The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Why do people hate overly tuned vocals? Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 12th December 2018
  #601
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by clump View Post
You are talking about 'genre' and 'style'.....unfortunately you are confusing that with 'value systems'

It's not about "semantics"....you are simply incorrect with your terminology.
I'm not confusing anything nor am I incorrect in my terminology. Each style and genre comes with its own defining values. . that's what defines the style or genre. The concept is quite clear: there are defining traits and values of any genre or style of music.

You're jumping on a phrase you're used to hearing in other contexts and ignoring the point. IE semantic argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clump View Post
You are also generalising in spectacular fashion regarding what different genres apparently "value"
Yes, clearly I'm not making complete lists of all the common traits that compose every genre, I'm making gross generalizations in an attempt to simply describe the concept I'm trying to communicate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clump View Post
"Rock bands value writing your own songs very highly"?...... Apart from the bad grammar, it simply isn't true....it's a bizarre, random, unfounded statement.
That's both correct grammar and a correct statement.

Someone else can argue with you that rock bands don't value writing their own music, as a general trait of rock music. You can go back and forth showing them the teenie tiny list of acclaimed rock bands who perform 3rd party songs as anything other than a cover.

"They don't write their own songs" was used as a dig earlier, that's where this all came up. That's a rock and rap related value though (except in your world where rock bands don't value writing their own material), there's a much longer history in music of songwriters and composers being a separate entity from the performer.
Old 12th December 2018
  #602
Gear Addict
 
clump's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
I'm not confusing anything nor am I incorrect in my terminology. Each style and genre comes with its own defining values. . that's what defines the style or genre. The concept is quite clear: there are defining traits and values of any genre or style of music.

You're jumping on a phrase you're used to hearing in other contexts and ignoring the point. IE semantic argument.



Yes, clearly I'm not making complete lists of all the common traits that compose every genre, I'm making gross generalizations in an attempt to simply describe the concept I'm trying to communicate.

"Rock bands value writing your own songs very highly"?...... Apart from the bad grammar, it simply isn't true....it's a bizarre, random, unfounded statement.
That's both correct grammar and a correct statement.

Someone else can argue with you that rock bands don't value writing their own music, as a general trait of rock music. You can show them the teenie tiny list of acclaimed rock bands who perform 3rd party songs as anything other than a cover.[/QUOTE]

Firstly, the grammar..... "Rock bands value writing YOUR own songs very highly" Do they? what? MY songs? or THEIR songs.....sorry to be pedantic but it should be 'THEIR' songs not 'YOUR' songs....so it IS grammatically incorrect.

Secondly, regarding the 'correctness' of the statement.

It has nothing to do with the 'rock' genre per se, what about folk? Punk? Soul? Pop?
It is to do with a collection of musicians who form a band (of any given genre) together.....Most MUSICIANS will write at least some of their own output.
Old 12th December 2018
  #603
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by clump View Post
Firstly, the grammar..... "Rock bands value writing YOUR own songs very highly" Do they? what? MY songs? or THEIR songs.....sorry to be pedantic but it should be 'THEIR' songs not 'YOUR' songs....so it IS grammatically incorrect.
Good grief. I never do the facepalm because I find it rude and weak but this deserves it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clump View Post
Secondly, regarding the 'correctness' of the statement.
It has nothing to do with the 'rock' genre per se, what about folk? Punk? Soul? Pop?
It is to do with a collection of musicians who form a band (of any given genre) together.....Most MUSICIANS will write at least some of their own output.
Yes, its a value held to more genres than just rock. I thought I've made that clear by also saying rap, singer/songwriter, and others in the various posts on this topic. Many values, traits, and characteristics overlap between genres, of course.

You're just arguing man, this is getting really dumb. I'm not going to keep going back and forth like this much longer, with you intentionally ignoring the point while making "but what about this and that" statements or nitpicking any possible thing you can from whatever nonsensical angle you can find.
Old 12th December 2018
  #604
Gear Addict
 

This thread reminds me of that scene in "Demolition man", where people in the future end up listening to short old commercials as pop classics.

I am really not puristically opposed to Autotune, nor as a corrective tool or as an effect, but it's the use as a crutch and then the silly justifications by its defenders that should worry us.
The defense that something is happening already accross the board and that it's a sign of changing times, modernity, etc., doesn't mean that it is going in the right direction.

