More on "Auto Tune" software

[pzaur]

Something I completely agree with:

Auto tune is ruining music

-pat

 

[Djizasse]

Bah! It's just a tool. It's like compression, distortion or even rhythm software.

I disagree on the notion that a tool is responsible for ruining anything. As the rest of the tools available (hardware, software, gizmos and contraptions), it is up to the artist (a technician/producer is also an artist) to use them to bring their own (or not) ideas to life.

Even the "misuse" of a tool, cannot be attributed to the tool itself, but to the artist using it.

 

[pzaur]

I think you're missing the basic point. Many frontmen for groups cannot sing live. They sound OK on cd's with the correction and then sound completely different live. Auto-tune is a handicap for singers who don't take time to learn to sing on pitch.

-pat

 

[Sheep]

I think you're missing the basic point. Many frontmen for groups cannot sing live. They sound OK on cd's with the correction and then sound completely different live. Auto-tune is a handicap for singers who don't take time to learn to sing on pitch.

-pat

Yes, but Auto-tune has parameters and settings. The Auto-tune popular today has fast attack times, which gives the voice that shifting characteristic. It's an effect, and a cover up. Whether it is being used for the latter or the former, is unknown in most cases.

SheepStar

 

[jamie2112]

I am not a fan myself................

 

[Djizasse]

I think you're missing the basic point. Many frontmen for groups cannot sing live. They sound OK on cd's with the correction and then sound completely different live. Auto-tune is a handicap for singers who don't take time to learn to sing on pitch.

-pat

I'm not missing it. But even understanding what you're saying I just don't fully agree with it. The way Auto-tune is being used makes it obvious to everyone, the over processed voice is its signature. And where you see it as an handicap for lousy singers I see it as an effect to get a sound signature that people want to hear. Don't forget that even singers who can sing live use it.

Many frontmen for groups cannot sing live. So what's new? Even before auto-tune, many songs had the voices drowned in chorus just to make it sound fuller. And even before chorus, technicians would cut different tapes (each with a voice take) and join the best parts so it would sound perfect.

 

[Wafflesomd]

Blaming a recording tool for ruining music is absurd.

 

[SunnyOctopus]

Bah! It's just a tool. It's like compression, distortion or even rhythm software.

I disagree on the notion that a tool is responsible for ruining anything. As the rest of the tools available (hardware, software, gizmos and contraptions), it is up to the artist (a technician/producer is also an artist) to use them to bring their own (or not) ideas to life.

Even the "misuse" of a tool, cannot be attributed to the tool itself, but to the artist using it.

Agreed completely.

 

[SopRage]

Every generation thinks the next's gimics are ruining music. Be it distortion, synthesized strings/horns, or recordings in general (as Sousa thought), it's always the end of the world.

It's fun to read music reviews from the Romantic and 20th-Century eras; they declare that the very music we hold sacred are scars upon the musical landscape.

At least we're consistent!

 

[pzaur]

I'm blaming the reliance on the tool.

-pat

 

[SopRage]

I think you're saying that what you're upset with is that you don't feel today's artists measure up with the heroes you've chosen. It's the same argument that today's photographer's needn't have the "skill" required in years past because of photoshop, or that electronic musicians aren't musicians because they don't themselves play an instrument.

In all cases, the real argument is that quality products should only come from a chosen few who either earn their greatness or are endowed with it as some sort of wunderkind.

I think it's much more exciting, as a musician, that more people are being given the tools for self expression and to create new products. If the final product, even with auto-tune, were a high-quality musical entity, would you embrace it? I get the feeling that you wouldn't.

Do you choose to value the product, or worship the "skills" of the artists who are only PART of the product (who most often do not write, produce, or record their own music, including Sinatra who couldn't read a note of music)?

 

[skizzerflake]

It's just another toy in the war chest of overproduced mainstream pop, not really that much different from the days when the Beach Boys used to have an alternate drummer back stage so the Dennis (not much of a musician) could be on stage with his mike turned off and still keep a beat. Anybody expecting authenticity in pop music is in line for a serious disappointment.

 

[pzaur]

I think you're saying that what you're upset with is that you don't feel today's artists measure up with the heroes you've chosen. It's the same argument that today's photographer's needn't have the "skill" required in years past because of photoshop, or that electronic musicians aren't musicians because they don't themselves play an instrument.

