Melodyne DNA 2 weeks away!

[Em Kay]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

I hate the fact that they make it possible for talentless schmucks to even be in the game. Its the equivalent of "every kid gets to play" in sports whether they are any good or not.

I hate having to sort through the deluge of "mediocre" that results from them. These tools don't make good records great. They make bad performers mediocre.

I hate the fact the they minimize the importance of musicianship. There is no need to learn your craft when they can fix it for you in the studio and the result is the vast majority don't. They are "Guitar Heros", why do they need to practice? Then people get to pay big money to suffer through the pitiful live shows where they are always exposed

I hate the fact that the truly great performers and talented musicians are getting pushed aside in favor of T and A that looks good in the video. All made possible by the fact that they no longer need to have even basic musical competency anymore.

I REALLY hate the fact that no one seems to see the value in a great performance anymore. In fact, all of the nuance in a great performance are often just seen as "problems" that can be taken care of with our wonderous technology. I shudder to link what "Kind of Blue", "Who's Next" or "Led Zeppelin 4" would sound like after the little minions got done beat detecting and pitch correcting everything

Why? Surely the resonse to that is to be better than them?

I personally see this DNA thing (if it actually works) as being used in a manner much akin to when samplers first came out and got picked up by the hiphop/electronic lot. I'm sure the same arguements you propose could have been said (and probably were) about sampling when it first became accessable. Yes, I'm sure some people will use it to mask a shoddy performance but again, the response to this is be better than them. If you are better than them, then what's the problem?

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Kid A

"little minions got done beat detecting and pitch correcting everything"

lol.

I almost interned at a studio that did that, but then I didn't.

studios dont do that.

people do.

[bigfurry]

I think both of you (Audiowonderland and Senor Tortoise) make really good, not exclusionary points, which I took as
A), there is so much crap being polished into shiny crap balls already, and DNA is a scary technology in terms of potentially lowering the "talent bar" even further. I tweaked a live guitar/ voice performance last night with DNA, and I felt elated and sick to my stomach about it. It is so easy to "improve" a performance while subtly killing the magic of it. As a consumer, I really enjoy live recordings, warts and all, and like to know that what I'm listening to is how it went down. Call me crazy, you might be right...
and,
B). you absolutely do have to look off the beaten path, because you'll be hard pressed to find label stuff that doesn't suck a little bit. We get used to suckage, and start to make allowances for it, but the best stuff I've heard in a long time has been way off the beaten path, and reminded me not to accept a new, lower bar for good.

I think you guys have hit two major points on the noggin.

Now, about this dark magic software-
Anyone tried DNA yet on dense material?

[Em Kay]

I've never understood the "damn kids and their talentless efforts" arguement. To me, it seems like a bitter and jaded view born out of frustration over one's own (lack of) success. If the "Talent Bar" has been lowered, why has it not made it even easier for you to achieve the success you desire?

[AudioWonderland]

Originally Posted by Em Kay

I've never understood the "damn kids and their talentless efforts" arguement. To me, it seems like a bitter and jaded view born out of frustration over one's own (lack of) success. If the "Talent Bar" has been lowered, why has it not made it even easier for you to achieve the success you desire?

I am not trying to be an artist. Nor are most of us here. But I sure as hell hear the tails of one pile of shit after another having to be assembled into something passable. I won't work them. Certainly a perk of doing this for the personal rewards and not a paycheck to be sure. These bands fall on their ass live. They CLEARLY ain't got it but they sure sound pretty on recordings. How do you think that happens? Oh yes... Auto tune, beat detective and now DNA...

But more simply put, just listen. If you can't hear how bad some of these bands are you are in the wrong line of work. A lot of hair metal bands were laughable in there presentation but a good percentage were at least competent on their instruments. Many were were damn good. Prior to that bands like the Eagles, Boston, Styx, Journey, Toto etc (pop bands of the time) were filled with highly talented players several of whom went on to studio work and a couple into jazz/fusion groups. The talent level has fallen off a cliff. Maybe the young guys just don't have the background/experience for comparison to see it

[the tortoise]

I want to change my name to Senor Tortoise now.

[Em Kay]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

I am not trying to be an artist. Nor are most of us here. But I sure as hell hear the tails of one pile of shit after another having to be assembled into something passable. I won't work them. Certainly a perk of doing this for the personal rewards and not a paycheck to be sure. These bands fall on their ass live. They CLEARLY ain't got it but they sure sound pretty on recordings. How do you think that happens? Oh yes... Auto tune, beat detective and now DNA...

