Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace
I didn't ignore anything.
I'm just extremely tired of repeating myself.
I said electronic music was fine in posts 1 - 5, long before you meandered onto here.
|
So here you have no problem with music made with no chance of error. Music that is by definition flawless in performance because of artificial means.
Quote:
And let's not bring the Beatles into this.
John Lennon is one of the best singers and songwriters there ever was.
Lennon didn't need auto-tune.
|
I didn't say he did. I said they made it a long way off nothing but image and hype. If not for focussing on image the marketing would have failed.
Quote:
|
I can reach my "artistic goals" all day long, but to most of you, I'd be known as a "sell out". I'd just be "doing it for the money".
|
Non-sequitur is non-sequitur.
Quote:
I think you just like arguing for the sake of arguing.
I'm not being an elitist here, I'm just having a hard time figuring out why a plain and simple fact is not being understood clearly.
|
I'm not denying that autotune is used to fix vocals, I'm just saying there is nothing inherently wrong with that process.
Quote:
Auto-tune is used to fix MISTAKES IN A VOCAL.
You cannot FIX a note on a keyboard. A synthesizer adds effects, it cannot CORRECT THE NOTE. If the player plays the wrong note, IT WILL SYNTHESIZE THE WRONG NOTE.
|
But you actually can fix a wrong note, sorta. If you have a note sequencer it doesn't matter what key you hit, it'll play the preprocessed note. You can literally set it up so you can hit any random key and get the right note. However, this takes compositon skill, just like autotune does.
But what I find baffling is that you have no problem with music that is perfect by means of using a computer to process a sequence of notes, but you have a problem when you have a computer process a sequence of notes that come out of someone's mouth. THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME PROCESS!