The "outing" of Auto-Tune: NPR exposes "studio secrets"

[theblue1]

Auto-Tune... OK... it's kind of a secret all over the block.

Still, according to these short NPR radio pieces on studio technology and specifically Auto-Tune and other vocal tuning, Aretha Franklin -- no stranger to the studio -- recently claimed to have never heard of it. (Yah, sure.)

• Nov. 18, 2008
  Tone-Deaf Stars Thrive With Pitch Correction Software [by David Was]
• Nov. 27, 2007
  T-Pain Builds Pop-Stardom with Digital Prowess
• Nov. 8, 2004
  Software Helps Singers Find Perfect Pitch

Up 'til recently, most non-musicians have had only passing awareness of it, if any. Now, it looks like the idea of it is seeping out into the general culture, which raises a few questions:

• Will increased awareness simply increase the pop-as-commodity cynicism?
• Is there any chance that increased public awareness of 'cheating' will create a backlash in the general audience?
• Will it hasten the closing of the window of fashionability of vocal-tuning-as-effect?

[Shaolin]

Much as I hate to say it, we are part of the musical elite. Our perception is totally different to supermarket cd buyers or iTune downloaders.

Non musical friends who ask me about my 'studio black magic' don't seem too bothered when I tell them we can do this. Actually they seem to be impressed with how powerful studios are these days. And as for kids, hell, they'll soon have chips in their heads, so Antares isn't gonna bother them.

[theblue1]

Without question.

But things like these NPR pieces or pieces on Entertainment Tonight (I believe there have been one or two on A-T) do increase public awareness.

And when the public becomes more aware, eventually, they become more cynical.

[vodka gimli]

Bah! Typical Male Ego BS from NPR. That Terry Gross guy, he's a complete chauvinist.


Seriously, I don't think anybody in the general public cares. Having watched the Tina Turner live concert on TV last night, I got to wondering why SHE can seem to sing and dance at the same time, but Brittany and Madonna can't...at least that's what we are told when we ask about their use of vocal tracks in a live situation.

[waxx]

i saw a similar sign of unawairness on a event for upcomming electronic music producers and dj's in gent, where a masteringineer explained the problem of overcompression and limiting for volume with all the necesairy details and examples. A lot of ppl where very supprised that that happened, and didn't like it. After the lecture it was really the talk of the event. Maybe we need to point the general public more about this matters to make them aware of it so they can react against it.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by vodka gimli

Bah! Typical Male Ego BS from NPR. That Terry Gross guy, he's a complete chauvinist.


Seriously, I don't think anybody in the general public cares. Having watched the Tina Turner live concert on TV last night, I got to wondering why SHE can seem to sing and dance at the same time, but Brittany and Madonna can't...at least that's what we are told when we ask about their use of vocal tracks in a live situation.

Terry Gross -- he's one tough interviewer for a little guy who looks and sounds like a girl.

[I love Terry. I'd marry her if she wasn't already married to a Village Voice jazz critic.]



Check out what the current prez of the AES says (in the third link above, Software Helps Singers Find Perfect Pitch : NPR ) about correcting a minor seventh note sung by a singer against a piano playing the same note. It might have been nice if he had pointed out that the just (Pythagorean) interval of a minor 7th can be seen as much as 32 cents off from the equal temperament value. (From his other comments, one wonders if he even understands that angle. But he does seem to have an intuitive grasp, I guess, judging from his comments about 'humanness.' Still, the real issue is purity of harmony and the mismatch between Pythagorean harmony and the 12 tone equal temperament system we use in keyboards, guitars and some other dominant modern instruments -- not to mentione Auto-Tune. [ Equal temperament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ])

And for those who think Brit and Taylor Swift have their vocal changes -- check out the utterly horrific singing by NPR host Susan Stanfield as they try to pitch correct her into submission. It's pretty painful but sort of funny. Taylor Swift looks like freakin' Ella Fitzgerald, Betty Carter, and Maria Callas rolled into one by comprarison.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by waxx

i saw a similar sign of unawairness on a event for upcomming electronic music producers and dj's in gent, where a masteringineer explained the problem of overcompression and limiting for volume with all the necesairy details and examples. A lot of ppl where very supprised that that happened, and didn't like it. After the lecture it was really the talk of the event. Maybe we need to point the general public more about this matters to make them aware of it so they can react against it.

