Auto-Tune Abuse

i decided to give autotune a chance after hearing this:

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

and i created this "Sylvan" auto-tune used

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

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.
 
Both of Freebases comments are correct. It is not a new effect by any means. Engineers have been using it to correct subtle, and not so subtle, pitch deviations for years.

Sometimes in the case of an artist who's image sells, but can't carry a tune with a wheel barrel, the effect is used much more liberally both in live and studio applications, such as in this humorous example of an atist's vocals before being sent through the auto-tune processor:

[YOUTUBE]3Ak1cpi74RM[/YOUTUBE]

It wasn't until pop, hip-hop, and yes oRABhoots of genre's ending in "mo" started utilizing the effect creatively by maxing out the effect's parameters, (aka a vocoder), that the general public became hugely aware of it's usage.

[YOUTUBE]tXhy84XLo8k[/YOUTUBE]
 
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 sounRAB 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 banRAB 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 sounRAB. 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.
 
Autotune could be useful to correct slight pitch problems in vocals, but if used in the long run, I think it could be devasting to the core
of what music really is.

Music, for me, is an area where honesty should be expressed through both the artistic and personal sides of the band in question.
I'm just someone who personally prefers an open and honest song, rather than one that has been engineered to perfection in the studio.

Technically speaking, with autotune, anyone could be a great singer.
If all you had to do was correct the notes you messed up on, you could pretty much fake anything you wanted to, and get away with it.

When it comes down to it, a singer is judged by their live perfomance, as far as I'm concerned. If they can't sing live, they can't sing at all.
You can make it pretty in the studio all you want to, but at the end of the day, you're only as good as you really are.

I would rather listen to an artist give his passion to a song, than hear a computer generated, robotic quality in the vocal.
I'm not going to define meaningful music, because that is subjective.
But to me, music would be meaningless, if you had the means to transform it into something its not.

I would rather my music be real, than something created by a program in a studio.

Edit: In response to the synthesizer point....

That is something that is used to enhance or alter the sound of an instrument. You can make the argument that autotune does the same thing for vocals, but I hope I'm about to stiffle that.

Technically speaking, you still have to be able to PLAY that instrument, in order for the synthesizer to work..

With autotune, you don't have to technically be able to sing well.
You can just sing, and autotune will do the work for you.
Nothing has been invented yet that will make your fingers move to the appropriate frets on a guitar, so that you play all the right notes.

That is the big difference. I think the question you should ask now, is "what defines a great singer".
 
Yes, they are, but in very different ways. I just don't think using Auto-tune is the same as using a guitar pedal according to the reasons why people use Auto-tune (purely for pitch-correction and 'covering up' tonal flaws) verses the reasons why most musicians use guitar pedals (not to correct pitch but to manipulate sound in other ways). Yes, they are both a means to enhance and manipulate sound but they are definitely not the same thing.



A lot of them do the same thing, but I just thought I'd mention it because I've come across a lot of people that call many other vocal processors 'autotune' when they aren't pitch correctors and they don't do the same thing as the original Auto-tune. Not all vocal processors do the same thing.
 
Simple:
You are not a talented if you have auto-tune in every song on every word, I do not care if its famous, if its the new evolution of music, I do not care how successful it is, its just not talented.
 
What really bugs me about autotune is not its use to correct things, but as a vocal effect that's completely overused and annoying. Not that I listen to the type of music where it's prevalent, but I have the misfortune of overhearing it once in a while.

I also understand the argument that (when used to correct) it's making people that can't sing sound like they can, making pop stars out of talentless *******s as if we didn't already have enough of those. But for the most part I can tell when music isn't sincere and I don't listen to that crap so it doesn't really affect me.

I just don't want to hear autotune.
 
Back
Top