It still has no bearing on song writing talent, I mean, half the people I know could sing well enough to front a band - it doesn't mean they are.

But it doesn't matter. The end result is music, an artistic expression. That is it. We're talking about sound, and as long as the sound is pleasing to the ear why would it matter how it was achieved?

i agree^, it's like if someone wants to make a song in a way where it's not possible without the aid of studio equipment, i'd be okay with that if the end result was creatively sound and something that i enjoyed listening to. one example that comes to mind is Mastodon. while they can be able to replicate the instrumentation of their songs good enough live, their vocals (especially on their newer release Crack The Skye) are alot more polished in the studio than live. tbh, i feel that as long as they're able to make fantastic songs like i know they can, i don't care if they never perform another live show again.

I know, the thought of having more good music out there made by someone "unworthy" is horrifying.

Why don't you guys just start going to concerts where the bands sit in lounge chairs and play their CD's through the sound system then?

The argument here isn't about music in general, its about having someone clearly faking their performance. But hey, if you want to spend money on that, its your call.

You can't fake a performance. You can use autotune in a performance, but that is just a stylistic choice.

Haha. Whatever dude. It almost seems like you know someone or are someone who uses it, the way you're going about defending it.

Like I said, if you want to spend money on something that isn't genuine, you do that.
I'm not going to pay to see a singer use a device to help him sound better, because he really can't cut it by himself. And that's all it is.

When auto-tune is used for that purpose, its because the singer can't cut it.
Plain and simple, like it or not, defend it all you want.

I could almost guarantee I could use it and start making a crapload of cash, but as I said in one of my earlier posts, I prefer my music to be real.
Making music using studio devices is one thing.
Using the studio to cover up your mistakes, is another.

The Unfan has it right there, but to just go about this a different way...

You're saying that in the studio and in creating music, it's fine to use autotune? But then those same artists need to not use it live, and it would be better to pay to go to concerts where the vocalist gives a terrible performance and is never on pitch?

I don't see how the singer's technical ability is possibly more important than deriving enjoyment from the sound of the music. Regardless of how it was made, what's important is if it sounds good or not.

I've already said I could justify using auto-tune in the studio, IF the artist is capable of replicating the performance.
Maybe not every single day, but atleast capable of reaching that peak, unaided, and live.

But no, I really could never bring myself to listen to someone who was using auto-tune live, and really enjoy it.
You can be lazy with it. All you have to do is get close, and the device would correct the note for you.

Seriously, imagine the same thing with your instruments.
Would you prefer a guitarist to have a device attatched to his guitar, that made all the right notes play?
(Don't be a smartass, even though a lot of bands should have this =|)
That way, all the guitarist had to do was pretend he was playing! Oh joy!

Music is different from movies, there should be no acting involved.

No. I know some people who work in studios, and a few musicians, but none who openly use it. That is to say, the might, but if they did I wouldn't know. I'm defending it because I think its legit.

Using autotune doesn't make something not genuine. Rather it is a means to reach a genuine artistic expression that wouldn't be achieved otherwise.
So you're never going to a concert where someone sings ever? Mixers can adjust how much treble or bass is in a voice which can actually significantly change how a singer sounds. Most microphones have covers to dampen plosive noises.

No it isn't. However, just for the sake argument let's assume you're right. So what? Who cares? The performance is what matters, and if using autotune enhances the performance why is that a bad thing?

It isn't a mistake if you intended to use autotune to fix your voice in the first place.

Edit: Acting is fine in music though. It is all art. What about Alice Cooper? Acting improved his stage presence considerably.

No one uses auto-tune at the concerts I run.
I'm a sound tech, and none of the singers I work with need the help of autotune, much less know what it is. I have a few that have exceptional range and can nail the same performance every night.

If the performance mattered to you, you wouldn't condone the use of autotune.
Unless you'd rather see stage acting, than hear your artist sing with the talent they were born with, that is.

No matter how much you EQ a voice, it isn't going to stop a singer from missing notes.
With autotune, any kid on the street could sing, and sing well.
Arguing the point is borderline ridiculous. As I've said, if it doesn't bother you to know that your music is synthetic, so be it.

I, however, feel differently.
I guess music for me, is more about the music, and less about the dance.

OK I was trying to just stay out of this now but...

This contradicts everything you've said this entire time. You've been saying that what matters more than how good the music sounds is that it's the artist themselves doing it naturally, not aiding by effects like autotune. It's obvious that the quality of the music itself is not what truly matters to you.

If music is good, I don't care what is done to create it.

Lets try this again. Do any of your acts use synthesizers or samples?

You evidently haven't been following the thread from the beginning, mate.
I said what matters most, is the honesty in the music.

I could care less if a singer can't sing 100% all the time, because a guitarist isn't going to hit every correct note,
playing show, after show, after show.

Music is becoming more of a business, and less of an art.
And I'm not in the business of enhancement at the cost of deceit.

If I can't hire enough musicians to play all the extra effects, strings, and all the symphony crap in the background of my
studio song, I'm not going to record it.
Because, if I MYSELF couldn't play it the same way live, I wouldn't do it.

