Argument of the Day for no Auto-Tune

[Vito Corleone]

 

To be fair, the girl can sing, I just used that video because it reminded me of some comments made on this thread.

 

In the case of this song, AT is being used strictly as an effect.

 

 

Oh absolutely. I was being facetious. (Sarcasm doesn't work well in chat rooms.)

 

If any singer doesn't need it in order to sing in tune, it's Carrie Underwood. And I would disagree with anyone who thinks the use of AT on that recording somehow ruins it. There's just enough of a touch of it during the verses to give them that modern sound, and they back it off even further during the choruses where it sounds better to let her voice glide through the phrasing. I think it's a great example of a how to properly use AT as an effect. At least in 2014. A few years from now and people will be making other choices as fashion shifts.

 

[Beck]

You've made a claim that you hear something as obvious and ubiquitous that you can't figure out how others can't hear it, but haven't so much as provided a single example of this taking place.

 

It isn't about having a different idea of how to "prove" anything, but about that you haven't provided any options other than just to make broad claims that this phenomenon exists.

 

For all anyone can tell, there are many people here who hear subtle uses of AutoTune BETTER than you do. But this will never be known because you've yet to provide even a single example of a subtle use where you hear it but are left with your mind boggled because others can't.

 

Instead of trying to make sense of why others can't hear what you can, you need to first be sure that this actually happens. Doing so would go much further towards forum harmony than simply demanding tolerance.

 

The question is not "can you hear pitch correction in popular music?" Because we all can. The question is "can you actually hear it when others do not or are you just making false claims you can not substantiate?

 

You're way of trying to prove your point is like asking people to extract a drop of water from the ocean to prove that there is an ocean while Autotune is so commonplace we're all swimming in an ocean of it. There is a science to knowing what if any experiemnt is necessary to study an issue. When something is so evident that it is easily detected casually in our daily expeierence, what we should be asking is as I said, who hears it regularly when they turn on the radio or iTunes, or youtube, or whatever is your prefered listening format.

 

And speaking of the ocean or maybe better example would be a public pool. When you first jump in it feels cold as hell. What happens after you're in it for a while? Your senses adjust... you acclimate. All our senses are able to acclimate or become dulled to a regular exposure or overexposure to stimuli.

 

I shouldn't have to offer a single example when our music environment is overwhelmed by the practice of pitch correction in every genre giving us thousands of examples. What's getting difficult is finding an example where it's not used.

 

One of the most disappointing examples of where I've heard it used was while watching a televised prerecorded Celtic Woman concert. Autotune in a case like that should be criminal! I haven't heard it opera yet and that's about the only place I haven't noticed it. The girl I was watching Celtic Woman with doesn't know anything about recording or Autotune, yet she mentioned to me the audio sounded, "Funny." I heard the pitch correction on the vocal right away before she mentioned it, but she had been looking forward to us watching it and I didn't want to be a wet blanket by drawing attention to it. I didn't have to. She heard it anyway.

 

And this goes back to an earlier point I was trying to make. Shouldn't you care that you may be deluding yourselves when you think you're applying an undetectable amount of Autotune when many of your listeners hear it and consider it an unpleasant artifact? It diminishes the musical experience for them. No different really when you've spent too much time mixing down a song to the point of ear fatigue and loss of sensitivity to high frequencies. The good mix engineer goes to bed and comes back to it the next day. That's an example of short term loss of sensitivity. Everyone should be familiar with that phenomenon... I hope.

 

And if you can grasp that much you should be able to imagine what might happen to engineers who are regularly applying pitch correction to varying degrees so that their perception of "Subtle" changes relative to a more obvious use of the effect.

[Vito Corleone]

 

You're way of trying to prove your point is like asking people to extract a drop of water from the ocean to prove that there is an ocean while Autotune is so commonplace we're all swimming in an ocean of it.

 

Nope, not at all. No one is denying that Autotune is commonplace or that we're all swimming in an ocean of it. We ALL know we are. We ALL hear it when it is being used. That's not the issue here and never has been. No one has claimed it isn't commonplace.

