Argument of the Day for no Auto-Tune

[MikeRivers]

 

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.

 

Well, what's wrong with a missed note? If singers miss notes, so what? What's the compelling reason for making it perfect just because we can? If all singers miss notes now and then, why can't we accept that? When you're tracking, you want to get the tracks right. Nothing wrong with an occasional punch-in - but let's hear what the singer can do, not what the engineer can do.

 

We've all heard about "fix it in the mix." With AutoTune, during tracking, you can let things get a little sloppy, usually in the name of an othewise excellent take that only has a couple of things that can be fixed later. It probably doesn't really make the process any easier, it just postpones a decision that could have been made earlier.

 

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.

 

A punch-in is just a way of letting the singer get it right rather than leaving it wrong and fixing it artificially later. More important, counting on the fact that you can fix it without knowing how it will really come out. And if the singer really can't hit the note, then it's time to either get another singer, change the key, or rework the melody so he or she can hit the note. But that should be done at an earlier time so that when the vocal track is being recorded, the singer and the producer knows that it will be OK.

 

Or quantizing a track or moving a misplayed note along the timeline.

 

There's no place for this in the music I work with, so I don't have any personal experience with it. I think it might have a place in certain kinds of music, however. But it shouldn't be done because the drummer can't keep time - that's the time to get another drummer.

 

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.

 

If that were the case, then nobody would quibble about its use. But it seems that some think it's supposed to be an effect - probably one applied in bad taste - and others think that it's just making a good vocal take worse.

 

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.

 

That would be nice. But it's possible that this is becoming an over-used and inappropriate effect. Who hasn't heard compression and felt that it's inappropriate, yet it's used because somebody thinks it's the right way to make the record. There's no accounting for taste.

 

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.

 

That's too easy. I think that he believes that he's hearing it when it's being used unobtrusively. Maybe there's some artifact other than pitch that he's hearing. I don't know. I don't have his ears or his brain, thank goodness. I tihnk that there are certain forms of music where the quantized pitch effect is appropriate - the T-Pain thing is a good example.

 

I suppose that it's a reasonable assumption that if pitch is perfect throughout a song, or more, throughout a full CD, AutioTune has been used somewhere because nobody is that good.

 

. . .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.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a lot of AutoTuning being used on vocal tracks that would be acceptable as is if there was no AutoTune.

 

 

[nat whilk II]

I really don't think the average member of the listening public would care or even notice if all the perfection-polishing of pitch was done or not. I suspect it's a fetish of the small world of engineering/production/mixing types. Aside from the obvious "effect" uses, which is not that much removed from vocoding.

 

Same with the 2x4 limiting and the loudness fetish. Are there are real stats and experienced people in the know who will swear on a stack of SACDs that tracks without all this studio hyper-treatment just will not sell? Personally I think it's an obsession that the industry has fooled itself into thinking is a necessity.

 

I watch lots of YTs about mixing and production techniques for the small or home studio. Almost all the guys say something like, "next you need to go through the tracks and fix the pitch. Some guys just fix mistakes or the vocals, but I like to go through everything and fix everything. I think it sounds more professional" and that's the extent of their deep thinking about the subject.

 

A fear that maybe someone else in the industry will hear that you did NOT tune everything to perfection and think you're an amateur or a tin-earned schmuck, not ready for prime time?

 

Fear of how you might be perceived by "the industry" is some powerful juju. Common sense is the cure, but who knows where that can be found anymore?

 

nat whilk ii

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

 

Well, what's wrong with a missed note? If singers miss notes, so what? What's the compelling reason for making it perfect just because we can? If all singers miss notes now and then, why can't we accept that? When you're tracking, you want to get the tracks right. Nothing wrong with an occasional punch-in - but let's hear what the singer can do, not what the engineer can do.

 

We've all heard about "fix it in the mix." With AutoTune, during tracking, you can let things get a little sloppy, usually in the name of an othewise excellent take that only has a couple of things that can be fixed later. It probably doesn't really make the process any easier, it just postpones a decision that could have been made earlier.

 

 

 

A punch-in is just a way of letting the singer get it right rather than leaving it wrong and fixing it artificially later. More important, counting on the fact that you can fix it without knowing how it will really come out. And if the singer really can't hit the note, then it's time to either get another singer, change the key, or rework the melody so he or she can hit the note. But that should be done at an earlier time so that when the vocal track is being recorded, the singer and the producer knows that it will be OK.