Why did we, or are we trying to, put a stop to "the loudness wars"?
I'm sure that (almost) nobody here is going to defend the loudness wars and say that because it was going on for sometime already, that people were acostumed to it and "liked" it, anyway, that we should have left it as it was.

That a technology exists, doesn't mean that using it is a beneficial development and that the ones criticising it are not with the times.
The technology to make your mixes as loud as possible existed, every artist, engineer, ME, wanted to achieve a loud track and the public got acostumed to it, by lack of an alternative; but still common sense prevailed in the end and........

The loudness wars, music piracy, etc., were also defended in the beginning, but I don't longer see/hear many of those defenders around.
So, there might be hope.
Old 12th December 2018
  #605
Gear Maniac
 
s wave's Avatar
Come on now... you said:


"'Value systems' do not relate to aesthetics, they relate exclusively to MORAL CHOICES.....they can not be applied to differing taste/preference regarding aesthetics." Clump

then you said:

"The term "Value systems" is PRIMARILY concerned with MORAL CHOICE.....the terminology has been stretched and taken way out of context." Clump

Do you see why people get upset? you say absolutely 'EXCLUSIVELY'
... then you say 'PRIMARILY'

Do you see these are 2 conflicting statements or not? Which one is it...? help us out.

Did you not know that saying "bad grammar" Is bad grammar. (Incorrect usage of an adjective)

Come on get past the rhetoric so we can understand what you are saying. thx
Old 12th December 2018
  #606
Gear Addict
 
clump's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
Come on now... you said:


"'Value systems' do not relate to aesthetics, they relate exclusively to MORAL CHOICES.....they can not be applied to differing taste/preference regarding aesthetics." Clump

then you said:

"The term "Value systems" is PRIMARILY concerned with MORAL CHOICE.....the terminology has been stretched and taken way out of context." Clump

Do you see why people get upset? you say absolutely 'EXCLUSIVELY'
... then you say 'PRIMARILY'

Do you see these are 2 conflicting statements or not? Which one is it...? help us out.

Did you not know that saying "bad grammar" Is bad grammar. (Incorrect usage of an adjective)

Come on get past the rhetoric so we can understand what you are saying. thx
Okay, seeing you ask......I DID say "Value Systems" relate EXCLUSIVELY to moral choice"....I stand by that.

The reason I modified it is simply this: The term has been hi jacked, bastardised, and applied to a range of inappropriate subject matter.....Therefore I used "Primarily" in acknowledgement of the fact that a lot of over enthusiastic 'intellectuals' tend to use it these days at the drop of a hat, along with "genius'' ''zeitgeist'' and "shift a paradigm".

....Oh, and it isn't incorrect usage of an adjective at all.....you seem to have fallen for the "Actually it's bad grammar to say bad grammar" myth.
Old 12th December 2018
  #607
Gear Addict
 
clump's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Good grief. I never do the facepalm because I find it rude and weak but this deserves it.



Yes, its a value held to more genres than just rock. I thought I've made that clear by also saying rap, singer/songwriter, and others in the various posts on this topic. Many values, traits, and characteristics overlap between genres, of course.

You're just arguing man, this is getting really dumb. I'm not going to keep going back and forth like this much longer, with you intentionally ignoring the point while making "but what about this and that" statements or nitpicking any possible thing you can from whatever nonsensical angle you can find.
No 'man'....it is actually YOU who constantly swims against the tide for the sake of it, that is probably why you end up getting a lot of people calling you out.

If you don't like my posts, block me.
Old 12th December 2018
  #608
Gear Head
 

Apparently those listening to RnB do NOT value that the singer writes her own songs and that she’s not autotuned. They’re buying the songs. Some buyers might claim to not be aware about it, but I think most (silently) accept it.

I don’t think rock n roll fans would accept ghostwriters and Autotune to the same degree.

