i hate auto-tune and it has taken over.

[picksail]

I'm getting a migraine.

Maybe I'll start my own thread in the Moan Zone.



...Back to the topic at hand.



I'd have to disagree with the correaltion between 'human emotion' and 'pitch inaccuracies'.

It is possible to both emote and do it with accurate intonation.

[allbaldo]

Originally Posted by picksail

It is possible to both emote and do it with accurate intonation.

True. Case in point... Nat King Cole. I don't think he was ABLE to sing out of key. Just once I'd like to record someone like that.

[Improv]

Alright I'll go out on a limb here. I'd RATHER use autotune than punch or do a whole 'nother take in almost any instance where pitch is the only issue. Which happens a lot.

I find punches to be nearly impossible with all but the most seasoned studio singers. I'm a meticulous documenter of settings, but I find most of my clients are simply not consistent enough to make punches work. Matching energy level via headphones is always a crapshoot at best, and most of my clients simply can't handle the pressure. By the time we get a take where they're phrasing correctly, singing at the proper energy level, have enough "breath," not too much "throat," or whatever, are the proper distance from the mic, AND happen to intone correctly... well by then the feeling is all gone (unless they're good and got it in the first try or two). Reminds me of that Santa Sessions thread. And I'm relatively non-picky in that regard. I know many are more discriminating. I find it hard to believe that many would prefer a punch to the sound of autotune on a slightly-out note.

Thusly I'm a big fan of comping whole takes together (assuming their phrasing isn't completely different each time) and tuning where applicable. When choosing phrases for the comp, I try to impress upon the client that I have limited control over pitch and timing, but emotion and delivery is all on them. This allows them to focus on what is important in the performance (in my opinion). Unfortunately, It's difficult for many people to ignore pitch and timing problems on playback. So I let them know what I think is worth saving and what isn't.

If there is nothing in the various takes to fill a line in the comp that tuning can fix, it's punch time. But over time I feel I've developed an ear for what is "correctable" and what is not, what is emotionally worth keeping and what is not, which makes decisions easier. That window of acceptability has narrowed over time for ideal circumstances, but of course every client has a different expectation for the all-important time/quality/talent ratio, which makes a discerning ear all the more important.

What the hell was my point here? Oh yeah, Autotune definitely has a place in the modern studio. Respect, my brothers.

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by slaves666

I must admit, when 1 band asked me to make them sound like CHER, I got excited, and it sounded great too.

I had a guy ask me to make him sound like Sonny Bono once.

[feck]

Originally Posted by Improv

I use autotune all the time and never get the robotic sorts of results that I hear on the radio. It's obvious that the engineers are simply "flatlining" the notes to git'r'done, so to speak. Lazy singing begets editing. Lazy editing begets artifacts. There are two sins being committed here.

Right on! Same here - I use Melodyne so transparently that most of the singers I use it on can't tell that I have. They are, however, pleasantly surprised at their apparent great pitch afterwards!

[lucey]

I had some insight on the intentional 'sound' of AT yesterday. A client told me they go for it on purpose ... crank the AT way up, and sing flat. It's a skill in and of itself that good singers can't master as they sing too close to the note. This music did sound better for the effect (urban).

It still begs the question, why do it at all if the pitch is so close? Time saving? Okay. But what's lost in that deal? The inflection perfected loses nothing of value? I can't agree with that if originality is the goal. If cookie cutter is the goal then yes, perfect it, compress it, press out the cookie.

Originally Posted by picksail

I'd have to disagree with the correaltion between 'human emotion' and 'pitch inaccuracies'.

It is possible to both emote and do it with accurate intonation.

Sure it is for some people, but if the emotion of singer X is expressed naturally, with a few punches here and there, and the net result of their best work is that pitch Y is off by 5-10 cents on occasion ... then that's the way the emotion sounds for singer X. AT takes away their unique voice and makes them more like others. Which may be the goal, I get it.

[Tony Shepperd]

Originally Posted by joeybaggadonuts

AUTOTUNE SUCKS!!! if you use it you are a wiener. if the singer needs it he/she is in the wrong damn business. people who listen to top 40 generally don't really care about music so that's why they accept it. think about it: with all the options out there today anyone who looks no further than radio dial for good tunes is just not that into music anyway. have some respect for yourself and the singer and spend a little more time and energy make music that will sound good instead of taking a cheap ass short cut. have the nads to do it the right way people! i'd rather work a day job and bust my ass recording on nights and weekends than get paid to make bad music. I'm way happier this way too!!! don't care if i ever make another dime off of music recording. i refuse to autotune!!! i record not for money but because that's what i do peace!!

Ha.... this would funny, but I think you're serious.
If you use Auto-tune properly it can help a great performance, not become the performance.
There are many great singers I've worked with and they all, repeat ALL want to be Auto-tuned.
They want their best foot forward. Whether they are working on the 1st or 31st record.

The over use or abuse of that plugin comes with the person who uses it.

