Ace

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.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by RezZ I think I know much better than you ever will how Mettalica is. I used to play for 2 years in a Mettalica cover band.

The Abominable Homan

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.

__________________
Rate Your Musics

The Unfan

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

Ace

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.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by RezZ I think I know much better than you ever will how Mettalica is. I used to play for 2 years in a Mettalica cover band.

storymilo

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

Ace

Does a synthesizer enhance their skill?

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

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by RezZ I think I know much better than you ever will how Mettalica is. I used to play for 2 years in a Mettalica cover band.

The Unfan

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?

Ace

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.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by RezZ I think I know much better than you ever will how Mettalica is. I used to play for 2 years in a Mettalica cover band.

The Unfan

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.

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.

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.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by RezZ I think I know much better than you ever will how Mettalica is. I used to play for 2 years in a Mettalica cover band.