You're altering the argument. If you create music you are playing an instrument of some sort. This has nothing to do with relying on a device to fix your mistakes.

In all cases, the real argument is that quality products should only come from a chosen few who either earn their greatness or are endowed with it as some sort of wunderkind.

Quality products should come from anyone who calls themself a professional.

I think it's much more exciting, as a musician, that more people are being given the tools for self expression and to create new products. If the final product, even with auto-tune, were a high-quality musical entity, would you embrace it? I get the feeling that you wouldn't.

Do you choose to value the product, or worship the "skills" of the artists who are only PART of the product (who most often do not write, produce, or record their own music, including Sinatra who couldn't read a note of music)?

I choose to value the product and part of the product is being able to perform LIVE and many cannot in this day and age because the sound studio hides all their flaws with the mantra of "We'll fix it in production."

Even before auto-tune, as has been pointed out, producers still cut and pasted performances. The difference is that the artist at one point or another had to do it right. That is no longer a necessity and it shows in the quality of live shows. If the expectation is to only "get it close" then it will never be right.

-pat

 

[Sheep]

Oooooo, someone has been offended!

I think you're saying that what you're upset with is that you don't feel today's artists measure up with the heroes you've chosen. It's the same argument that today's photographer's needn't have the "skill" required in years past because of photoshop, or that electronic musicians aren't musicians because they don't themselves play an instrument.

Are you saying, that today's artist are good? This is your opinion obviously, and you're entitled to it, but I wouldn't put my neck out for Modern Pop music. I don't know how much experience you have with recording, mixing, or producing music, but I can tell you the process is much different when you have a real musician in the studio. Not only is the product better from the get go, but so is the final result. It's more fun to work with, and it's a real joy to watch them do their thing. Someone that needs band-aids to be passable is a sham on the industry, and an insult to other musicians.

In all cases, the real argument is that quality products should only come from a chosen few who either earn their greatness or are endowed with it as some sort of wunderkind.

What, a professional needs to be good at what they do? Damn, heaven forbid should some moron be denied the right to do something they can't. Take the mechanical equivalent to an Auto-tune-tard. Would you want them to fix your car?

I think it's much more exciting, as a musician, that more people are being given the tools for self expression and to create new products. If the final product, even with auto-tune, were a high-quality musical entity, would you embrace it? I get the feeling that you wouldn't.

Tools of expression is the wrong term here. More like Tools of repression, repression of mistakes, failures, and images. There is no High Quality musical entity if it wasn't there in the primal stages.

Do you choose to value the product, or worship the "skills" of the artists who are only PART of the product (who most often do not write, produce, or record their own music, including Sinatra who couldn't read a note of music)?

He could still perform. That is what they do. Mechanics fix cars, Pavers fix streets, why should musicians be given a break? **** on a blank canvas and call it art? Not in my books.

SheepStar

 

[SopRage]

Wow. Hot topic.

No offense, but most of the posts are still dealing primarily with hero-worship:

"It's more fun to work with, and it's a real joy to watch them do their thing. Someone that needs band-aids to be passable is a sham on the industry, and an insult to other musicians."

"Damn, heaven forbid should some moron be denied the right to do something they can't."

"More like Tools of repression, repression of mistakes, failures, and images."

I'm no huge fan of modern music (and listen to as little as possible), but I think you're letting the music from the last 50 years off the hook with this gloom-and-doom auto-tune forecast. I'm not so sure that the concerts from the last several years were as stellar as we're all remembering. How many of us can claim that the bulk of the concerts we've seen were as good as the album performances?

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade or pick a fight, and I'm hardly offended. In fact, I feel like I'm one of the few here that's NOT outraged. I guess I simply don't care how "talented" an artist is, since it seems like most of the real musical decisions are being (and have been made) by the producers, recording engineers, and composers. I'm interested in the final product: what I hear on the album. That it would not sound the same in concert does not bother me because I consider the two seperate entities.

I do not care whether or not the artist had to, at any point, "get it right" if the final product is good music nonetheless (though it often is not) - I'm interested in the music, not the artist.