One demonstration that seems to cut through to ordinary folks is taking two versions of the same mix -- one squashed and the other with 'healthy' dynamics and playing them at the same average SPL.

Getting the apparent loudness of the two mixes the same, the ear is no longer 'fooled' by its innate general 'preference' for the louder of two sounds. And then the dynamic range angle really hits folks, even average listeners, since the squashed version just sort of drones on at one level but the more dynamic mix is... well... more dynamic. The loud bits have more impact; the quiet parts are more dramatic.

[Jamzone]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Auto-Tune... OK... it's kind of a secret all over the block.

Still, according to these short NPR radio pieces on studio technology and specifically Auto-Tune and other vocal tuning, Aretha Franklin -- no stranger to the studio -- recently claimed to have never heard of it. (Yah, sure.)

• Nov. 18, 2008
  Tone-Deaf Stars Thrive With Pitch Correction Software [by David Was]
• Nov. 27, 2007
  T-Pain Builds Pop-Stardom with Digital Prowess
• Nov. 8, 2004
  Software Helps Singers Find Perfect Pitch

Up 'til recently, most non-musicians have had only passing awareness of it, if any. Now, it looks like the idea of it is seeping out into the general culture, which raises a few questions:

• Will increased awareness simply increase the pop-as-commodity cynicism?
• Is there any chance that increased public awareness of 'cheating' will create a backlash in the general audience?
• Will it hasten the closing of the window of fashionability of vocal-tuning-as-effect?

Haha!! Thought you knew?? This way you could rip your neighbour off!!

Seroiusly, when tastefully used, Melodyne can be quite transparent.

[BudgetMC]

The sad fact is that most casual listeners don't have a clue that there is ANY kind of effect on a song.

I was once hosting a party and had a bunch of people (none of them musicians) take interest in my home studio. They talked me into turning everything on and demonstrating how it worked. Inevitably, I wound up recording somebody singing, and then started to massage the track. First thing I did was slather some reverb on it. Only a couple even had a clue what I had done. The consensus was simply that it was "louder" and "better"... and that was reverb! I have no doubt that compression would have been invisible to them.

Now, as recording types, I think this is important for us to keep in mind. There is a beauty to the innocence of people who just listen and enjoy (or not). It's an honest zen-like response.

I, for one, have gone through stages where it was difficult to just enjoy music, because I was too busy dissecting it... "Hmmmm... wonder what mic that is? Are they compressing the Chorus more than the verse? Oooh... is that a touch of flanging on the snare???" Meanwhile, others are just thinking "groovy... let's dance!" Worse, it means that I am almost never able to just sit back and enjoy my own work.

Knowledge is beautiful, but sometimes you just need to enjoy.

[theblue1]

Or, perhaps, not enjoy. There is nothing about the sound of obvious vocal tuning that I enjoy.

However, the intended point of this thread was to raise the issue of increased audience awareness of vocal tuning as correction in the face of things like these NPR radio pieces or pieces that have appeared on Entertainment Tonight (IIRC) and other popular media shows.


It's clear to me that even non-musicians can easily learn to spot vocal tuning.

I taught my mom how to spot it, for crying out loud, and she's in her late 70s and uses hearing aids. First I showed her the intentional extreme use of the "T-Pain effect" -- and then I showed her the Billy Joel National Anthem mess, and then I showed her a few pinpoint egregious examples from some Austin country rock (Slaid Cleaves) where the intended 'roots-cred' sound is completely undercut by some really nasty A-T glitching. And now she knows how to spot vocal tuning.


One of my buddies gave his GF a 5 minute lesson in A-T and he says she now blames him for having 'ruined' contemporary pop for her, since she now spots A-T abuse almost everywhere.


So what I'm interested in is if and how the growing awareness of the sounds of vocal tuning wrench marks will -- at the very least -- hopefully raise the bar for what is considered acceptable correction artifacts when vocal tuning is used as correction.


And, I hope I can be forgiven for dreaming: I wonder if increased exposure, combined with increased awareness, might hasten the eventual demise of the vocal-tuning-as-effect production fad and it will soon join the dated, used up fads of the past.