Who are 'these bands'? Mainstream artisits? If so, that's like going to McDonalds and complaining that the food was bland and artificial. Hobbyists? Well, are you suprised that the majority of laymen have deep flaws in their craftmenship?

I do see your point (to a degree) and I'm not dismissing everything you say, but the arguement that allowing the masses access to the tools is a bad thing is fairly elitist. It works both ways. I certainly would not have got involved in studio engineering if the barriers to entry were not significantly lowered with the desktop DAW revolution. If you put the work in you'll get good at you craft. People who have neither the inclination nor awareness to address their shortcoming will suck, regardless of the tools they use and regardless of how easy the process becomes.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

But more simply put, just listen. If you can't hear how bad some of these bands are you are in the wrong line of work. A lot of hair metal bands were laughable in there presentation but a good percentage were at least competent on their instruments. Many were were damn good. Prior to that bands like the Eagles, Boston, Styx, Journey, Toto etc (pop bands of the time) were filled with highly talented players several of whom went on to studio work and a couple into jazz/fusion groups. The talent level has fallen off a cliff. Maybe the young guys just don't have the background/experience for comparison to see it

.... i think you need to add to this that writing talent may outstrip performing talent sometimes. Eagles - yup , they wrote and performed some great songs. OOzing talent in many ways - but rather boring to those who prefer more "urban" or "street " sounds... not really representing what's going on wih a bunch of 1 year old kids in the early 80's... In fact in much the same way as octogenarians of the early 80's would have been hard pressed to admit the Eagles were music at all - "where's the swing?" they'd complain.

But Boston, Styx and Journey? I think you have to be a fan of those particular style of music to even begin to enjoy their songs. Being clever with chords doesn't necessarily make a good song writer. A good song is defacto defined as one in which the great unwashed enjoy and get the message - under those conditions Journey et al cannot be considered talented in any thing but being gymnastic rock musicians.....

furthermore - jazz/fusion is some benchmark of talent? It's perhaps a benchmark of technical prowess - but d'you know what's harder? Getting such players to play with restraint. I have had the great fortune to work with Billy Cobham in the past.... Awesome player. But try getting him to sit on a back beat, takes some coaxing!


.... and then there's the argument that most "urban" styles are incomprehensible to most people producing acts along the lines of Journey.... I would wager that not many with that particular bent for production COULD produce a Beyonce style track even though they may consider it a lesser art. The decision making process, and the tools used, ARE for artistic reasons and not always or covering up talent.... although probably in the case of utter junk like the Kaiser Chiefs.

[AudioWonderland]

Originally Posted by narcoman

.... i think you need to add to this that writing talent may outstrip performing talent sometimes. Eagles - yup , they wrote and performed some great songs. OOzing talent in many ways - but rather boring to those who prefer more "urban" or "street " sounds... not really representing what's going on wih a bunch of 1 year old kids in the early 80's... In fact in much the same way as octogenarians of the early 80's would have been hard pressed to admit the Eagles were music at all - "where's the swing?" they'd complain.

But Boston, Styx and Journey? I think you have to be a fan of those particular style of music to even begin to enjoy their songs. Being clever with chords doesn't necessarily make a good song writer. A good song is defacto defined as one in which the great unwashed enjoy and get the message - under those conditions Journey et al cannot be considered talented in any thing but being gymnastic rock musicians.....

furthermore - jazz/fusion is some benchmark of talent? It's perhaps a benchmark of technical prowess - but d'you know what's harder? Getting such players to play with restraint. I have had the great fortune to work with Billy Cobham in the past.... Awesome player. But try getting him to sit on a back beat, takes some coaxing!


.... and then there's the argument that most "urban" styles are incomprehensible to most people producing acts along the lines of Journey.... I would wager that not many with that particular bent for production COULD produce a Beyonce style track even though they may consider it a lesser art. The decision making process, and the tools used, ARE for artistic reasons and not always or covering up talent.... although probably in the case of utter junk like the Kaiser Chiefs.