[DJMostar]

Originally Posted by Improv

By the time we get a take where they're phrasing correctly, singing at the proper energy level, have enough "breath," not too much "throat," or whatever, are the proper distance from the mic, AND happen to intone correctly... well by then the feeling is all gone. (...) Thusly I'm a big fan of comping whole takes together (assuming their phrasing isn't completely different each time) and tuning where applicable.

That is the point, when you get down to it.

In many instances, these sorts of programs (not just autotune; if you're going to bitch about AT you might as well throw in Beat Detective and so on) are overused in the interests of making a guy (or gal!) with little to no tallent sound better than s/he is. This is an abuse of the program.

This is NOTHING NEW.

How long ago was it when the same things were being said about compression and limmeting? Not very. Hell, it's still being said, and I agree. Autotune, like compression, is overused. Sure. I doubt you'll get any argument from anyone on the board about that. But just like compression, just because it's being overused doesn't mean it doesn't have its place.

Just off the top of my head: "Hole In The Earth" By the Deftones--the singer there actually uses autotune (er, i'm assuming, anyway) to slide his part up a couple of notes and the mechanical effect actually helps the track. That doesn't mean he can't sing it.

I do think that if you can't sing the part live you have no business being in a studio but in this day and age a musician having perfect pitch is far from the most necessary skill in a session. Pitch is fixable; bad intonation or a lack of emotion is not.

One last point I'd like to make here: when you play live, you're just doing your gig, playing your music and performing in front of a crowd. In that context, you have a certain obligation to be able to play your parts as close as possible to how they were played in the studio; there it is all about that 'human element.' But when you're in a studio, you *have* the opportunity to *do* punch-ins and overdubs and pitch correction and recording to click tracks. So why *not* use them?

This is in no way an excuse for the artist to get lazy because if he blows it on stage then he blows it, period, and I think that having autotune on the stage rigs (*cough* E*a*e**e**e) is attrocious. But when you're in a studio, if you've got the time, budget, and tools, I dont' see why you shouldn't use them. Isn't the point of making a studio recording, from the client's point of view, to get a representation of the music they want to make that is perfect down to every last detail, or as close to that as possible?

[audiovisceral]

smashing pumpkins' zeitgeist is at free i think. or subtle.

[audiovisceral]

Originally Posted by max cooper

I had a guy ask me to make him sound like Sonny Bono once.

lmao!!!

[audiovisceral]

Originally Posted by Henchman

There are simply alot of artists today, who cannot pull it off live.
That was much less so before.

i agree. makes me sad. but then again:

YouTube - Mute Math - Typical - The Late Show - BEST Quality

[Resonant Alien]

So if the goal is to capture the musicians' performance in real time without any "studio trickery", then let's not stop with ditching autotune. We all need to throw our DAWs in the trash, throw our razor blades away (assuming anyone still edits tape these days), stop comping tracks, stop using multi-tracks, et al. We should just set the band up in a room with a few mics and record straight to two track. If the guitarist, bass player or drummer can't play the song straight through in one take, if they require us to edit and comp multiple takes in the DAW, then they shouldn't be playing. Now THAT would make for some interesting recording sessions.

[Kris]

Originally Posted by Tony Shepperd

Ha.... this would funny, but I think you're serious.
If you use Auto-tune properly it can help a great performance, not become the performance.
There are many great singers I've worked with and they all, repeat ALL want to be Auto-tuned.
They want their best foot forward. Whether they are working on the 1st or 31st record.

The over use or abuse of that plugin comes with the person who uses it.

That's scary!!! The few great singers I get to work with are completely against the whole autotune thing... and strangely enough, Autotune to me seems to sound the worst on a great singer because the slight (controlled) pitch imperfections most definately can add to a great, emotional performance IMO.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by audiovisceral

i agree. makes me sad. but then again:

YouTube - Mute Math - Typical - The Late Show - BEST Quality

???

it alright i suppose. Bit lame next to Muse or Radiohead (who i dont like much either but thats strictly personal opinion - clearly all talented

[phillysoulman]

A lot of Country artists such as Faith Hill use auto tune.
I can always detect the articacts..and believe me it sucks.

[wallace]

I don't like autotune much and I'm also sick of hearing a lot of the overdone vocoder sounding autotune effects these days. The problem is that a lot of people start playing an instrument and immediately start working on their egos, or ever pretty girl thinks they're a singer. From the flip side though, I think producers have lost the art of "slop"... not to say that every old 60s and 70s recording was like this, but a lot of older recordings have somewhat flat notes (not totally off, but also probably not at 0 on autotune), as well as some flub notes/ obvious punches. The thing is you don't notice. Or at least not right away. I think that when you record things as performances, the natural imperfections come out in a musical way. Things seem to be under the microscope more now.

[superjc]

Ever see the "boy-band" episode of the Simpsons?


Autotune is just part of the American trend of wanting to get fame, glory, and money without the pesky years and years of woodshedding (yeah, that means practice), sacrifice, hard work, and suffering. Or actually having talent. Sadly, I don't see the old-school mentality of exellence coming back anytime soon. Hey CD sales and radio stats still keep falling, hm can't figure out why

[Tony Shepperd]

Originally Posted by Kris

That's scary!!! The few great singers I get to work with are completely against the whole autotune thing... and strangely enough, Autotune to me seems to sound the worst on a great singer because the slight (controlled) pitch imperfections most definitely can add to a great, emotional performance IMO.