[TheMarqueeYears]

Can someone please explain to me the problem, issue, morality or other negatives of using software/hardware to alter the pitch of audio.

It appears to me to be a totally irrelavant debate in the context of music as an art form - as opposed to a technical skill.

I find these debates ... strange.

Why not debate, over dubbing, EQ'ing, sampling, synthesis .... hell why stop there microphones, amplification, multiracks, metronomes and clicks,
MIDI, sequencers.

Tube mics, tube pre-amps, transformers, distortion.

...... HELLO ... it's all one BIG LIE.

Why draw an abritary line ... as ever the market will decide who becomes what and get's what size reward.

Personally I think AT/ Melodyne are wonderful time savers.

TMY

[author]

In the visual arts, they have a motto: If it looks good, it IS good.

Actually, I just made that up. But doesn't it remind you all of something?

[TheMarqueeYears]

I think you just agreed with me .... but I may be wrong.

TMY

[author]

Originally Posted by TheMarqueeYears

I think you just agreed with me ....

Yes! (If you are talking to me... )

However, I wouldn't call the whole thing a lie -- though no less than Picasso almost said the same once (a lie to show the truth, or something like that).

I just think it is a WONDERFUL time for everybody who wants to make music. Mind over matter, finally.

[DanDan]

Drum machines appeared. People predicted that drummers would become redundant. Instead they rediscovered the old art of being a timekeeper. Unfortunately the same is not yet happening with singers and pitching. I believe it will.
DD

[TheMarqueeYears]

Yes me.

I agree with you too.

Didn't Picasso say " good artist's have influences, great artists steal"
I'm sure that was him - I like that.

Someone said to me once, have you heard the new Sting album, I said:
"don't be silly, I haven't finished copying his last one yet"

TMY

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by TheMarqueeYears

Can someone please explain to me the problem, issue, morality or other negatives of using software/hardware to alter the pitch of audio.

It appears to me to be a totally irrelavant debate in the context of music as an art form - as opposed to a technical skill.

I find these debates ... strange.

Why not debate, over dubbing, EQ'ing, sampling, synthesis .... hell why stop there microphones, amplification, multiracks, metronomes and clicks,
MIDI, sequencers.

Tube mics, tube pre-amps, transformers, distortion.

...... HELLO ... it's all one BIG LIE.

Why draw an abritary line ... as ever the market will decide who becomes what and get's what size reward.

Personally I think AT/ Melodyne are wonderful time savers.

TMY

Again, I -- personally -- have no problem with vocal tuning for correction -- as long as it's not obvious. I have and use vocal tuning. I've seen even good old fashioned A-T used with great finesse on vocal jazz to good effect. My problem is with clumsy, inept use of tuning-for-correction that leaves nasty artifacts.*

What I was really interested in, starting this thread, is the public's increasing awareness of A-T and whether that will make them even more cynical about pop music. (And if you don't think cynicism and the relationship of the public with pop artists is a real issue, try and get someone under the age of 30 to pay for music. )

Also, I was wondering if (and maybe secretly hoping that) the added exposure, explanation, and isolation and analysis of the sound of the tool/effect as demonstrated in these radio pieces and other media exposure might accelerate the eventual burn-out of the public on tuning-as-effect.

__________________

* Unfortunately, clumsy use of tuning is pandemic in some markets. I'm not talking about its use as an effect, which is, of course, purely a taste matter. I'm talking about vocal tracks where a handful of tuning wrench marks stand out in high contrast to the rest of the vocal.

__________________

[vodka gimli]

Originally Posted by TheMarqueeYears

Can someone please explain to me the problem, issue, morality or other negatives of using software/hardware to alter the pitch of audio.

It appears to me to be a totally irrelavant debate in the context of music as an art form - as opposed to a technical skill.

I find these debates ... strange.

Why not debate, over dubbing, EQ'ing, sampling, synthesis .... hell why stop there microphones, amplification, multiracks, metronomes and clicks,
MIDI, sequencers.

Tube mics, tube pre-amps, transformers, distortion.

...... HELLO ... it's all one BIG LIE.

Why draw an abritary line ... as ever the market will decide who becomes what and get's what size reward.