 

What is at issue here is YOU are claiming to hear it when others do not. According to you, it is used even MORE often than we all think it is, but YOU hear it better than the rest of us.

 

All I'm asking you to do is to back up this claim.

 

It's simple. If, as you say, your mind is boggled by all the instances where you hear it but others do not, than there must be numerous instances of when some song was playing and you pointed out the AutoTune and other people said "huh? whaddya talking about?"

 

All I'm asking you is to provide one of these mind-boggling examples. Because, I actually don't believe you are capable of hearing it when I do not. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

 

I shouldn't have to offer a single example when our music environment is overwhelmed by the practice of pitch correction in every genre giving us thousands of examples. What's getting difficult is finding an example where it's not used.

 

Again, not the issue at question here. No one is denying it is being used. It's about you claiming you can hear it when others do not.

The girl I was watching Celtic Woman with doesn't know anything about recording or Autotune, yet she mentioned to me the audio sounded, "Funny." I heard the pitch correction on the vocal right away before she mentioned it, but she had been looking forward to us watching it and I didn't want to be a wet blanket by drawing attention to it. I didn't have to. She heard it anyway.

 

So you both heard it. Cool story, bro, but it does nothing towards your claim that you hear it when others do not. If anything, it only helps to refute it. Apparently, your ears are no better than the girl who knows nothing about recording or Autotune. Color me unimpressed.

 

And this goes back to an earlier point I was trying to make. Shouldn't you care that you may be deluding yourselves when you think you're applying an undetectable amount of Autotune when many of your listeners hear it and consider it an unpleasant artifact? It diminishes the musical experience for them.

 

Ahh....well, now that's a different point entirely. Maybe you're deluding YOURSELF to believe that so many people find it to be an unpleasant artifact. Again, let's go back to that Carrie Underwood recording. You DO understand that it was MEANT to be heard in that recording, don't you? It wasn't used to correct her pitch. Or maybe it was in a few places where it was used so well that I can't detect it. But in those places where it is ubiquitous and obvious? It was used to create that same exact "artifact" that you find so unpleasant. It was MEANT to be heard. Even if only quite subtly. Why?

 

Because, believe it or not, not everyone has the same taste in music that you do, nor are you the final arbiter of what is "good" and what is not.

 

I know. Hard to grasp, isn't it?

[JeffLearman]

Remember, machines don't kill music. People do.

Quote of the day!

I agree with UstedKhanAli, though, that it's overused, and has much the same effect as MIDI sequencing had on a lot of music in the 80's (and no doubt still does) making it sound artificial, taking the breath out of it.

 

And, I think I'm going to give up trying to post on this forum. The fact that I can't click on a word to edit it drives me nuts. To insert a word in the middle of the paragraph above, I had to copy the second half, delete it (using backspace ... delete key didn't do the right thing), type in the word, and then paste. Whenever I tried to insert the cursor and do anything, it'd put my edits at the beginning or end of the paragraph.

 

Whoever coded this mess needs to be fired. of an editor

 

Oh yeah, "of an editor" belongs after "mess". {censored} this {censored}. really.

 

I'm using Chrome, but I remember having the same issues with MSIE and Firefox. Now that I'm having the same issue on a totally different computer with all new software, I'm convinced it's the forum software and not a problem on my end.

 

[Ernest Buckley]

Quote of the day!

I agree with UstedKhanAli, though, that it's overused, and has much the same effect as MIDI sequencing had on a lot of music in the 80's (and no doubt still does) making it sound artificial, taking the breath out of it.

 

And, I think I'm going to give up trying to post on this forum. The fact that I can't click on a word to edit it drives me nuts. To insert a word in the middle of the paragraph above, I had to copy the second half, delete it (using backspace ... delete key didn't do the right thing), type in the word, and then paste. Whenever I tried to insert the cursor and do anything, it'd put my edits at the beginning or end of the paragraph.

 

Whoever coded this mess needs to be fired. of an editor

 

Oh yeah, "of an editor" belongs after "mess". **************** this ****************. really.

