Auto-Tune Abuse

oh hell yeah granting tonality to sounRAB that in nature would not normally possess tonality like the wind. i find those possibilities fascinating
 
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.
 
No, I think they differ. Auto-tune is a processor most often used to disguise inaccuracies and mistakes in tone. It's basically pitch correction. While guitar pedals are also used to process sounRAB and spit them out in a different format they aren't really used to correct pitch but instead to enhance and manipulate sound in other ways... unless you're referring to a specific effects pedal which concentrates purely on correcting pitch.

There is also a difference between 'Auto-Tune' which is a pitch corrector developed by a specific audio technology company and the term 'autotune' which has been kind-of adopted as an urabrella term to refer to other audio processors developed by other companies.
 
Why so fixated on the technical skill that goes into a song? If a singer can't really sing and uses autotune, why would I care as long as it sounRAB good? Whether it does or not is another argument, they run the risk of sounding 'plastic'. But in the end it's artistic discretion.
 
You know what, that would be pretty funny.....he does kinda remind me of an Alzheimer's patient.
 
Not really.

Auto-Tune allows a person to modify an audio file using an algorithm similar to timestretching, except instead of modifying tempo without modifying pitch, it modifies pitch without modifying tempo.
It's basically drawing a pitch envelope.

Vocoders are more in a re-synthesis vein that has more to do with filters and melodic reproduction based on filter settings.
 
It has to be risky to use live....unless it has some sort of properties to make it work similar to a limiter, volume wise.
Maybe its only activated under extreme circumstances.

I'm not really familiar with it. Just seems that it could be risky, especially if you accidentlly sang a note that was incorrect and autotune escalated the effect to make the sound even worse.
 
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 adRAB 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.
 
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:
[YOUTUBE]5bcLWZY7kAQ[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]-To0lPFmXN8[/YOUTUBE]

^^^Back me up on that shit, Fasho.
 
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.
 
Anyone and their brother could be the lead singer of a band, if they could alter their vocals and make them sound perfect. What's the point of putting your all into a performance, if you can just tweak it later?

It isn't that hard of a concept to grasp.
 
define 'meaningful music'.

this quote is the same line of crap people dumped onto synthesizers when they hit big in the mainstream in the early 80s.

it's new technology that has proven to be (and will continue to be) successfully used by many (but never all) acts. music grows and evolves in the same way society and culture do, regardless of the opinions of the individuals that seek to define or control it. the issue is that it challenges established norms which in turn challenges individual tastes, and we all know how much people 'really' like change.
 
Back
Top