Personally I think AT/ Melodyne are wonderful time savers.

TMY

What art form are you practicing where "saving time" is natural, organic and not a short cut of a lacking technical skill?

Some answers to your moral/issue/problem question might include:

Overdubbing = recording a performance after basic tracking
EQ = making a performance fit in the mix better by adjusting frequencies
Sampling = replacing/creating a performance with someone else's performance
Synthesis = creating a sound in order for it to become part of a performance
Microphones = capturing a performance
Amplifiers = making a performance louder
Multitracks = capturing multiple performances
Metronomes and Clicks = help keep a performance in tempo
MIDI = converting a performance to MIDI data
Sequencer = capturing performances as MIDI data

AutoTune = make an imperfect vocal performance perfect. Often used to help foist less-talented singers on the public to offset their exceptional physiques, vibe, attitude, marketability, appearance on American Idol, personal wealth. It seems to especially annoy those who know people who are exceptional vocalists and fit most of the above criteria, yet are ignored by the Music and Entertainment Industry. Of course I've used it to fix a note here or there. It's the blatant Nashville studio over-use...and the jump it's made into live music...that is most egregious to me.

It's absolutely OK to love and embrace it. Or not. If you find credibility and accountability and honesty as regards to actual vocal talent irrelevant, you will probably go far in the Music Biz!

I think it's a little generational, too. The vocal in today's music is not really the point of most tunes...it's the beats. "Gotta make some beats". "Buy my beats".

When the entire track is a concoction born from a laptop, a natural, un-tuned vocal probably wouldn't even work...too...old school. T-Pain is Teh Pain to my ears. YMMV.

[wesarvin]

Originally Posted by TheMarqueeYears

Can someone please explain to me the problem, issue, morality or other negatives of using software/hardware to alter the pitch of audio.

It appears to me to be a totally irrelavant debate in the context of music as an art form - as opposed to a technical skill.

I find these debates ... strange.

Why not debate, over dubbing, EQ'ing, sampling, synthesis .... hell why stop there microphones, amplification, multiracks, metronomes and clicks,
MIDI, sequencers.

Tube mics, tube pre-amps, transformers, distortion.

...... HELLO ... it's all one BIG LIE.

Why draw an abritary line ... as ever the market will decide who becomes what and get's what size reward.

Personally I think AT/ Melodyne are wonderful time savers.

TMY

I wanna see more people like this. Auto-tune is for Billy Joel, Carl Lewis, and most mortals. Why don't we see more Marvin Gayes?

[TheMarqueeYears]

Originally Posted by DanDan

Drum machines appeared. People predicted that drummers would become redundant. Instead they rediscovered the old art of being a timekeeper. Unfortunately the same is not yet happening with singers and pitching. I believe it will.
DD

I doubt that very much.

It's like saying there will be a return to singers only be allowed to record a vocal in one pass onto the one spare track on a four track.

If you do an overdub to correct a line, you are trying to create a new outcome - if you use Melodyne on a word you are trying to create a new outcome.

Unless you cut the track in one pass, you are creating an illussion. Simple as that.

I have excellent pitch - but on a pass my emotion can over take my control - so a sylable may go sharp or slightly flat - I can either over dub that word - or I can tune it - I care not which I do - it's not a competetion. I can do it if I want. It's much easier to tune it and move on.

Before tuning software - I had to redo it, I have no desire to return to that work flow - ever.

I have never admired skill only creativity and imagination.

TMY

[dubrichie]

i don't have a problem with tuning of vocals as an effect. it is a creative choice, a creative use of a tool, in this context. sure, there is too much of it going on these days, it has become blase, boring and even irritating to many of us.

i do, however, have a problem with tuning vocals for the purpose of correcting a performance.

i also have a problem with editing (and quantizing) the bejayzus out of musical performances AS CORRECTION. as an effect, as a creative choice, a creative use of a tool, no problem.

if you can't sing it, if you can't play it, get the hell out of my studio and out of my sight. practice and come back when you can. if that doesn't work out, don't quit your day job and don't come back to me to record you.

all that said, i'm not a total **** about it. a small correction here and there for the sake of a wonderful take, a wonderful performance, will be tolerated, but only at the request of the artist.

music makes my life more worthwhile than money ever will... and i'm only 26!