 

I'm using Chrome, but I remember having the same issues with MSIE and Firefox. Now that I'm having the same issue on a totally different computer with all new software, I'm convinced it's the forum software and not a problem on my end.

 

You`re absolutely right learjeff. Whoever is writing the code for HC is doing a lousy job. I hate to be so critical of this site but the truth is, its been going downhill for years because they couldn`t leave the damn thing alone when it actually worked. If you want to edit something, its pure hell. Its just a poorly written software and I know nothing about the subject but I know the site is a mess. I try to lay low when it comes to discussing the site but it annoys the heck out of me when I hear another long time member leaving because of the lousy site. smdh

 

 

 

 

 

[UstadKhanAli]

It's weird how a site like musicplayer.com uses the same software year after year for their forums but rarely seem to have problems on Keyboard Corner (except for some apparent weirdness last week), but this site is constantly plagued with issues.

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

That's not it at all... not even close. My thing is that Autotune is so obvious to me and so ubiquitous in pop music today that I'm trying to figure out how you can't hear it everywhere like I do.

 

I do hear it being used a lot. But you've stated that you can ALWAYS hear it, but when given the opportunity to disprove my contention that it can be used in such a way as to be inaudible, you refused to demonstrate the ability, which leads me to disbelieve your claims. Sorry.

 

It boggles my mind! I expected most if not all of the seasoned recordists here to agree with me. I'm trying to make some sense of why you can't hear what I hear. Acclimation is my best guess. It makes sense to me. You simply have a different idea of how one should "Prove" the case. And then it starts getting personal, so where do we go there?

 

At that point I just see this forum is going the way of a lot of others... fewer members, less tolerance for opposing views, group-think, unteachable, and so why even try?

 

I'm open to different POV's, and you've had ample opportunity to voice yours, and even to demonstrate where my POV is wrong. You just want to claim that it is without any substantive evidence to the contrary.

 

You've been offered the opportunity to "teach" us and show what you're hearing that you say we can not hear... but again you just want to talk yourself up, not help anyone.

 

I don't think I could make my point any clearer when I say your idea and method to see if someone can detect pitch correction in a particular song is just plain silly to me. It's goofy when the examples are everywhere in pop music today. I do get frustrated with you guys. My formal education is not in music, but in psychology and statistics. I do know how to conduct a proper survey and know which are appropriate. In this case case an appropriate survey would be a poll. Can you hear pitch correction in popular music? That would be the question. The answer would simply be yes or no.

 

What's wrong with a double blind test? Engineers use them all the time to test claims of audibility.

 

Again, can I hear pitch correction being used in popular music? The answer is yes.

 

MY question is - can YOU hear it every time it's used? You've claimed you can, but you're unwilling to demonstrate that, so since your claims run contrary to my own extensive training, skills and experience in this field (all modesty aside ), I refuse to believe your claims.

 

I showed definitively that it could be used inaudibly. Prove I'm wrong.

 

Your impulse to throw a song up for people to analyze is just not the way a statistician would approach it given that the examples are so numerous everywhere you turn in pop music.

 

In the matter of whether or not you can hear each case where AT is used, it's not a matter of statistics. It's a matter of specifics. Just because you can hear it sometimes, or even the majority of times it is used doesn't mean you can always hear it. You're failing at basic logic here Beck. I thought you were much more intelligent than that.

 

But as I said before it's not an issue of me having superior hearing, but perhaps the fact that I have for the most part shunned a lot of the technology that you embrace I hear things differently. Because people are becoming acclimated to things like pitch correction since it's everywhere does not make them evil people, but I do think you and many others are losing a sensitivity that we desperately need to have in the recording industry. IMO recorded music is getting worse all the time. We're losing it. We're losing people who are not being replaced with new people who can fill their shoes.

 

Your claims that I'm losing sensitivity or becoming acclimated are unsubstantiated, and will remain so unless and until you can show otherwise. You had your opportunity, and you refused to take it. As I said previously, that's entirely your prerogative, but don't expect me to buy what you're trying to sell. I know better. And can hear better.

