Autotune in music

[theINC]

Another forum I frequent had a massively long thread on this topic.

Autotune is a technology used by record producers to make music sound better than it actually is by correcting the pitch of the singer.
The most notable song at the moment which you can hear the effect is Britney Spears' Piece of Me.

This guy is demonstrating how autotune can fix a bad singer with the click of a mouse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYiN2N_JADg

This site
http://www.hometracked.com/2008/02/05/a ... -examples/
shows 10 abuses of autotune in pop music.

I personally think autotune either needs to be completely avoided or used explicitly and fragrantly.
Singers who use autotune to decieve people into believing that they are a good singer are horrible people.
People go out and buy their album, assume the person is a great singer, give them hundreds of thousands of dollars for something they didn't actually create, and then the singer gets an ego boost.
They try doing a live concert and usually fail miserably because, they aren't actually good singers. But, people have already given them their money and so they can just go and retire now.

However (there's always a however)
the Auto-Tune effect can be used for non-deceiving effects to produce a particular sound. Daft Punk's One More Time is a good example of this.
They aren't claiming that they are good singers (though Romanthony, the voice behind that song, is actually a good singer without the AT) but make a kick-ass song out of it.

Now that I've informed you, what are your thoughts?

TL;DR version: What do you think of Autotune in music?

[Cake]

Artists should be genuinely good at what they do. Otherwise it's worthless. The guy who makes it sound good is good at what he does. He should make the big bucks.

[NachoManLance]

Artists should be genuinely good at what they do. Otherwise it's worthless. The guy who makes it sound good is good at what he does. He should make the big bucks.

QFT, thus why I typically judge a musical group or singer by live performance. No fancy-shmancy studio edits and mixes will get in the way of their true talent

Although, I am taking a course in ProTools LE for post-production. It's nifty.

[Captain Derk]

As with most crappy things, Autotune is great for parody purposes.

[tak197]

If an artist is so bad at singing that they need Autotune to sound good, they aren't worth shit.

[Kawaiicaps]

Recording studios have been using editing and other methods to make the recorded song sound better long before autotune came along. I think there would be less "pop" music without it. the world seems to need the famous people as much as the music.

I also judge the talent of a singer/band on their live performance. I used to really like the smashing pumpkins, for example, but then I saw them live and they really sucked. I still enjoyed their recorded works but had lost a lot of respect for the group.
When I think about it, if it was not for autotune and editing techniques I would not have had those recorded songs that I enjoy. In that way I think it is a good thing.
I also don't see a difference in enjoying a song that is "altered" with these programs and enjoying a purely techno song that does not use any real instruments but rather recordings of the instrument made into a song. the techno song is just as fake but also enjoyable.
Catch my drift?

-^_^-

[Cake]

The techno song may be fake, but it is still someone's work. And I don't even like techno.

[Kawaiicaps]

But the guy that edits the pop song is working too. he just doesn't get credit for it (well maybe in the back of the cd insert)

-^_^-

[Cake]

He edits it into his own piece.

[Kawaiicaps]

what? yes that's what I said. he edits the work.....

Are we in an agreement or not? I am confused now.
-^_^-

[Cake]

Your confusion has confused me.

I am making the point that someone who makes techno from pre recorded sounds, still makes his own work.

[Cake]

I mean, Tiesto sucks and people seem to enjoy his work.

[Kawaiicaps]

Okay, I agree with that totally.
What I am saying is that the editor of a pop song is also working, though for someone else and is the true mastermind behind the song. The main difirence I see is that the techno artist gets to make the music as he sees fit and gets to use his artistic creativity, while the editor is using the same skills and techniques to make a song that a producer told him to make.
They are both creating the same thing in the end, a song out of pre-recorded sounds.
-^_^-

[Cake]

What I am saying is that the editor of a pop song is also working, though for someone else and is the true mastermind behind the song. The main difirence I see is that the techno artist gets to make the music as he sees fit and gets to use his artistic creativity, while the editor is using the same skills and techniques to make a song that a producer told him to make.
They are both creating the same thing in the end, a song out of pre-recorded sounds.

The guy who makes it sound good is good at what he does. He should make the big bucks.

Then we are arguing over nothing. ^^

[Kawaiicaps]

I think we are agreeing in that way that only works on the internet.

