off is the most likely to be noticed by amateur listeners. Timing, tone, and volume choices are a lot more likely to be regarded as a stylistic choice. (Tho there are certainly instances where vocalists have chosen to play fast and loose with pitch for artistic effect)

 

[RFR]

My overall takeaways from this thread are a few simple points.

1) pitch is a learned skill. Skills take practice to develop.

2) pitch correction technology makes it too easy to fix a performance in the mixing/editing of the song

3) this creates a situation where a shitty or sub par vocalist is accepted as normal and diminishes the need to practice and develop good vocal skills.

Moral of the story? We end up with a bunch of shitty singers.

 

[famous beagle]

My overall takeaways from this thread are a few simple points.

1) pitch is a learned skill. Skills take practice to develop.

2) pitch correction technology makes it too easy to fix a performance in the mixing/editing of the song

3) this creates a situation where a shitty or sub par vocalist is accepted as normal and diminishes the need to practice and develop good vocal skills.

Moral of the story? We end up with a bunch of shitty singers.

Excellent summary, sir.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Correct pitch isn't necessarily the best pitch. A lot of the expression of singing is in manipulating pitch in ways that are technically incorrect but creatively superior.

I don't think it's just robbing singers of the opportunity to grow, it's sanitizing their performances of expression.

 

[famous beagle]

Correct pitch isn't necessarily the best pitch. A lot of the expression of singing is in manipulating pitch in ways that are technically incorrect but creatively superior.

I don't think it's just robbing singers of the opportunity to grow, it's sanitizing their performances of expression.

Absolutely agree!

 

[PorterhouseMusic]

I thinks it's a good analogy and a worthwhile point.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Saw this same argument posted in a Home Recording facebook group - you as well?

I don't sing, so I have no horse in this race, do whatever works for you, I guess. Just curious if it was the same person.

 

[famous beagle]

Saw this same argument posted in a Home Recording facebook group - you as well?

I don't sing, so I have no horse in this race, do whatever works for you, I guess. Just curious if it was the same person.

Yes, that was me! I wanted to spread my diatribe as far as I could.

 

[TalismanRich]

Thankfully we have the guy from "wings of pegasus" to show all the pitch corrected performances happening today!

 

[LazerBeakShiek]

1) pitch is a learned skill. Skills take practice to develop.

So like, time is 'equal to practice'. Or is practice still practice, and not associated with time directly? What if you practice real fast.

2) pitch correction technology makes it too easy to fix a performance in the mixing/editing of the song

I have no idea how to use computers, you think it is easy? Careful with the 'EASY' there cowboy..

3) this creates a situation where a shitty or sub par vocalist is accepted as normal and diminishes the need to practice and develop good vocal skills.

yeah, people suck.

Moral of the story? We end up with a bunch of shitty singers.

there must be a mathematical formula for it.

 

[LazerBeakShiek]

Thankfully we have the guy from "wings of pegasus" to show all the pitch corrected performances happening today!

Nothing can stop us now.

This analogy seems incredibly forced. I think you're over-complicating a fairly simple breakdown of your point.

a singer is responsible for 3 things: Pitch, timing, and tone.

Im responsible for them?

...yeah im not qualified to deep dive into how one break's into song..you yell. yell. Try it. See if Im right?

 

[rob aylestone]

Wings of Pegasus just proves what I have always thought - music is not run by musicians, but accountants. It's a product. The fact that really respected artists since music tech started, have had their music bent to suit current tastes and technology. Trying to find the original releases on Spotify is getting harder. More and more re-recordings or re-masterings, and every time, more tweaks. It also looks like so many famous people do not have control over this.

 

[TalismanRich]

It's a very common story. Things start out being done by a group, be they artists or athletes, hobbyists, enthusiasts, etc. Then someone realizes that there is money to be made. As the profits grow, the business gets more controlled, and taken out of the hands of those who started it.