But that's just me.
Autotune can be used to help someone achieve perfection; true statement.
Is this a bad thing in the studio? Definately not.
The question is, can they achieve it without it?

If they can't achieve it, tune them, and fix the problem.
Let's make it easier for talentless people to hit mainstream.
Because, God forbid, we don't need any real singers giving it their all on an album.
Why bother when they can just fix it in the studio, right?

Let's make the job they have even easier, so they can make millions off us without even putting in a lot of effort.

If they can't achieve it without aid, then its not worth my time.
If you don't care, good for you.

Case closed.

Synthesizers still require skill. They're basically just electronic pianos with effects

Does a synthesizer enhance their skill?

Is this too much for you to take in....

Actually yes. A synthesizer can make the notes sound very unnatural. You also never answered me on samples. How about digitally created music in general?

Autotune is nothing more than an effect that produces tones by unnaturally shifting the pitch. Why is using such an effect bad? Would it be bad if there was an effect pedal that made the guitar sound detuned?

Auto-tune as an effect, isn't bad.

Auto-tune used to cover up MISTAKES, is bad.
And you completely disregarded what I said about the synthesizer.
Can a synthesizer correct the pitch of notes?

No, it can't. It just adds effects to the instrument.
And that is fine. But auto-tune can be used to correct vocal mistakes.
Which creates nothing but a shortcut for every other idiot to get a record deal.
Which means, most of those kinds of acts sell on purely their image alone, not their music.

This is a fact. Not an opinion.

Lots of artists have gotten popular based on image. Beatles were popular in America before their music even got here based on image and hype alone.

Is it a bad thing that an act focusses on image? No
Does the music still need to be composed? Yes.
Autotune is not a shortcut, it is a means to rich an artistic goal.

And again, you ignored my point on electronic music that is made digitally.

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.

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 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".
Sure, there are plenty of acts that get by on image alone nowadays, and I try to support as little of them as possible.

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.

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.

"wow, datz deep man."

Get real.

Unfan,
Pitch correction is basically the same as having an eraser on a pencil. If you don't fuck up, there isn't a need for it. But if you do, you have options.
I think the problem arises when producers are implementing auto-tuning options as a first line of defense, instead of working with the singer and allowing the natural talent of a singer to be expressed. It's a laziness in the recording industry that's may be causing technically pitch-perfect recordings, but at the same time, is causing disappointment when fans realize the musicians they love can't hold a tune during a concert. I don't know about you, but I like concerts who's bands don't sound like garbage.
Might be a personal thing though, so don't hold me to that.

It extends beyond the vocal realm though.
If you realized the full extent of the editing and modifying of ALL elements of a professionally recorded band, you'd be amazed.
I do understand that the end result is all that matters, but specifically in the context of live performances, you can generally get a very good idea of which bands made it because of true talent, and which ones just made it because they had a good producer, mixer, and mastering engineer.

Well said. With that, I think I'll end any further argument into my points.
All the points brought up here were valid, even the ones he made about auto-tune.
Those points do not detract from the fact that auto-tune abuse, makes it possible for bands to be lazy in the studio, and not have to give it their best during a live performance.

To each his own.

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.

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.

Non-sequitur is non-sequitur.

I'm not denying that autotune is used to fix vocals, I'm just saying there is nothing inherently wrong with that process.

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!

Reminds me of arguing with an Alzheimers patient.....

I hate it when people jump into the middle of a thread without really reading what has been discussed, and then start making posts about bits and pieces of your statements. It's kind of like that itch that you just can't scratch....

I need some pizza.

This combined with your sig is absolutely hilarious.

You know what, that would be pretty funny.....he does kinda remind me of an Alzheimer's patient.

you have realized by now Unfan is a troll, right?

Indeed. He had some valid points, I won't knock that.
But they still don't change the facts I stated.

But as I said, to each his own.

how is he trolling at all?

he's not really, i just felt like stirring the pot a bit, hehe :D

sounds to me like YOU are the troll

I'm trollicus!

See, these are the kind of comments we try to avoid.
Go post something constructive now.

Autotune can be rather effective given the proper context, but it really has become quite overkill as of late. I mean, what's the point of making pitch-perfect vocals if they so darn fake?

ok


but yeah, i'm through with my evil, trolling ways :p:

autotune can bring crazy results to things other than vocals...crazy results. using it for vocals alone isnt scratching the surface at all

oh hell yeah granting tonality to sounds that in nature would not normally possess tonality like the wind. i find those possibilities fascinating

I hate when they butcher someones voice with vocal effects rather then using it to compliment the natural tone of their singing. This is nothing new.

Vocal effects can be awesome though:




^^^Back me up on that shit, Fasho.

It makes horrible singers (like T-Pain) sound like robots

i decided to give autotune a chance after hearing this:



and i created this "Sylvan" auto-tune used



oh and tumour i also like sleigh bells but they just don't fit in with anything else on my ipod so i just listen to them off my pc.

i believe auto-tune is better as a simple vocal effect but not completely tuning on the lead vocals of "Sylvan" i set the auto-tune only about 30%, but on the lines "like a bird in the morning" the auto-tune is at probably 80%, i'll rarely put auto-tune up to 100% because it takes too much from the original vocals.