-^_^-

[korri]

as a musician myself, i know how hard it is to play in tune and hit the right notes.. using this auto tune thing, takes away one of the hardest things to do as a musician, thus bringing down the work it takes to be "good"

the only way to judge a band is to see them live.. case and point, Tower of Power (a group here probably no one knows) is amazing on record and live, they play all the instruments and you can barely hear any mistakes when live...

also, though when you see someone perform live, it kinda helps if they're actually performing live.. so many times, you can tell that the performer is totally lip synching, which i feel is a total rip off... i mean, please you can not to a crazy acrobatic dance routine and still sing... it just doesn't work

[NachoManLance]

also, though when you see someone perform live, it kinda helps if they're actually performing live.. so many times, you can tell that the performer is totally lip synching, which i feel is a total rip off... i mean, please you can not to a crazy acrobatic dance routine and still sing... it just doesn't work

That was also a point I forgot to make. A lot of people, not everyone, but a lot can still be fooled by lip-synchs and other edits made into the live shows, and that can mislead them into saying that the lead singer was amazing, or that one guitar riff was spot-on. Most of the people that go to live shows are there just to enjoy it and are caught up in the adrenaline and hype. So it takes a tuned ear and good set of eyes to spot things that aren't right, something I'm still trying to acquire.

[brc64]

I've heard this sound before (mostly any time I hear Akon on the radio), but I never knew what it was called. According to the youtube video, it's done with hardware, so even seeing a band live wouldn't necessarily be a true indication of their talent.

The sound clips in the second link were particularly interesting, as I'd heard a few of those songs before but never once noticed the distortion. On a few of the other examples I still couldn't notice it.

[emma]

I mean, Tiesto sucks and people seem to enjoy his work.

No one who actually listens to techno would ever listen to Tiesto. Tiesto is universally mocked in rave circles.

QFT, thus why I typically judge a musical group or singer by live performance. No fancy-shmancy studio edits and mixes will get in the way of their true talent

I can't agree to this because I know of a lot of fabulous bands who are extremely talented but just fail at live performance. There are certain types of music that don't translate well to the loud, fuzzy sounds of a concert venue. For example: The Fiery Furnaces are a ridiculously awesome band. They are extremely talented and entertaining. I saw them in concert and they were horrible, because they were forced to play their music on guitars and other concert-friendly instruments, because it is hard to perform a bunch of weird sounds and things. They are simply not a concert band!

[NachoManLance]

QFT, thus why I typically judge a musical group or singer by live performance. No fancy-shmancy studio edits and mixes will get in the way of their true talent

I can't agree to this because I know of a lot of fabulous bands who are extremely talented but just fail at live performance. There are certain types of music that don't translate well to the loud, fuzzy sounds of a concert venue. For example: The Fiery Furnaces are a ridiculously awesome band. They are extremely talented and entertaining. I saw them in concert and they were horrible, because they were forced to play their music on guitars and other concert-friendly instruments, because it is hard to perform a bunch of weird sounds and things. They are simply not a concert band!

Duly noted, but I did intend to mean musical groups that are capable of performing live and using their instruments to produce the same or almost-same sounds played on record. A lot of songs these days (mostly mainstream) can be played by clicking a button, not banging on a drum kit or even wailing on guitar. If we got the person who did all of that for the group to perform live instead, it wouldn't be so entertaining just seeing him up there on his Mac or PC and clicing the mouse. It's not to say that the song itself or the group is bad, but when it comes to true musicianship and skill, showing your audience that live is what I really enjoy and look for.

Blahhh, I went on a tangent and probably didn't make any sense. I give up, going back to work now.

[AlexanderDitto]

See, this is why I love classical music. You can't fake it. No lip-syncing the violin part!

Bleh, most of today's pop/rap/rock music is repetitive and uninspired noise anyway. Unless it's intentionally repetitive (Ravel's Bolero! Daft Punk!). Then it's OK.

Too bad I wasn't alive in the 1920's. I want to find Gershwin and hug him. And save him from dying. WE'VE GOT TO GO BACK.

What ever happened to great artists who could actually sing and play musical instruments? I miss them. I blame everything on The Monkees. It's all their fault. OK, not really.

[emma]

See, this is why I love classical music. You can't fake it. No lip-syncing the violin part!

You definitely can, to an extent. Apparently Glenn Gould was such a perfectionist that when recording his music, he would pick out individual notes that he liked the sound of from different takes and stick them all together.

There are always ways to fake things.

[emma]

Man that makes it sound like I don't think Glenn Gould was a totally rad pianist.

He was a totally rad pianist.

[korri]

when you make a recording of any song (classical or not) you play every single part multilple and then they are spliced together in order to create an entire piece.. thats why when artists are able to do something "in one take" its pretty much amazing.. the beatle's "yesterday" was recorded in one take..

[NachoManLance]

The Beatles = (my) Gods of music