In the 50 and 60s, motor racing was done primarily by well-to-do guys who could afford to build their own cars. They might get support from a factory, but it was more often a hobby or passion. If you were lucky, you could race and win enough that you didn't go broke. Today, the sport is totally controlled, and the money involved is massive. Formula 1 drivers get millions, cars cost multimillions. Things got so out of control that they now limit an F1 team to $135 million, excluding driver and top team principals.

College athletes used to get free education, room and board in exchange for playing for the school. Then school athletics began making millions for the school. It became a profit center. Now college athletes get paid "name image and likeness" money, which for top recruits is in the millions of dollars. The top two college football players made about $6.000.000 each to play college football. No longer are they in any way amateur athletes.

There were always professional musicians, folks who could make a living playing music they loved. As record companies became more powerful, it became a business, and controlled. Occasionally, you get talents who are strong enough to make a splash, but eventually they learn that there's more money to be made via marketing that just singing songs. Hence you get concert tours that charge $1000 for a ticket and net a billion dollars, records that are formulated and assembled, polished and perfected.

In the end, it's "follow the money".

 

[pipelineaudio]

Thankfully we have the guy from "wings of pegasus" to show all the pitch corrected performances happening today!

And so that you can make a drinking game of every time he says “a440 standard equal temperament “ like he does four hundred times a video as if it has some special significance

 

[pipelineaudio]

Wings of Pegasus just proves what I have always thought - music is not run by musicians, but accountants. It's a product. The fact that really respected artists since music tech started, have had their music bent to suit current tastes and technology. Trying to find the original releases on Spotify is getting harder. More and more re-recordings or re-masterings, and every time, more tweaks. It also looks like so many famous people do not have control over this.

There’s a huge myth that I think wings of Pegasus stopped pushing that it’s the record company or whatever asking for the tuning. Try delivering a mix to an artist self funded project with out tuning the vocals. Let me know how that works out for.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

It's a very common story. Things start out being done by a group, be they artists or athletes, hobbyists, enthusiasts, etc. Then someone realizes that there is money to be made. As the profits grow, the business gets more controlled, and taken out of the hands of those who started it.

In the 50 and 60s, motor racing was done primarily by well-to-do guys who could afford to build their own cars. They might get support from a factory, but it was more often a hobby or passion. If you were lucky, you could race and win enough that you didn't go broke. Today, the sport is totally controlled, and the money involved is massive. Formula 1 drivers get millions, cars cost multimillions. Things got so out of control that they now limit an F1 team to $135 million, excluding driver and top team principals.

College athletes used to get free education, room and board in exchange for playing for the school. Then school athletics began making millions for the school. It became a profit center. Now college athletes get paid "name image and likeness" money, which for top recruits is in the millions of dollars. The top two college football players made about $6.000.000 each to play college football. No longer are they in any way amateur athletes.

There were always professional musicians, folks who could make a living playing music they loved. As record companies became more powerful, it became a business, and controlled. Occasionally, you get talents who are strong enough to make a splash, but eventually they learn that there's more money to be made via marketing that just singing songs. Hence you get concert tours that charge $1000 for a ticket and net a billion dollars, records that are formulated and assembled, polished and perfected.

In the end, it's "follow the money".

Though, I also think this isn't ALWAYS a bad thing.

It's easy to choose examples where it is, but I'll make a counterpoint (though one that will take some explanation, since at first blush it seems a perfect example of the evils of money, lol).

I'm a pretty serious cyclist. I'm no pro, but for an amatuer I'm extremely fast, I train very hard, and keep a pretty good eye on the pro cycling world. And, fifteen years ago, pro cycling WAS a perfect example of the evils of money chasing performance, since at that time the answer was "doping," and the peloton was juiced as shit. The problem was then an American started winning the Tour de France, the French got pissed, and the worst kept secret in the peloton went public... and the backlash was so severe that fans started to lose interest, and the money spigot risked going away.