Doesn't really matter if you are a fan of those bands. The point was they could play and went on to high level career outside of the mainstream. Steve Smith is a gymnast? Might want to look a little deeper before you make a ridiculous comment like that

Where did I say anything about songwriting? I agree one does not necessarily tie to the other but the tools in question pertain to playing the songs, not writing them. When you are making records and touring, performance is the point of the discussion not song writing. a lot of the mainstream doesn't even write their own material.

As for talented guys playing with restraint, I think you are reaching big time to justify an argument. You don't become an a list studio player by not having restraint

[AudioWonderland]

Originally Posted by Em Kay

Who are 'these bands'? Mainstream artisits? If so, that's like going to McDonalds and complaining that the food was bland and artificial. Hobbyists? Well, are you suprised that the majority of laymen have deep flaws in their craftmenship?

I do see your point (to a degree) and I'm not dismissing everything you say, but the arguement that allowing the masses access to the tools is a bad thing is fairly elitist. It works both ways. I certainly would not have got involved in studio engineering if the barriers to entry were not significantly lowered with the desktop DAW revolution. If you put the work in you'll get good at you craft. People who have neither the inclination nor awareness to address their shortcoming will suck, regardless of the tools they use and regardless of how easy the process becomes.

I'm not talking about denying the masses tools, I am talking about everyone. As for the elitist comment. There is nothing elitist about it but it sounds good when trying to defend the position that playing ability doesn;t matter. The argument that putting the work in will get good results is flawed. 1) If you have the talent then sure. 2) If you don't have the talent all of the work in the world won't bestow it upon you. But thanks to these tools your engineer can fix it for you and there in lies the point.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

I'm not talking about denying the masses tools, I am talking about everyone. As for the elitist comment. There is nothing elitist about it but it sounds good when trying to defend the position that playing ability doesn;t matter. The argument that putting the work in will get good results is flawed. 1) If you have the talent then sure. 2) If you don't have the talent all of the work in the world won't bestow it upon you. But thanks to these tools your engineer can fix it for you and there in lies the point.

and the flip side of this discussion is going on over here:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-...-autotune.html

[Em Kay]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

I'm not talking about denying the masses tools, I am talking about everyone. As for the elitist comment. There is nothing elitist about it but it sounds good when trying to defend the position that playing ability doesn;t matter. The argument that putting the work in will get good results is flawed. 1) If you have the talent then sure. 2) If you don't have the talent all of the work in the world won't bestow it upon you. But thanks to these tools your engineer can fix it for you and there in lies the point.

At no point have I defended sloppy craftmenship, I've only raised issues with your attitude. Why get so up tight about what other people are doing? I believe the "blame the kids and their new-fangled technology" is the refuge of the bitter cynic.

Also, I'm not a big believer in talent. I believe it's a word that seperates the world into the haves and have nots, giving people the excuse to not achieve simply because they're 'not talented enough'. Sure, some people have a head start but unless you are physically impaired in such a manner that your goal simply not possible then it's all down to how much you want it and the mindset and self-discipline you have/cultivate. I firmly believe you could pick someone with absolutely no percieved musical 'talent' but, assuming they have a set of ears and aren't completely tone deaf (a neurological condition), with the right mindset and under the right guidance could achieve results as good as(and beyond) someone you would label as 'talented' . But that's a whole other thread

[AudioWonderland]

Originally Posted by Em Kay

At no point have I defended sloppy craftmenship, I've only raised issues with your attitude. Why get so up tight about what other people are doing? I believe the "blame the kids and their new-fangled technology" is the refuge of the bitter cynic.

You seem to believe in a lot of things that make absolutely no sense. But to answer your question, music matters. The creation, the performance and the capturing of the first 2 all matter. The more we dumb it down the less value and meaning it has. You may drink the koolaid and accept the lowest common denominator but I do not.