For me it’s sad. I don’t get why an RnB singer shouldn’t be able to have enough talent to write her own songs and do without Autotune (spare the use for effects like Cher did or to correct a few hard to reach notes).
Old 13th December 2018
  #609
Gear Maniac
 
s wave's Avatar
Grammar in 'Formal English' can not be bad. Only in slang or informal English can a rock be angry or a word bad. In Formal English it can be correct or incorrect. Although auto tune can be bad or incorrect. When people can't even TRY to communicate or get on common ground its even harder to understand what they are trying to say. And in progressive prose yes anything can be anything all nouns are verbs - all verbs are nouns and eventually those popular ones are placed into Formal English. tc
Old 13th December 2018
  #610
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninecows View Post
Apparently those listening to RnB do NOT value that the singer writes her own songs and that she’s not autotuned. They’re buying the songs. Some buyers might claim to not be aware about it, but I think most (silently) accept it.

I don’t think rock n roll fans would accept ghostwriters and Autotune to the same degree.

For me it’s sad. I don’t get why an RnB singer shouldn’t be able to have enough talent to write her own songs and do without Autotune (spare the use for effects like Cher did or to correct a few hard to reach notes).
For the writing, its not just RnB. Its most of music.

Look at the #1s from 1956: List of Billboard number-one singles of 1956 - Wikipedia

Click the song title to see who wrote it. Its rarely the performer:

"Sixteen Tons"
Tennessee Ernie
Written by Merle Travis

"Rock and Roll Waltz"
Kay Starr
Written by Shorty Allen, Roy Alfred

"Heartbreak Hotel"
Elvis Presley
Written by Mae Boren Axton Thomas Durden

"The Wayward Wind"
Gogi Grant
Written by Stanley Lebowsky
Lyricist(s) Herb Newman

Until rock in the 60s, most songs were not written by the performer. And in many genres it never stopped being that way. Songwriting and performing are different skills and are recognized as such by many genres.
Old 13th December 2018
  #611
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
For the writing, its not just RnB. Its most of music.

Look at the #1s from 1956: List of Billboard number-one singles of 1956 - Wikipedia

Click the song title to see who wrote it. Its rarely the performer:

"Sixteen Tons"
Tennessee Ernie
Written by Merle Travis

"Rock and Roll Waltz"
Kay Starr
Written by Shorty Allen, Roy Alfred

"Heartbreak Hotel"
Elvis Presley
Written by Mae Boren Axton Thomas Durden

"The Wayward Wind"
Gogi Grant
Written by Stanley Lebowsky
Lyricist(s) Herb Newman

Until rock in the 60s, most songs were not written by the performer. And in many genres it never stopped being that way. Songwriting and performing are different skills and are recognized as such by many genres.
I stand corrected :-)

Still think it’s sad. I can understand a band/performer making a cover or two of a song that really means a lot to them. But not basing your career on just being the performer as a puppet without your own message to your audience. I guess it’s about if the performer chose the music him/herself or if somebody else is making a match between music and performer.

I recognize and respect that there’s a huge market for that kind of music, so I cannot claim that it’s worthless crap ;-) I just think the other concept is better :-)
Old 13th December 2018
  #612
Gear Maniac
 
s wave's Avatar
"All Shook Up", "Love Me Tender" just a couple #1s written by Elvis
"Shotgun Boogie" written by Tennessee Ernie Ford

Kay Star and Gogi Grant mainly covered songs

Again this was an era with different business practices. Sometimes artists or writers refused credits ie Sixteen Tons. Oft times song writing duos or publishing houses would "secure" the publishing rights.
Old 13th December 2018
  #613
Gear Addict
 
clump's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
Grammar in 'Formal English' can not be bad. Only in slang or informal English can a rock be angry or a word bad. In Formal English it can be correct or incorrect. Although auto tune can be bad or incorrect. When people can't even TRY to communicate or get on common ground its even harder to understand what they are trying to say. And in progressive prose yes anything can be anything all nouns are verbs - all verbs are nouns and eventually those popular ones are placed into Formal English. tc
Well, let's face it, none of us here on GS tend to use "Formal English" therefore your argument is a 'bad argument' from line one.

The fact remains that 'bad grammar' is actually perfectly acceptable in contemporary 'Formal English'...as is 'awful grammar' 'poor grammar' 'terrible grammar' etc etc

Perhaps you should contact the editors at 'The Idler Academy' and tell them that their annual 'Bad Grammar Awards' ceremony needs a name change?

Of course I can't comment on what the laws regarding the usage of 'Formal English' might be in Colorado or New York, as I'm not from there.....