And, for what it's worth, I'm not sure we're really picking fair fights. I think we're rather pitting the best of the last several decades to make points against this one. Obviously Sinatra is a better musician than T-Pain.

::cue flaming::

 

[pzaur]

No offense, but most of the posts are still dealing primarily with hero-worship:

If "hero worship" is appreciating the product from someone that can actually produce it, then count me in. I guess you don't believe that a performer actually should know how to perform their music...correctly?!

I'm interested in the final product: what I hear on the album. That it would not sound the same in concert does not bother me because I consider the two seperate entities.

Interesting. I guess you never go to live concerts?

I'm interested in the music, not the artist.

If you're interested in the music, as you claim, then I suppose you would want it performed properly and skillfully in a live concert, too, right?

And, for what it's worth, I'm not sure we're really picking fair fights. I think we're rather pitting the best of the last several decades to make points against this one. Obviously Sinatra is a better musician than T-Pain.

It's always a fair fight. Why would I expect anything less from a professional? Quality should go down over time? I think not.

-pat

 

[Deeds]

Doesn't it sound like Metallica is using it here?

Doesn't it sound like Metallica is using it here? You can hear it really well around 3:14 - 3:21



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4us2xXASkXE&feature=PlayList&p=A26940A1B4E6BA59&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=23


They sound so sloppy and were never a "tight" live band to me. I guess that's rock N roll. They would just be so much more impressive if it seemed like they practiced. You would think these guys haven't been around forever.

 

[SopRage]

This conversation seems like it's boiling down to some sort of litmus test for deciding who the "real musicians" are.

I guess our test for who's music is good enough to listen to is how good their pitch is in concert? Perfection in performance is not the sole criterion for good music; if anything, expression is. Auto-tuning only corrects the former. The comments regarding "skill" and "proper" playing reflect an aesthetic that is based on "getting it right" rather than dealing with the musical product as a whole, e.g. craftsmanship in construction of the work (song, or what have you), energy and emotion in the performance, quality of the lyrics, innovation in sound, etc.

The argument here is that this technology is "ruining music." Unless you regard perfect intonation as the sum total of "music," I don't think we can agree that it has.

Above all, the main argument seems to be that musicians today "ain't what they used to be." I suppose in a way that it's true; we don't have a small class of the elite that are responsible for the bulk of what we listen to. Modern music listeners have a larger offering of music and musicians than at any other point in history. On the whole, then, perhaps the pool is lesser - but the variety of what's offered is unmatched, and there is some excellent music still being made (even with auto-tune)!

As for the difference between concerts and live performances, we can use the Beatles as an extreme example of the point, but most pop music products today were never created with live performance in mind.

Finally, I have to insist that using Frank Sinatra as the measuring stick for modern musicians is indeed unfair; your argument implies that ALL musicians during his (and subsequent) time(s) were of the same calibur. Quite simply, Frank is Frank because they were not.

Fun point to discuss!

 

[SopRage]

Also!

I see you're a teacher, Pat. Very cool (me too)!

What do you teach? Music?

 

[pzaur]

The argument here is that this technology is "ruining music." Unless you regard perfect intonation as the sum total of "music," I don't think we can agree that it has.

I disagree. The argument is actually the reliance on technology to fix inadequacies is ruining music.

There are fewer quality bands being given the spotlight because they take time to grow. Ability to perform, live, doesn't happen overnight. Simply correcting mistakes post production instead of not making them during production leads to a mindset that "Close is good enough." I certainly don't believe so. Live performances with poor skill will always ruin music of any kind.

Finally, I have to insist that using Frank Sinatra as the measuring stick for modern musicians is indeed unfair; your argument implies that ALL musicians during his (and subsequent) time(s) were of the same calibur. Quite simply, Frank is Frank because they were not.

Ummm...Frank was your example. No one else brought him up...Talent is no longer required to be signed. It's all marketability because "they can fix it in the studio." A small group of recording execs are deciding what music is produced. There's a reason most new music sounds the same.

True, there is an abundance of variety available if you can find it...The record companies have their marketing mold that a band needs to fit into for them to sign a band.

Fun point to discuss!

It certainly can be as long as it's done civilly... like it is!

-pat

(yes, I do teach and perform)