[Dendy Jarrett]

I posted this yesterday in Phil's forum, but thought it totally appropriate for the argument of the day FOR auto-tune:

 

 

[UstadKhanAli]

I think I heard the pitch correction in that video, Dendy.

[MikeRivers]

Oh, is THAT what pitch correction sounds like? Why would anyone use a tool that would make a singer go so far off pitch?

[Beck]

 

I do hear it being used a lot. But you've stated that you can ALWAYS hear it, but when given the opportunity to disprove my contention that it can be used in such a way as to be inaudible, you refused to demonstrate the ability, which leads me to disbelieve your claims. Sorry.

 

 

 

I'm open to different POV's, and you've had ample opportunity to voice yours, and even to demonstrate where my POV is wrong. You just want to claim that it is without any substantive evidence to the contrary.

 

You've been offered the opportunity to "teach" us and show what you're hearing that you say we can not hear... but again you just want to talk yourself up, not help anyone.

 

 

 

What's wrong with a double blind test? Engineers use them all the time to test claims of audibility.

 

Again, can I hear pitch correction being used in popular music? The answer is yes.

 

MY question is - can YOU hear it every time it's used? You've claimed you can, but you're unwilling to demonstrate that, so since your claims run contrary to my own extensive training, skills and experience in this field (all modesty aside ), I refuse to believe your claims.

 

I showed definitively that it could be used inaudibly. Prove I'm wrong.

 

 

 

In the matter of whether or not you can hear each case where AT is used, it's not a matter of statistics. It's a matter of specifics. Just because you can hear it sometimes, or even the majority of times it is used doesn't mean you can always hear it. You're failing at basic logic here Beck. I thought you were much more intelligent than that.

 

 

Your claims that I'm losing sensitivity or becoming acclimated are unsubstantiated, and will remain so unless and until you can show otherwise. You had your opportunity, and you refused to take it. As I said previously, that's entirely your prerogative, but don't expect me to buy what you're trying to sell. I know better. And can hear better.

 

Again no... you're barking up the wrong tree, phil. I don't think my sensitivity to audio artifacts in recording is particularly superior, but rather yours and others here is below average. SSS in particular has become it's own fantasy world, isolated from the larger real world that's out there beyond this little island. As I said, the membership here has become much smaller, more isolated and less tolerant or even able to think abstractly and see other ways of doing things... analyzing things. I see members here being less creative and very set in their ways. And as I said, when we're swimming in a sea of pitch correction everywhere we turn, to propose that we start submiting particular songs to "Prove" we can hear it in every case is just ****************ing moronic. It's middle school. It's 7th grade knock-this-chip-off-my-shoulder or step-over-this-line sort of schoolyard nonsense. Seriously? What the hell?

 

You give me an opportunity with that nonsense? Really? No, I gave you and others an opportunity to look outside your small world and become aware of the bigger picture outside of these fantasy forums.

 

And like Ken said, he was the only one that actually took anyone up on this game of seeing if we could hear or not hear some evidence of pitch correction in a particular song. Maybe others have since, but I haven't kept up with this thread for a few days or more. But people sure were not getting in line to play this little hearing game. I may have been the only one to ridicule the idea, but the silence of others speaks volumes. It's deafening, but apparently you can't hear that either or appreciate its significance.

 

You have something to sell, Phil I don't. I have the freedom to speak my mind. You on the other hand and a handful of others here have to continue to reassure people that the toys you use today in the studio are going to work as advertised and that there's nothing better out there... no alternatives. You're not going to publicly concede anything no matter how reasonable my arguments are. I don't think you grasp basic logic either. You're not able to use it in a sentence... I can tell you that. What you said above makes no sense.

 

My understanding of phenomena like sensory acclimation are well known outside this silly thread... anywhere and everywhere. You and some of the others here are unable to intelligently converse about such topics because you don't know. It's obviously not part of your background/education. You would be well served to cut this crap and educate yourself. Again my understanding of these things have nothing to do with music, but psychology, human physiology, education and life experience as a paramedic. I didn't learn any of this stuff in a f-ing a recording class. But since I am a musician/recording engineer I can draw from education and life experience to apply these things to music and recording.