Also, I'm not a big believer in talent. I believe it's a word that seperates the world into the haves and have nots, giving people the excuse to not achieve simply because they're 'not talented enough'. Sure, some people have a head start but unless you are physically impaired in such a manner that your goal simply not possible then it's all down to how much you want it and the mindset and self-discipline you have/cultivate. I firmly believe you could pick someone with absolutely no percieved musical 'talent' but, assuming they have a set of ears and aren't completely tone deaf (a neurological condition), with the right mindset and under the right guidance could achieve results as good as(and beyond) someone you would label as 'talented' . But that's a whole other thread
Right.... and everyone who picks up a basketball can be taught to shoot like Michael Jordan...You can believe what you like but that's not reality. You will note that they don't move the foul line closer to the hoop or lower it for those who are under 6 foot. We certainly seem hell bent to do just that for musicians though

See comments above

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

Doesn't really matter if you are a fan of those bands. The point was they could play and went on to high level career outside of the mainstream. Steve Smith is a gymnast? Might want to look a little deeper before you make a ridiculous comment like that

Where did I say anything about songwriting? I agree one does not necessarily tie to the other but the tools in question pertain to playing the songs, not writing them. When you are making records and touring, performance is the point of the discussion not song writing. a lot of the mainstream doesn't even write their own material.

As for talented guys playing with restraint, I think you are reaching big time to justify an argument. You don't become an a list studio player by not having restraint

You're entirely missing the point. I am , in a polite a way as I can , accusing you of elitism and being out of touch with what talent is. It ISN'T JUST being brilliant on an instrument. It's having a certain panache and style amongst other things. Ringo is regarded as having "talent" as he brought something to the able - something unique. There are many examples of that in modern music - Xtina for example. Or Lady Gaga.

I certainly do NOT like Lady Gagas musical output - but she does have a certain talent. And star quality too I guess.

I think you may be quite surprised in to who IS actually a good musician and who isn't..... I've worked with many of 'em!! Iggy Pop is a GREAT SINGER for example - not the drawling whiner you hear on Stooges records {which I love !!}....


then there are things like the Sex Pistols.... the whole approach to their playing DEFINED the sound. Punk rock doesn't require much in the way of ability - but it requires talent in the same way as modelling does - aplomb, attitude, grace, control , temperament etc etc.

All of your debate seems to revolve around virtuosity. Which makes no sense as it's the minority of successful musicians that have displayed such attributes. None of the Beatles, Stones or Doors could be said to be in the league of musicianship as the aforementioned Journey or Boston!!

[AudioWonderland]

Originally Posted by narcoman

You're entirely missing the point. I am , in a polite a way as I can , accusing you of elitism and being out of touch with what talent is. It ISN'T JUST being brilliant on an instrument. It's having a certain panache and style amongst other things. Ringo is regarded as having "talent" as he brought something to the able - something unique. There are many examples of that in modern music - Xtina for example. Or Lady Gaga.

I certainly do NOT like Lady Gagas musical output - but she does have a certain talent. And star quality too I guess.

I think you may be quite surprised in to who IS actually a good musician and who isn't..... I've worked with many of 'em!! Iggy Pop is a GREAT SINGER for example - not the drawling whiner you hear on Stooges records {which I love !!}....

You are talking about being a star. I am talking about being a musician. They cross paths on occasion but they are not the same thing.

[Em Kay]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

You seem to believe in a lot of things that make absolutely no sense. But to answer your question, music matters. The creation, the performance and the capturing of the first 2 all matter. The more we dumb it down the less value and meaning it has. You may drink the koolaid and accept the lowest common denominator but I do not.

Really? Such as what? Any specifics about my beliefs, or is this a general comment? Also, you've made some rather bold assumptions about my musical tastes. In fact, I'd go as far as saying you probably haven't heard of the styles of music I'm into (read: not mainstream).

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

Right.... and everyone who picks up a basketball can be taught to shoot like Michael Jordan...You can believe what you like but that's not reality. You will note that they don't move the foul line closer to the hoop or lower it for those who are under 6 foot. We certainly seem hell bent to do just that for musicians though

Well, no because basketball is very much a physical game where your physiological makeup has a massive influence on your potential, so your straw man arguement has no place here.

I'm not going to continue this discussion with you because you've clearly showed yourself to be incapable of engaging in any meaningful intellectual discussion without having to resort to petty, unfounded swipes or taking my arguements to absurd logical conclusions. You think that's a good way to put your point across? Clue: it's not.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

You are talking about being a star. I am talking about being a musician. They cross paths on occasion but they are not the same thing.

well as a professional in the industry there has to come a point of "bums on seats"..... I hate to tell it this way - but it's ALWAYS been like this. From the days Rogers and Hammerstein to the present day. If talent sells then it wins. If looks sell, same deal. Despite what you think - there are a LOT of very very good players in the business and your comments stipulating otherwise only reinforce my suspicions that you've not worked in the business {althogh feel free to correct me on this}.... if you had you'd understand why what your trying to say carries little merit. HOWEVER..... There are a lot of crap ones too !! There are plenty of musicians perceived to be gods who were/are FAR from it. There are unsung heroes who were awesome.