....No, I can only comment on the laws regarding the usage of 'Formal English' from the perspective of an Englishman....from England.....with a degree in English.
Old 13th December 2018
  #614
Gear Maniac
 
s wave's Avatar
CLUMP then why do you call out people for 'bad grammar'.

You use incorrect grammar right and left ... then you have the audacity to call others out for incorrect grammar... totally uncalled for.

Also, if you want to start calling out where I grew up as derogatory then fine... You are from England your country invented Kings English and Formal English. You live there you should have know that. We have a diversity of slang languages dialects etc. here.

At least I can say "You are no son just afta da guapacheese na'mean yo thirstbucket, you a tight bricking ratchet na'mean lets not take it there lets be son." and understand exactly what it means... because I lived in NY and it is a vibrant language, especially good for writing lyrics.
The last part encourages You an I to be friends, tc

You can not rationalize with an irrational person - HS Brown
Old 13th December 2018
  #615
Gear Addict
 
clump's Avatar
 

S WAVE......Of course....I was being flippant and obnoxious, two traits which unfortunately, I have to live with.

I'm quite jealous that I have never lived in New York, they say it has a similar vibe to Liverpool, in which case we probably would be friends....nowaarramean?
Old 13th December 2018
  #616
Lives for gear
 
boombapdame's Avatar
@newguy1 in R&B people rarely wonder who wrote but more who sang and one of the biggest outliers of writer who can passably sing is Babyface, dude admits he's no singer but a beast w/the pen and production.
Old 13th December 2018
  #617
Lives for gear
 
boombapdame's Avatar
@s wave the distinct dialects combined w/poetry, the dozens, etc. is what got me into rap and I ain't been the same since
Old 13th December 2018
  #618
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
"All Shook Up", "Love Me Tender" just a couple #1s written by Elvis
"Shotgun Boogie" written by Tennessee Ernie Ford

Kay Star and Gogi Grant mainly covered songs

Again this was an era with different business practices. Sometimes artists or writers refused credits ie Sixteen Tons. Oft times song writing duos or publishing houses would "secure" the publishing rights.
oftentimes managers will blackmail songwriters into making the artist a "co-writer" or even abandoning their credit altogether for a buyout. Tom Parker was infamous for this. What is worth more - a bad deal with Elvis - or a good deal with some unknown singer?

You have to be pretty naive to believe that Elvis Presley wrote all those songs.

Last edited by joeq; 13th December 2018 at 10:01 PM..
Old 13th December 2018
  #619
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
oftentimes managers will blackmail songwriters into making the artist a "co-writer" or even abandoning their credit altogether for a buyout. Tom Parker was infamous for this. What is worth more - a bad deal with Elvis - or a good deal with some unknown singer?

You have to be pretty naive to believe that Elvis Presley wrote those songs.
Yep: Ken Darby - Wikipedia

Darby was also the principal composer of the 1956 Elvis Presley hit "Love Me Tender" for the movie of the same name but signed the rights over to his wife, Vera Matson, whose name appears as co-lyricist and co-composer with Elvis Presley. The song was adapted from the Civil War era song "Aura Lee."[1] Presley's composing credit was mandated by his management, to entice him to record the song.[2] Darby was often asked about his decision to credit the song to his wife along with Presley, and his standard response was an acid, "Because she didn't write it either."[2]

Not much has changed from Elvis to Beyonce. Sample/interpolate (or "adapt from" to use the language in the wiki) an existing song, have a songwriter write something new to it, and have the artist slap their name on the writing credits as an enticement to cut it. That's how many of the classic records, old and modern, have been made.
Old 13th December 2018
  #620
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninecows View Post

Still think it’s sad. I can understand a band/performer making a cover or two of a song that really means a lot to them. But not basing your career on just being the performer as a puppet without your own message to your audience.
this is nonsense

the performance can be a "message" all by itself. A great singer + a great song = goosebumps ... no matter who wrote it.

What "message" is Itzhak Perlman delivering to his audience when he plays something written by a dude who has been dead for 200 years? Is Mick Jagger "cheating" because Keith Richards helped to write the song he is singing? What? he only wrote the words?

Singing is a talent. Songwriting is a talent. Playing an instrument is a talent. Lyric Writing is a talent. (Ask Elton John ) Not everybody is born with every talent. This is like getting down on a performer because they are a stand-up singer who doesn't play their own guitar or piano backups. Oh they have to hire musicians to play backup? I guess that makes them a "puppet".