Interesting.
If you like, I could give you records where I have AT the vocals and we could compare.
Or you could go to the MP3's on my website and listen.
A couple of those vocals are AT.

For me, it's still the wizard, not the wand.

[Kris]

Hey Tony... I know your work is impeccable! I'm just a bit suprised that 'great' singers are into Autotune is all. I just can't see a 'great' singer flub one and then say 'no worries! Autotune it is'. I'm guessing that's not what you meant.. but, for sure in the mix anything goes right?

[Tony Shepperd]

Most of the old school artist just sing it down a bunch of times and then want to comp.
Most of the new school artist want to sing it line by line, verse by verse and comp as they go.

Either way, when they are done singing and comping, to a fault if something is slightly out and they love the performance, they will say, "Tune It".

Why throw away a great performance for a note or two that is out of tune?

Most just want a touch up here or there on the vocal.
Some multi-platinum artist want their vocal tracked through it.

What can I say, different strokes for different folks.

[Kris]

Originally Posted by Tony Shepperd

Some multi-platinum artist want their vocal tracked through it.

Now that's crazy!!!

[thestranger]

Originally Posted by joeybaggadonuts

AUTOTUNE SUCKS!!! if you use it you are a weiner. if the singer needs it he/she is in the wrong damn business. people who listen to top 40 generally don't really care about music so that's why they accept it. think about it: with all the options out there today anyone who looks no further than radio dial for good tunes is just not that into music anyway. have some respect fro yourself and the singer and sped a little more time and energy make music that will sound good instead of taking a cheap ass short cut. have the nads to do it the right way people! i'd rather work a day job and bust my ass recording on nights and weekends than get paid to make bad music. i'm way happier this way too!!!don't care if i ever make another dime off of music recording. i refuse to autotune!!! i record not for money bbut because that's what i do peace!!

Listen. Here's the reality of the auto-tune debate:

Making hit records in today's market is not about emulating reality. It's about creating a fantasy. It's about making music that the targeted audience wants to buy. "Real sounding" records might sell to people like yourself, but the overwhelming majority of the population doesn't know anything about producing records. They just know when they like the way a song sounds (my wife for instance). Polished, tuned, compressed, and edited is what the average consumer likes to hear. They don't even know why, it just sounds good to them.

And dude.... I'm sorry, but if you buy almost ANY record at a best buy or retail chain, the vocals have been tuned. Whether your ears hear it or not.

Like it or not, the people making the money are tuning their vocals.

(admittedly, some more skillfully than others.)

[BVoss]

Autotune, when used tastefully, can be quite nice.

Couple of years ago, I was taught to auto tune by a guy named Olle Romo. If you know what you're doing, you can be extremely fast and make a product that is completely transparent.

That being said, I generally agree with the idea that real talent shouldn't need autotune. It should be used very sparingly on occasion. It should not make or break a performance, imo.

[Superdrumskills]

Originally Posted by jdjustice

this is specifically what i am talking about... i had never thought to call it the 'kazoo' effect but that's what it is, you're right!
the proper, skilled use of AT by someone who works hard to make it sound as natural as possible is one thing (actually it is a highly coveted skill).
this 'kazoo' shiz-nit is what drives me so bonkers.


cheers.
~j.d.

I hate it as well

[Juan Covas]

I have tried to avoid auto-tuning singers and even instruments.Since the introduction of this technology our music industry has fallen in disgrace...before was a thrill to be an engineer today is like selling hamburgers, go to burger king (I can give you an application for a job at BK)tutt

[Jake 2.0]

I don't evev fix a turd vocal. i will make a singer sing untill he hits the right notes (or as close as humanly possible) then will go through and melodyne the vocals. Don't see anything wrong with that. Unless of course a band wants to sound like bob dylan ( who i love btw)

theres two sides polished and organic . great things about both. but the genarall top 40 fans dont get the non polished stuff .

[PoorGlory]

I had a band request pitch correction for the first time ever recently (I do mostly metal/hard rock).

I told them I have to draw a line somewhere between making music and manufacturing music.

For me, time correction/editing is ok (to a point... no beat detective or snapping to grids), and pitch correction is over the line. They were embarrassed for even asking. They agreed with me after that. (They were a terrible band, and definitely wanted to use it as a crutch, not an effect).

But, I would do it if it was a desired special effect.

[ovdojoey]

Originally Posted by Tantrum The Cat

This is music, folks. We ain't reinventing the wheel, performing open heart surgery, or rescuing little kids from burning buildings. We're making records for people to hopefully buy, listen to, and enjoy.

Agreed. It's part of music really. Why doesn't everyone use it? I cringe at the sound of an off note and if you can't sing but your in the studio then... oh well... you can't sing and your in the studio - so slap on the autotune.

I know you all say it sounds so mechanical (and sometimes it does) but If I hear a flat note I can pick that out like a sore thumb and that sounds bad.