[Jamzone]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Again, I -- personally -- have no problem with vocal tuning for correction -- as long as it's not obvious. I have and use vocal tuning. I've seen even good old fashioned A-T used with great finesse on vocal jazz to good effect. My problem is with clumsy, inept use of tuning-for-correction that leaves nasty artifacts.*

What I was really interested in, starting this thread, is the public's increasing awareness of A-T and whether that will make them even more cynical about pop music. (And if you don't think cynicism and the relationship of the public with pop artists is a real issue, try and get someone under the age of 30 to pay for music. )

Also, I was wondering if (and maybe secretly hoping that) the added exposure, explanation, and isolation and analysis of the sound of the tool/effect as demonstrated in these radio pieces and other media exposure might accelerate the eventual burn-out of the public on tuning-as-effect.

Agreed. It's possible to use this tools transparent. Today people throw a sloppy AT on everything and it sounds like shit. Where's the ears?? Would like to send them an Alanis record or something so they get the vibe of a 'vocal performance'.

[George Necola]

secret revealed

sorry it's an old one..but still impressive

[TheMarqueeYears]

Originally Posted by dubrichie

i don't have a problem with tuning of vocals as an effect. it is a creative choice, a creative use of a tool, in this context. sure, there is too much of it going on these days, it has become blase, boring and even irritating to many of us.

i do, however, have a problem with tuning vocals for the purpose of correcting a performance.

i also have a problem with editing (and quantizing) the bejayzus out of musical performances AS CORRECTION. as an effect, as a creative choice, a creative use of a tool, no problem.

if you can't sing it, if you can't play it, get the hell out of my studio and out of my sight. practice and come back when you can. if that doesn't work out, don't quit your day job and don't come back to me to record you.

all that said, i'm not a total **** about it. a small correction here and there for the sake of a wonderful take, a wonderful performance, will be tolerated, but only at the request of the artist.

music makes my life more worthwhile than money ever will... and i'm only 26!

Your joking right.

You think Sting, Phil Collins (OK I'm showing my age) get a vocal in one pass .... no bloody way on earth.

Stings stuff is cut to together big time - Al Jarrea's pitch is ALL over the place when he cut's vocals. Amazing voice though.

So your saying unless the singer can cut the vocal in one pass with no mistakes and no comps then you'd kick em out and tell them to get a day job.

and don't say you'd let them drop in on a phrase to correct it becasue that is no different to tuning it ... just a the same in every meaningful way.

.... OK this is the internet, you are joking - hopefully.

TMY

[author]

Originally Posted by vodka gimli

If you find credibility and accountability and honesty as regards to actual vocal talent irrelevant

I must say that I find actual vocal talent very, very boring and irrelevant in itself.

Who cares if somebody can sing? I care about MUSIC!

[TheMarqueeYears]

Originally Posted by author

I must say that I find actual vocal talent very, very boring and irrelevant in itself.

Who cares if somebody can sing? I care about MUSIC!

Amen to that.

TMY

[vodka gimli]

Who cares if somebody can sing? I care about MUSIC!

Yeah, me too. I like singers who can sing, players who can play...usually when they do that, the result is...MUSIC!

[TheMarqueeYears]

Yeah, me too. I like singers who can sing, players who can play...usually when they do that, the result is .... very often .... MUSAK!

I like musicians who have something to say - not something to play.

It's an important distinction. I know some function bands with amazing players and the result is definately NOT music with a big M.

TMY

[Unclenny]

Yeah......I heard the David Weiss piece on NPR. Thought he sounded pretty good at the end there.....very Cher-ish.

I don't know, blue, but I think the pop public tends to care little about the tools and more about the pop groove.....whatever it takes.

I could never get down with AT myself. It's taken me too long to get my vocals to sound somewhat.......listenable....naturally.

[vodka gimli]

Enjoy your out-of-tune music. Really.

I'm not trying to change your mind, you started by asking a bunch of questions claiming you were completely mystified regarding the reasons against auto-tuning.

You end by saying the message is important not the vocal..in that case...what the hell are you tuning it for? Leave the all-important message alone.