Auto-Tune Abuse

Freebase Dali · 09-24-2009, 09:29 PM

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.

Ace · 09-24-2009, 09:35 PM

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.

~~The Unfan~~ · 09-24-2009, 09:36 PM

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!

Ace · 09-24-2009, 09:44 PM

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.

~~The Unfan~~ · 09-24-2009, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace

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

This combined with your sig is absolutely hilarious.

Ace · 09-24-2009, 09:51 PM

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

Antonio · 09-24-2009, 10:16 PM

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

Ace · 09-24-2009, 10:17 PM

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.

~~CAPTAIN CAVEMAN~~ · 09-25-2009, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antonio

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

how is he trolling at all?

Antonio · 09-25-2009, 05:24 AM

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

09-24-2009, 09:29 PM	#61 (permalink)
Freebase Dali Partying on the inside Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,584	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. __________________