So, the peloton got clean. It's hard to say with perfect confidence, but there's a rigid anti-doping framework in place, there are a bunch of riders who have made being clean a huge part of their identity (see: Phil Gaimon, who's a riot at baseline), and there are enough other non-doping scandals and half scandals that suggests teams are still chasing performance at the margins but now in ways that don't involve drugs - the recent blowback and banning of using carbon monixide as a training stimulus, ans guys like Matteo Jorgensen - with justification, I think - complaining that the smaller team just don't have the budget to do things like the extended reverser altitude training camps the big teams do, where their riders sleep at high altitude (to maximize adaptation), but then train at low altitude (to maxinize power output and availability of oxygen for high aerobic work, and drive their muscles as hard as they can) for a couple weeks in a block, and how his breakthrough season came when he basically took most of his salary and self-funded his own camp, and then managed to make the jump to one of the top teams after a banner season that followed. Basically - with how hard the teams are looking for natural adaptations, and how heavily chemical ones are policed, it's fairly unlikely that there's any real broad-based doping efforts going on in the peloton.

But, something funny happened - the current generation of riders is out-riding the ones that doped to the gills. Some of it is equipment - there's been a huge rethink of bike design (aerodynamics now trump weight, we now know most of what we thought we knew about rolling resistance is wrong an riders are going from narrow rock hard tires to wider and softer tires, etc). And some of it is only indirectly performance related; there's been a lot more scientifically rigorous work done on flueling and riders are now getting higher and higher doses of carbonydrates into them mid ride (one of the powders I use for sitations where it's unlikely I'll be able to eat for one reaosn or another is cabable of getting me something like nearly 800 calories in a single water bottle, at max soluability, which is nuts), and after generations of riders getting lighter and lighter for climbing performance, Jonas Abrahamsen's stint in the lead of the climbing classification in last year's Tour, with a physique that would still be considered slim by a layperson but for a cyclist is the sort of broad shouldered, muscular build you usually associate with a top sprinter, has people rethinking that the secret to climbing performance may not be minimizing weight after all, and that in the future we may see riders allowing their weight to rise as a tradeoff for mazimixing power. And, we've had a huge rethink in training approaches, from the days of Eddy Merckx and "just go out and ride your bike," to far more structured plans and, in part driven by Tadej Pogacar's success here, a focus on doing an absolute fuckton of "zone 2" low intensity aerobic, so you can rack up huge amounts of aerobic volume while building relatively light fatigue... so then, on your hard days, you can go REALLY hard. And we're seeing things like now Pogacar's zone 2 is slightly above my in-peak threshold power, and Jonas Vingegaard's 2023 Tour win was sealed in a time trial where he likely averaged a stupendous 7.1-7.2 watts per kilogram, when "about 6.5" had been considered roughly a cap a decade ago. And Pogacar has been able to elongate his racing calendar - rather than tyrying to time a peak for the Tour or the Giro or something, he's worked with coaches to manage that fitness/fatigue line more tactically and now has emerged as a legit spring Classics contender as well, and should STILL be able to get back into form for the Tour, because, hey, if you're doing a ton of training at Zone 2, not only does that give you a huge aerobic base and huge endurance, but you can still do quite a lot of that while recovering.

This is all a lot of incremental detail that's very interesting to me, and probably no one else on the board. But, the point I'm going on is this. A hundred years ago, the Tour was a race for amateurs who were nuts enough to think it sounded fun. 50 years ago, it had become somewhat more professional, but it was pursued with a hobbyist, brute force attitude. 25 years ago, riders discovered drugs. That blew up... and now, all that money is generating breakthroughs in understanding on how the body responds to training, how we can better fuel for all day rides, how we can optimize our gear to actually do what we want it to do the best... And Tadej Pogacar or Jonas Vingeggard or Wout va Aert, or at least a dozen other guys in the peloton, all could eat 1990s Lance Armstrong for lunch today, and then go out and do intervals afterwards.

Slow day at work, can you tell?

 

[DM60]

So like, time is 'equal to practice'. Or is practice still practice, and not associated with time directly? What if you practice real fast.

I would remove the word practice and just say, "doing". I say that in reference to when the Beatles went to Hamburg and played like 6 days a week, plus a matinee. My understanding is that is what tightened them up so much, "doing". For me, I know the more that I do, the better I get at doing it, be that practicing or active recording (but giging would be included).