 

What's the big deal? Why do you care that I can always hear it. The only thing I can think of is that you can't and so you're the one that has the problem with me or anyone else that has managed to retain sensitivity by deliberately not allowing themselves to be drawn into to this plastic soulless music world. It's not my feelings of superiority, but more likely your feelings of inferiority. You don't want someone to "Always" be able to detect the most subtle pitch correction because you cannot... won't admit it if you can because like I said you have clients that you would not have if they stopped believing the bull**************** they're being spoon fed today. And the same goes for Ernest Buckley. It's not that I'm holy than thou; it's that he feels inadequate... doubts himself, experiences envy, jealousy, etc. I'm not that way. I wouldn't want to be him or you or anyone else. The skills and talents that you have that I don't are just wonderful... more power to ya! I don't envy. I don't feel that emotion.

[Vito Corleone]

Uh...this is really simple, dude. If you're going to claim superior skills or sensitivity or perception skills or anything else over an Internet forum, you really need to at least attempt to support those claims with something other than a long-winded, boring rant.

 

You've claimed you can hear it when I cant. I don't believe you can. And until you can show otherwise, I have no other choice but to think that everything you say here is complete bullsh@t.

[UstadKhanAli]

I am friends with Phil and have hung out with him numerous times, and I definitely can vouch for his superior hearing, high intellect, ability to converse about abstract or concrete topics clearly and intelligently, and plain ol' honesty.

 

BTW, Phil, whenever you have a chance, please let me know how I did on the listening test. I'm curious to hear whether I guessed any of the areas correctly. And I do use the word "guess", as that's what I feel I was doing!

[Vito Corleone]

Let's break this conversation down another way. As I see it, there are three categories of Auto-tune use:

 

1) Where it is used as an effect with the intention to be heard. In extreme examples, we have the way T-Pain uses it or the infamous "Believe" by Cher. More subtle uses would be as is used on the above Carrie Underwood recording.

 

2) Where it is used purely as a pitch-correction device and used so well that it is inaudible to even those of us with very well-trained and experienced hearing. Phil's above example being one since, if he DID use it on that recording, I (and presumably others) can't hear it.

 

3) Where the intention is to be used as #2 but it was poorly done. An example might be the above Aretha Franklin recording. I presume the engineer didn't want anyone to hear it, anyway. Perhaps he was using it as an effect, but even in that case I'd call it poorly done as well. No offense to the engineer on that record (who I'm sure is a much better studio engineer than I will ever be), but it sounded sloppy to me.

 

Beck is (in an annoyingly arrogant manner) suggesting there is a 4th category. One where, to him, the use is plain and obvious and ubiquitous and one where anybody with any degree of decent hearing abilities should be able to notice it, but where even skilled and experienced engineers have become so inoculated and acclimated to the sound that they don't hear it any longer.

 

Yet, like the LochNess monster or mermaids, no real examples of this phenomenon can be presented by those who claim it does exist.

 

Does that about sum it up? Or is there a larger point to this discussion that I have missed here?

 

 

[Ernest Buckley]

I am friends with Phil and have hung out with him numerous times, and I definitely can vouch for his superior hearing, high intellect, ability to converse about abstract or concrete topics clearly and intelligently, and plain ol' honesty.

 

BTW, Phil, whenever you have a chance, please let me know how I did on the listening test. I'm curious to hear whether I guessed any of the areas correctly. And I do use the word "guess", as that's what I feel I was doing!

 

 

Yeah, and I`m friends with Steve LaCerra who is friends with Jeff the Weasel who is friends with Ken, so yeah, I can validate what you said about your friend Phil who is friends with Craig and I know Craig is friends with Steve and back we go to me! So there, its all true!

[Ernest Buckley]

And the same goes for Ernest Buckley. It's not that I'm holy than thou; it's that he feels inadequate... doubts himself, experiences envy, jealousy, etc. I'm not that way. I wouldn't want to be him or you or anyone else. The skills and talents that you have that I don't are just wonderful... more power to ya! I don't envy. I don't feel that emotion.