This is like the new paradigm so often proposed at Gearslutz whereby an artist is not a "real" artist unless they not only write all the songs they sing, but they have to play all the instruments themselves and do all the recording, mixing and mastering themselves as well.

is it not possible that people would like to hear someone who is a great singer sing, even if they have no talent for writing? Or mixing?

For most people, the song is king. Even artists who do write, often have hits with songs written by others. Not everybody gives a hoot about some "message" that the artist is supposed to be consistently delivering. And as I mentioned above, there is a tremendous amount of ghosting going on. And not much of it is about 'artistry' or ego or image or 'message', but about cold hard dollars.

Quote:
I recognize and respect that there’s a huge market for that kind of music, so I cannot claim that it’s worthless crap ;-) I just think the other concept is better :-)
the 'other concept' allowed the band to keep more of the money that came in from album sales, so in that sense it was definitely a 'better' choice ... for them. But for the public? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. For every artist that was encouraged to find their "voice" and found it, there were other artists who were pushed into writing when they had little flair for it.

So by that measure, there was plenty of mediocre output because of this 'concept' as well.
Old 13th December 2018
  #621
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
this is nonsense

the performance can be a "message" all by itself. A great singer + a great song = goosebumps ... no matter who wrote it.

What "message" is Itzhak Perlman delivering to his audience when he plays something written by a dude who has been dead for 200 years? Is Mick Jagger "cheating" because Keith Richards helped to write the song he is singing? What? he only wrote the words?

Singing is a talent. Songwriting is a talent. Playing an instrument is a talent. Lyric Writing is a talent. (Ask Elton John ) Not everybody is born with every talent. This is like getting down on a performer because they are a stand-up singer who doesn't play their own guitar or piano backups. Oh they have to hire musicians to play backup? I guess that makes them a "puppet".

This is like the new paradigm so often proposed at Gearslutz whereby an artist is not a "real" artist unless they not only write all the songs they sing, but they have to play all the instruments themselves and do all the recording mixing and mastering themselves as well.

is it not possible that people would like to hear someone who is a great singer sing, even if they have no talent for writing? Or mixing?

For most people, the song is king. Even artists who do write, often have hits with songs written by others. Not everybody gives a hoot about some "message" that the artist is supposed to be consistently delivering. And as I mentioned above, there is a tremendous amount of ghosting going on. And not much of it is about 'artistry' or ego or image or 'message', but about cold hard dollars.



the 'other concept' allowed the band to keep more of the money that came in from album sales, so in that sense it was definitely a 'better' choice ... for them. But for the public? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. For every artist that was encouraged to find their "voice" and found it, there were other artists who were pushed into writing when they had little flair for it.

So by that measure, there was plenty of mediocre output because of this 'concept' as well.
Joeq and I are back on the same page.
Old 13th December 2018
  #622
Lives for gear
 
boombapdame's Avatar
@joeq why do people insist that an artist literally do everything? I find it disingenuous and I never felt nor feel that an artist must be a complete control freak.
Old 13th December 2018
  #623
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by boombapdame View Post
@joeq why do people insist that an artist literally do everything? I find it disingenuous and I never felt nor feel that an artist must be a complete control freak.
It is just an excuse to dismiss something. No more, no less.

Alistair
Old 13th December 2018
  #624
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninecows View Post
I stand corrected :-)

Still think it’s sad. I can understand a band/performer making a cover or two of a song that really means a lot to them. But not basing your career on just being the performer as a puppet without your own message to your audience. I guess it’s about if the performer chose the music him/herself or if somebody else is making a match between music and performer.

I recognize and respect that there’s a huge market for that kind of music, so I cannot claim that it’s worthless crap ;-) I just think the other concept is better :-)
A singer performing a song he/she didn't write personally, is not necessarily a cover, it could have been written for him/her; a cover is a previously released song.

Singer/songwriters have indeed become more common the last five decades, just like now everybody's producing, recording and mastering their own stuff.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but, just as I don't feel that a movie actor needs to have written the movie script himself, but just needs to play his role convincingly, to me a singer just needs to move me with his interpretation of the song, whether he wrote it himself, or not.