Mind you - there are also many unsung heroes who are crap and a few high enders who deserve the praise!

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

See comments above

.... there are PLENTY of sports stars who are held up on the pedestals of their "fame" too..... It's just a little harder to do since their performance is less subjective.

this has got WAAAY of topic. We're supposed to be talking about the anticipation for DNA - and it;s now degenerating into a one man crusade ..... so i'm out.

[AudioWonderland]

Originally Posted by narcoman

well as a professional in the industry there has to come a point of "bums on seats"..... I hate to tell it this way - but it's ALWAYS been like this. From the days Rogers and Hammerstein to the present day. If talent sells then it wins. If looks sell, same deal. Despite what you think - there are a LOT of very very good players in the business. There are a lot of crap ones too !! There are plenty of musicians perceived to be gods who were/are FAR from it. There are unsung heroes who were awesome.


Mind you - there are also many unsung heroes who are crap and a few high enders who deserve the praise!

All true but that does not mean we should not push to maintain the highest possible standards. The argument I keep hearing is that I am out of touch for believing that since we now have to tools to fix everything. There is no need to concern ourselves with it. I will never accept that answer. If that makes me an "elitist" or "snob" or whatever insult anyone cares to throw then so be it. I will take the side of a talented musician over the accountants and PR guys and pop tarts of the week any day of the week.

[AudioWonderland]

Originally Posted by Em Kay

Really? Such as what? Any specifics about my beliefs, or is this a general comment? Also, you've made some rather bold assumptions about my musical tastes. In fact, I'd go as far as saying you probably haven't heard of the styles of music I'm into (read: not mainstream).


Well, no because basketball is very much a physical game where your physiological makeup has a massive influence on your potential, so your straw man arguement has no place here.

I'm not going to continue this discussion with you because you've clearly showed yourself to be incapable of engaging in any meaningful intellectual discussion without having to resort to petty, unfounded swipes or taking my arguements to absurd logical conclusions. You think that's a good way to put your point across? Clue: it's not.

If they they were logical as you say, and they went to absurd places then maybe you need to check your own logic..

[Em Kay]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

If they they were logical as you say, and they went to absurd places then maybe you need to check your own logic..

No my friend, I believe that's your own special brand of logic

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

All true but that does not mean we should not push to maintain the highest possible standards. The argument I keep hearing is that I am out of touch for believing that since we now have to tools to fix everything. There is no need to concern ourselves with it. I will never accept that answer. If that makes me an "elitist" or "snob" or whatever insult anyone cares to throw then so be it. I will take the side of a talented musician over the accountants and PR guys and pop tarts of the week any day of the week.

last call.


What's being said is that with your attitude we wouldn't have had Bob Dylan, Lou Reed, The Pistols, Joy Division, the Clash, Patti Smith, Aretha Franklin {yes i said it - love that woman but boy she's outta tune..... but who cares? THAT's the point}....

All of these acts would have been "corrected" in modern times. Doesn't mean they were any less talented. What you object to is the fact that people DO autotune, time align etc etc..... but these things are done on the strength of changing fashions and tastes. The processes have a sound that some like some hate. But they are a sound. Autotune - and now Melodyne DNA , set a sonic signature on much pop music. It's not push on talent - just like it wasn't Brian Wilsons bass parts were played by Carol Kaye...... all about creating product. It most certainly doesn't automatically imply lack of talent.

Having been there on many great recording sessions for some huge records I can tell you it's quite disheartening to hear someone throwing away many musical talents on the premise that that's how they think records are made. I can assure you that even pithy tosh records contain elements of talented people whether it be in singing, writing, arrangement, programming or performance...


.... although - at least we might not have had "My chemical romance".....I wonder if we could get rid of CLA?

[mdjice]

so... does meldoyne DNA still affect the top end of the sound like crazy ?

[ThirtySecond]

I've been playing with DNA. Some real cool results with remixing my own tracks to different keys. For messing with samples/recordings it's not the dream tool, but does work if you have a clean recording and few instruments. Doesn't affect highend terrible on my recordings. but does on cd recordings.