 

 

I`ve always wanted to use this… and now I have the chance!

 

[Vito Corleone]

[Ernest Buckley]

Imagine how good that track would sound with some AT!

[UstadKhanAli]

 

 

I`ve always wanted to use this… and now I have the chance!

 

 

 

One of your most precious commodities is that you look stunning in a bikini. Don't ever forget that or be made to feel inadequate. Not only have you won the genetic lottery, but you've worked out hard and long to keep your body a hard body.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

 

Yeah, and I`m friends with Steve LaCerra who is friends with Jeff the Weasel who is friends with Ken, so yeah, I can validate what you said about your friend Phil who is friends with Craig and I know Craig is friends with Steve and back we go to me! So there, its all true!

 

 

That's right. There's no getting around that.

[MikeRivers]

Imagine how good that track would sound with some AT!

 

I wouldn't. Sounds natural to me.

 

I can go along with Beck's assessment of modern music production techniques taking most of the soul out a competent performance, but they can do that without using AutoTune.

[Vito Corleone]

I can go along with Beck's assessment of modern music production techniques taking most of the soul out a competent performance, but they can do that without using AutoTune.

Agreed. But that has nothing to do with the assertion that otherwise competent engineers have been rendered incapable of even hearing it being used due to acclimation.

[Vito Corleone]

But I would also offer that AT -- especially when audible--- is used primarily in pop music which has never been a particularly "soulful" form of musical expression to begin with.

[Idunno]

Has this thread denigrated down to whether AT can be heard or not heard as the basis for its acceptance. If that's the way of it then we've already dismissed the principle ethic denying its use from the outset. Shame on you all. I do not support a singer who cannot sing on pitch, period. That is not a singer. Go spin your dials and feel good about yourselves

[Vito Corleone]

Has this thread denigrated down to whether AT can be heard or not heard as the basis for its acceptance. If that's the way of it then we've already dismissed the principle ethic denying its use from the outset. Shame on you all. I do not support a singer who cannot sing on pitch, period. That is not a singer. Go spin your dials and feel good about yourselves

 

Well, THAT'S certainly a big ol' pile of strawman there, now isn't it?

 

1) Auto-tune generally isn't used to cover up for singers who can't sing on pitch. Even though that is the myth that prevails. It's a pitch correction tool. All singers miss notes on occasion. If you're opposed to Auto-tune being used in this fashion, then you, from an ethical standpoint, should be just as opposed to the use of punch-ins and retakes whenever a note or two is missed along the way of a recording. Or quantizing a track or moving a misplayed note along the timeline.

 

2) whether it is heard or not is largely a function of it being used as an effect. Carrie Underwood can almost certainly sing on pitch as well as just about any other singer who ever recorded a pop single. The audible use of AT on her recording isn't being used to correct her pitch. It's being used as an effect in the same way reverb or slapback would be used.

 

Is it just my reading of this thread or are there some people here who are missing this very simple and basic point? If you can hear it, you almost certainly were SUPPOSED to hear it. Beck's assertion seems to be that he doesn't think most people (including music industry professionals) can hear it in the cases where it is clearly audible and SUPPOSED to be heard. He seems to think that it is always being used to fool people by people who foolishly believe they are doing so. If that's the case, that's just too silly to even waste any more time discussing, IMO.

 

Either use is acceptable or not depending on ones personal taste. In the case of the former, if you're a sound engineer and you'd rather have your vocalist do multiple takes instead of messing with AT to get the desired vocal track, then go for it. That's mostly a matter of how one prefers to work -- although cost issues as well as the durability of the singer would need to be considered as well.

 

In the case of the latter, that's just a matter of fashion. Like which bass patch you use depending on how "modern" (or whatever else) you want the track to sound.

 

But what is absolutely ludicrous, IMO, is hearing AT and deciding "that's not a singer!". That's just ignorance about how and why the technology is being used.