I also don't mind if a song is not autobiographic, but was just conceived in someone's fantasy; as long as it is an appealing story.
Old 13th December 2018
  #625
Lives for gear
 
boombapdame's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodba View Post
A singer performing a song he/she didn't write personally, is not necessarily a cover, it could have been written for him/her; a cover is a previously released song.

Singer/songwriters have indeed become more common the last five decades, just like now everybody's producing, recording and mastering their own stuff.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but, just as I don't feel that a movie actor needs to have written the movie script himself, but just needs to play his role convincingly, to me a singer just needs to move me with his interpretation of the song, whether he wrote it himself, or not.

I also don't mind if a song is not autobiographic, but was just conceived in someone's fantasy; as long as it is an appealing story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodba View Post
I also don't mind if a song is not autobiographic, but was just conceived in someone's fantasy; as long as it is an appealing story.
I've always felt if a song was autobiographic it was/is a bonus but to me a great song doesn't have to be rooted in personal experience(s) but I also feel that expecting someone's mundane reality minus imagination makes for bad music. The key to good to great to excellent songwriting is to make the mundane interesting.
Old 13th December 2018
  #626
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boombapdame View Post
@joeq why do people insist that an artist literally do everything? I find it disingenuous and I never felt nor feel that an artist must be a complete control freak.
I can understand if an artist wants to do literally do everything.

There are no doubt some good control freak artists as well as some bad ones. Pursuing absolute "control" is their right, even though I personally question the percentage of people who want to vs the percentage of people who actually can!

Where it becomes destructive, IMO is when it becomes this idea of "supposed to". Where people read the (usually inflated or even false) narratives about "do it all" lone-wolf artists and come away thinking that's the only way to go about making music.

I also notice it's kind of arbitrary. Nobody feels like they are losing 'control' if they hire a professional to take the band photo, shoot the video, design the album cover, or do the haircuts and the tattoos. Somehow there is no criticism if you hire a sax player to play a sax solo, but it's mandatory to be your own guitarist, your own tech, your own songwriter.

To me, it should be like a buffet, and every artist ought to be able to choose which things are right for them. And if they are smart, they will recognize their limitations, and go with their strengths.
Old 13th December 2018
  #627
Lives for gear
 
boombapdame's Avatar
@joeq PM me about how I feel about the do it all narrative.
Old 14th December 2018
  #628
Gear Maniac
 
s wave's Avatar
Agreed boombapdame... Language has been a drowning dinosaur for years. I like the cutting edge lyrics with cutting edge slang. At least ancient Greek had 7 words for love... Jazz was the cutting edge for America for a long time... now it is so refreshing to have rap, alternative, genres and much more join in the fray. In the past it was limited to poetry readings (which I also like)

Yes newguy... the politics of songwriting credits has been smoke n mirrors for a long time. On top of that; where there is money fame or power there is bound to be the relative amount of corruption or BAS business as usual... and honest dealings.
Old 14th December 2018
  #629
Gear Maniac
 
s wave's Avatar
Hope that naive comment wasn't directed my way... I know about the dealings... as a matter of fact I gave away many songs, lyrics and writings to people I got along with. When they get published or produced my name is not associated with the credits. I don't care about it in those situations because they were true gifts of helping out another human being. If you are not part of the inner dealings... good luck figuring out the real truth. Its like definitively saying Shakespeare wrote the plays.
Old 14th December 2018
  #630
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
this is nonsense

the performance can be a "message" all by itself. A great singer + a great song = goosebumps ... no matter who wrote it.

What "message" is Itzhak Perlman delivering to his audience when he plays something written by a dude who has been dead for 200 years? Is Mick Jagger "cheating" because Keith Richards helped to write the song he is singing? What? he only wrote the words?
As I wrote: it is about choice for me. I would like to think that both Perlman and Jagger chose the music they wanted to play themselves even though they didn’t wrote it. It’s the whole ghostwriter and designer band/“artists” industry thing I think is sad. I must admit that it’s hard to make a clear definition on when it’s “wrong”. It’s a blurry line. So the band hires a professional studio musician to do a certain part. Is this cheating? Most likely not. Unless they neglect to give them credit of course ;-)

But it’s just my opinion. Yours may differ and it’s fine ;-)

And, now please back to Autotune to stay on topic. Sorry for bringing us off track :-)
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump