|
|
Post by donr on Feb 14, 2014 12:09:59 GMT -6
I agree the main problem with auto tune is not so much the tool, but that it tunes to equal temperament. Think how less lively keyboards sound today compared to the time before stable digitally pitched instruments.
Vocal harmonies sung live are not equal temperament. The exquisite harmony of K.D. Lang's "Constant Craving" or Gloria Estafan's "Live For Loving You" are not equal temperament.
Digital Performer's pitch tools are great for spot fixing pitch. Dragging a selection up or down in a track quantizes pitch, but option dragging lets you use your ear to put the pitch where it sounds good.
It's lame to me that heavy auto tuning has become fashionable to the point of expectation to today's listener. But in the '80's I didn't think drum machines would catch on either.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Feb 14, 2014 12:20:51 GMT -6
Ok, this is a good one lol!
Popular music is indeed a Train wreck, derailed into a corporately run, focus group driven, sonically homogenized medly of character free, Robo tuned(ironically out of time and tune), anti art!
Proof is in the puddin, It has been pounded, diluted and diminished into a pork-belly based commodity, where virtually every move made is preceded with the words "they'll buy it if we....". The EXACT words a true artist would NEVER utter! There are a few exceptions of course, but very few. Most partaking, are are in a contract of servitude, indentured to their puppeteers, instructed to do it exactly like the guy/gal who just did it before them, right down to the viral crotch shots.. Too bad???
Rant over lol
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Feb 14, 2014 12:21:00 GMT -6
How about Radiohead as an example? You ( popmann) may or may not be into them, but I think most people would consider them as one of the greatest bands of the day. They have embraced the evolution of the tools and evolved accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 14, 2014 13:12:47 GMT -6
Ok, this is a good one lol! Popular music is indeed a Train wreck, derailed into a corporately run, focus group driven, sonically homogenized medly of character free, Robo tuned(ironically out of time and tune), anti art! Proof is in the puddin, It has been pounded, diluted and diminished into a pork-belly based commodity, where virtually every move made is preceded with the words "they'll buy it if we....". The EXACT words a true artist would NEVER utter! There are a few exceptions of course, but very few. Most partaking, are are in a contract of servitude, indentured to their puppeteers, instructed to do it exactly like the guy/gal who just did it before them, right down to the viral crotch shots.. Too bad??? Rant over lol Man, music must be a sad world for you tony. One would wonder why you even continue in it if that's the way you believe things are. Change it for the better if you dare.... |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Feb 14, 2014 13:23:29 GMT -6
For the record...I'm not saying digital editing "ruined" anything in a panned back global sense. I'm simply saying that the argument that it's making something good better is, IMO, a hypothesis that's proven wrong by the absence of supporting proof for decades of it's professional availability.
There's a difference in a Radiohead or Reznor taking new tools and making something completely new that moves people...and saying that BandX who plays rock/country/soul/reggae/whatever, is made "better than real" through editing which is what the debate is no? Not whether or not one can make art with any given set of tools. I suppose if the argument is that Thom Yorke is this generations best singer who sounds better than the singers who came before him...and AT made him better than without...that WOULD be the evolution...but, is that really the point you're making?
Wanted to clear that up. I'm not proposing digital/tech is the devil or no one can make anything that moves people-the thread is about content editing bringing some hyper reality. I agree that theoretically it could. I just don't hear it.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 14, 2014 13:33:52 GMT -6
I'm simply saying that the argument that it's making something good better is, IMO, a hypothesis that's proven wrong by the absence of supporting proof for decades of it's professional availability. That's your PERSONAL opinion, which of course you have every right to. But to dogmatically say music is worse for "XYZ" is completely foolish. People enjoy music just as much today as they did 15 years ago. Maybe not your taste, which is again, fine, but the world does not conform to YOUR taste or MINE. The funny thing about writing, producing music is how people react to it. It continues to baffle me after doing it 30 years. Often, the pieces I created that I was sure were masterpieces are rarely used, and other pieces I thought were complete junk have been used over and over and over. The public - ie: normal people - make their own choices as to what they like. None of us here get a say in it. |
|
|
|
Post by littlesicily on Feb 14, 2014 15:16:29 GMT -6
Wow...4 pages on this huh? I skimmed thru and kinda funny...
I make music and use tools to make music... including Pro Tools, Auto-Tune, Melodyne... I know how to use them to get the musical results I'm after. My clients and their fans are very happy with the musicality in my productions/recordings. There are many genres of music that require different approaches... a retro 50's thing is gonna require different techniques and tools than a 2014 EDM track. If someone doesn't want to or doesn't know how to use certain tools to achieve desired results that's fine. But to deem any tool as "bad", "Wrong" etc is just silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by mobeach on Feb 14, 2014 15:29:39 GMT -6
I was just listening to The Night Owl by the Little River Band, what an amazing job they did on vocals, perfect everything! What happened to quality artists?
|
|
|
|
Post by littlesicily on Feb 14, 2014 15:33:14 GMT -6
I was just listening to The Night Owl by the Little River Band, what an amazing job they did on vocals, perfect everything! What happened to quality artists? As drbill said... they're out there... just look a little more and you may find some new music/artists you like. While I'm not a huge fan of Lady A... I have worked on tracks for them and Charles' (lead singer) vocal with just 2 passes from top to bottom was stellar. No tuning needed, no time aligning needed. If you like music that's got a live performance feel to it, dive into the indie scene...there are some gems in there. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 14, 2014 15:52:32 GMT -6
Wow...4 pages on this huh? I skimmed thru and kinda funny... I make music and use tools to make music... including Pro Tools, Auto-Tune, Melodyne... I know how to use them to get the musical results I'm after. My clients and their fans are very happy with the musicality in my productions/recordings. There are many genres of music that require different approaches... a retro 50's thing is gonna require different techniques and tools than a 2014 EDM track. If someone doesn't want to or doesn't know how to use certain tools to achieve desired results that's fine. But to deem any tool as "bad", "Wrong" etc is just silly. No one is saying it's the proper use that is bad...for corrections...it's the slathering that is bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 14, 2014 15:56:38 GMT -6
Ok, this is a good one lol! Popular music is indeed a Train wreck, derailed into a corporately run, focus group driven, sonically homogenized medly of character free, Robo tuned(ironically out of time and tune), anti art! Proof is in the puddin, It has been pounded, diluted and diminished into a pork-belly based commodity, where virtually every move made is preceded with the words "they'll buy it if we....". The EXACT words a true artist would NEVER utter! There are a few exceptions of course, but very few. Most partaking, are are in a contract of servitude, indentured to their puppeteers, instructed to do it exactly like the guy/gal who just did it before them, right down to the viral crotch shots.. Too bad??? Rant over lol Man, music must be a sad world for you tony. One would wonder why you even continue in it if that's the way you believe things are. Change it for the better if you dare.... OK - This thread is getting locked. Really, this isn't fucking Gearslutz. My only rule is don't be an asshole and that rule has been broken in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by littlesicily on Feb 14, 2014 15:58:27 GMT -6
I agree... slathering is bad.
I still don't see the problem though. Avoid buying/listening to THAT music then. Certainly there are enough choices out there, right?
People made crappy music in the 60's/70's with Neve consoles, UREI limiters and fabulous rooms. Does it just bother some of the music crusaders too much? (joke)
Or am I still missing the point of the rant? haha
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Feb 16, 2014 12:27:53 GMT -6
Digital correction has NEVER made good music better. It HAS made great music worse. On the first....that's ridiculous and 1000% wrong. On the second, you are absolutely correct, although I'm sure that half of it I wouldn't want to hear anyway.... Ooh...this is the absurd statement? The first part of that, because the second you say you agree on? You think you've made good music better? Of course you do. That's what you're selling. You can make them better. As a music FAN, I assure you that you can't. I've never heard it. Prof course "never" was a broad generalization because discussing like this ARE broad generalizations. More accurate I suppose would be it is so rare, IME, it's simply not statistically relevant. I am sorry if that generalization offended you because it includes you. We obviously have a disconnect...at some point later, you said something about if I haven't heard great music since the mid 90s, which again-misunderstanding. Of course I have. Im not sure how thats relevant unless you are of the opinion that digital editing is what made this music great...or greatER? What I meant was that this digital editing trend has not produced "better than previous recording tech"...therefore, the collective hypothesis, at some point has to admit failure, due to lack of supporting proof in results. I don't know that I can be more clear. If what I said above is still absurd and 1000% incorrect, we have to agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Feb 16, 2014 13:29:29 GMT -6
