The Auto-Tune/Pitch Correction Debate Thread

Fair point psoodonym.

But the majority of composers/writers are quite happy to sit in the background and let others perform their songs without all the crap that goes with it. Let's face it, most major artists today don't write all their own songs. So a lack of vocal talent doesn't stop composers/writers from making a fortune out the music biz already. It's a partnership that's worked well since the beginning. But hell, if this kind of technology means that composers/songwriters who were frustrated that they couldn't sing, can now find a voice, then fine. It's their song, they've put in the work, why shouldn't they express it?

It's the talentless, faceless clones who will get the praise and money for having nothing more than just a sell-able image that galls me. It's bad enough already with all the miming to live shows etc, but at least these people can 'mostly' sing.

Call me old fashioned, but I think in an industry where a hell of a lot of talented people struggle to earn a crust and work their bollocks off for years just to get noticed, then it's reasonable to be against a technology that negates any kind of talent.

But yeah, I'm sure it won't be long before we can't tell the difference. The problem with the software at the moment is how to accurately add vibrato and subtle slides up to notes, and the slight imperfections that add character and warmth to voices. Something difficult to describe, and even harder to create. But yep, they'll find a way and most of us will be unaware. It's beginning to be used in live shows too, so there's another argument.

In the end I suppose it's just progress and all that. And It's to singers, what drum machines were to drummers, keyboards to Orchestra's, and sampling was to everything! Computers have become so powerful now that most of us can record pro sounding tunes at home without the need for studio time....almost :) The difference is, Computers are a tool for allowing ordinary people to express their talent more easily. PC/AT is just plain deceit in my book.

I just find it all a bit sad really. What's the point in working on your talent when it can be fabricated better by some 10 year old with a bit of software in a phone?

As far as the current sound quality of PC/AT, I hate it. It's just an artificial sound that's just wrong to me, and hurts my ears. As the technology improves, I guess I'll be left with just an objection in principle.
 
AmorRoark said:
If the technology got so much better that we wouldn't be able to tell if they were perfected then most people wouldn't have a drive to get better or work at all. Would ever concert be lip-synched? Ugh, just thinking about that type of reality makes me sad.
Click to expand...
nomy said:
Call me old fashioned, but I think in an industry where a hell of a lot of talented people struggle to earn a crust and work their bollocks off for years just to get noticed, then it's reasonable to be against a technology that negates any kind of talent.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how perfected vocal and instrumental technology would work in practice -- it's more just a thought experiment to clarify the objection. Ideally it wouldn't detract from an artist's drive to improve their talent all together, but shift the impetus more towards developing talent for ground level composing and lyric writing (as opposed to exercising their vocal tracts, improving instrumental handwork, etc). Poets and composers certainly work hard without needing to sing or do much handwork themselves. In general, I suppose removing some of the traditional constraints of song production would enable, though not necessitate, a substantial move away from the hands-on highly collaborative technical side of music to a more individualized software-savvy cerebral art. Some things would be lost from the music, but others gained.
 
Last edited:
psood0nym said:
In general, I suppose removing some of the traditional constraints of song production would enable, though not necessitate, a substantial move away from the hands-on highly collaborative technical side of music to a more individualized software-savvy cerebral art. Some things would be lost from the music, but others gained.
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying. And if it gets more people creating music in general, then that's all for the good. No problems there. Just like the home computer and recording has done. From this viewpoint, I agree it may well attract people who would otherwise be daunted. There may even be a chance that some of this music will be good....maybe. But without sounding a muso snob, there does have to be a basic appreciation of melody and sound in the first place. Otherwise, the emergence of genius will be down to chance. But hey, given an infinite amount of time, even a monkey will come up with the theory of everything =D

Like I say though, there is room for it sure. I see it as a tool to be used sparingly and in context. What I would hate to see is it used as a top layer of gloss over all vocals. But I fear that's what will happen.

But please, wait till the software bloody well works properly if your going to sneak it in as correction only....
 
auto tune is on i'd say, oh, every fucking track on the local top 40 hip hop station. it'd be like if every rock song on the radio had heavy wah on all the guitars, it's played out, overdone. if it was used here and there it'd be alright, it would sound kinda cool. it needs to be killed like jay-z said (even though he's a fucking freemason he got that shit right.)
 
a little different..... but how about auto-harmonizers? ?

I am talking live performance wise here. Like a local open mic?


I've stopped using any pitch correction at the open mic whatsever... . In recordings I could possibly use it if it was a really good algorithm.
 
I can't stand these kinds of production-whoring antics. I want to hear musicians making music and singers singing, and that's it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top