I agree the main problem with auto tune is not so much the tool, but that it tunes to equal temperament. Think how less lively keyboards sound today compared to the time before stable digitally pitched instruments. Vocal harmonies sung live are not equal temperament. The exquisite harmony of K.D. Lang's "Constant Craving" or Gloria Estafan's "Live For Loving You" are not equal temperament. Digital Performer's pitch tools are great for spot fixing pitch. Dragging a selection up or down in a track quantizes pitch, but option dragging lets you use your ear to put the pitch where it sounds good. It's lame to me that heavy auto tuning has become fashionable to the point of expectation to today's listener. But in the '80's I didn't think drum machines would catch on either. It's certainly hilarious to me that people talk of musical tools when quieried about their use of this stuff - but these tools tend to generate music that's "On Paper" correct, rather than the most dramatic/musical version. Things like a quarter tone bend in a persons intonation can be intended to show a blue's bend style inflection - an idiom popular in music for over 100 years. But now it'll get hammered out - and for what end? It's as bad as those "country'd" blues lick where they turned the blue notes into major thirds to make it more digestible for a mainstream White audience. On paper correct, sure, but a rather sickly and unmusical interpretation of the idiom. And unfortunately people tend to unconsciously rely on this software to interpret this stuff. Unless the mix engineer has a musical background - I mean, unless the guy can hear a Minor 9 or a Maj 11#4 chord as clear as a door bell - then he's going to miss the boat. He'll never be able to diagnose the problems because he's thinking solely in timbre and "vibe" when pitch is the issue. I mean, we've all played in a chord sequence we heard in our head note for note right? And on playback it just doesn't sound right. That C is definitely the right note..but it still doesn't seem like the "right" C. Flick through 8 presets of the soundbank you wanted and give up? I'd encourage anyone who experiences these problems to dwell on the issue of pitch. It's not as clear as much music theory implies. The very fact that you can enjoy a filter sweep or a singer adding vibrato should make it clear. That's not that Just Intonation is always right - it's often not. But certain intervals within a piece might work better slightly flat or sharp, depending on whether you want to make it sound rougher or more placid. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Feb 16, 2014 15:23:39 GMT -6
It's almost like you're making the point that pitch is a subjective part of the art or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Feb 16, 2014 16:06:32 GMT -6
It's almost like you're making the point that pitch is a subjective part of the art or something. I don't like your tone. *Starts scrolling pre-sets* |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Feb 16, 2014 16:13:19 GMT -6
??Really??
Any sarcasm was due to that actually BEING my point this whole time. Tower of Babel Forum Effect option checked. You say pitch is subjective...I say that pitch is subjective...the only we MAYBE differ on is I don't see the place in mixing for such content manipulation, which is a simple thing we can agree to disagree on.
What problem could you have with the tone of "we mostly agree"?
|
|
|
|
Post by mobeach on Feb 16, 2014 16:15:40 GMT -6
Technology has changed the world forever, in many respects. I guess the "user" can make a decision to use or not to use. I'm a minimalist but I also record 99% instrumental music.
|
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Feb 16, 2014 16:28:52 GMT -6
??Really?? Any sarcasm was due to that actually BEING my point this whole time. Tower of Babel Forum Effect option checked. You say pitch is subjective...I say that pitch is subjective...the only we MAYBE differ on is I don't see the place in mixing for such content manipulation, which is a simple thing we can agree to disagree on. What problem could you have with the tone of "we mostly agree"? I was joking - sort of a circular reference to my idea that people often think in terms of timbre when pitch is the problem. I only see the point of that stuff in mixing if you're a small operation - where mixing and production are part of the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Feb 16, 2014 17:16:22 GMT -6
Good...whew...I was hoping...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2014 18:50:04 GMT -6
I'll play devil's advocate.
I'd rather keep a compelling vocal that's a bit flat and fix it up.
Attitude, pronunciation and timing gotta be right, if the pitch is close I'll fix it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Feb 16, 2014 19:35:01 GMT -6
Is the thread locked yet or can I still get in on the fight?
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 16, 2014 19:59:47 GMT -6
I'll play devil's advocate. I'd rather keep a compelling vocal that's a bit flat and fix it up. Attitude, pronunciation and timing gotta be right, if the pitch is close I'll fix it. Haha! That devil's already been played man...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2014 20:16:46 GMT -6
I'll play devil's advocate. I'd rather keep a compelling vocal that's a bit flat and fix it up. Attitude, pronunciation and timing gotta be right, if the pitch is close I'll fix it. Haha! That devil's already been played man... Yep, I saw your post and then realized I contributed nothing to this conversation. Glad to see you hear man! |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Feb 17, 2014 12:17:55 GMT -6
The problem is can you fix the pitch without screwing up attitude and timing? If you fix the out of tune stuff in the tracks and have the singer perform it again listening on speakers instead of headphones, you'll often beat the previous vocal by a surprising amount. This is true with even the most experienced professional singers. I did a demo of this at the summer NAMM show a few years back and enjoyed watching the entire room gasp.
|
|