 

 

Nothing's "wrong" with any of it. That's the point. Wanna leave in a missed note? Fine. Wanna overdub it and fix it? Fine. Wanna fix it with AT? That's fine too. All you're doing here is justifying your personal references and/or the State of the Art as you grew up with it and applying what sounds to me like a double standard to slam what you don't personally like/aren't comfortable with hearing.

 

 

There's no place for this in the music I work with, so I don't have any personal experience with it. I think it might have a place in certain kinds of music, however. But it shouldn't be done because the drummer can't keep time - that's the time to get another drummer.

 

It's rarely used because a drummer can't keep time. It's used to "fix" imperfections or unintended mistakes because it's easier than other methods. Same with using AT as such.

 

 

If that were the case, then nobody would quibble about its use. But it seems that some think it's supposed to be an effect - probably one applied in bad taste - and others think that it's just making a good vocal take worse.

 

Since we don't have the other take to compare it to, how can anyone claim it's making the take worse? It's merely presumed by some that since AT is audible it must ONLY be because it was necessary to make the take more in tune. That's a flaw in that listeners perception, however.

 

As far as its use as an effect being in bad taste? Again-taste is in the ear of the beholder. It's a fashion thing. Like a chest-thumpy kick drum or gated toms. Some like it; some hate it; some change their minds as time goes on. Doesn't any of it objectively in poor taste.

 

 

That would be nice. But it's possible that this is becoming an over-used and inappropriate effect. Who hasn't heard compression and felt that it's inappropriate, yet it's used because somebody thinks it's the right way to make the record. There's no accounting for taste.

 

Yes, but again, this isn't and shouldn't be a debate but who among us has the best taste in use of effects. What fashion HASN'T been overused in pop music? This isn't some 21st century phenomenon. Annoying, perhaps, but hardly the end of western civilization as we know it. Nor even worthy of the type of insults Beck has tossed around.

 

 

That's too easy. I think that he believes that he's hearing it when it's being used unobtrusively. Maybe there's some artifact other than pitch that he's hearing. I don't know. I don't have his ears or his brain, thank goodness. I tihnk that there are certain forms of music where the quantized pitch effect is appropriate - the T-Pain thing is a good example.

 

He claims he hears it when others do not. And further has blamed this purported inability of others to hear it on their personal weaknesses and willingness to be "deliberately drawn into to this plastic soulless music world." But he can believe anything he chooses to believe about himself and others. It just would be nice if he would back up what would be fairly easy to support claims if they were, in fact, true.

 

I suppose that it's a reasonable assumption that if pitch is perfect throughout a song, or more, throughout a full CD, AutioTune has been used somewhere because nobody is that good.

 

Like many here, I too am a bit turned off by music that is tweaked to be a bit too "perfect". But again, that's just a personal preference really. One largely based on what I grew up with.

 

But again, we're talking about pop music here, by and large. Is the latest Carrie Underwood record inferior to anything that was a huge hit by Tony Orlando and Dawn because it's tweaked to be too "perfect" in ways those older records never would (or could have been)? Would big pop hits of the past whether it be "Downtown" or "I Will Follow Him" or "Queen of Hearts" or "The Pina Colada Song" or a gazillion others have been ruined had they been recorded with AutoTune? Were any of those artists actually better singers than anyone on the charts today simply because they didn't use AT?

 

Sorry, I'm just not seeing the big injustice to the art of recorded music that has been committed here.

 

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a lot of AutoTuning being used on vocal tracks that would be acceptable as is if there was no AutoTune.

 

 

Probably. But the fact that they did use AT doesn't automatically make them inferior.

 

This idea that AT is some spawn child of Satan that should be avoided at all costs unless you're just so untalented as to make a recording any other way is just absolute nonsense. It's just a tool. It doesn't automatically make anything worse or signify inferior performance or engineering skills. Regardless of how much anyone may personally dislike to hear it or use it.

[RockViolin]

I think it's sad...but, that's just what I and quite a few others think. It's not just what I grew up with. For hundreds, probably thousands of years one was either good enough without a net or one wasn't good enough.

 

I'm trying to imagine the world of dance so afflicted with inauthenticity, both on stage and film. "My pirouette could have been faster-can you make me spin faster? Oh, and that leap wasn't quite high enough. Can you make me leap higher?"

 

Why would anyone care anymore?

 

The last orchestra recording (classical) I was a part of was so cobbled together, as a matter of course, that I was truly sickened by it...and I wasn't the only one. I've never listened to it.

 

 

 

I needs me some auto-twerk.

 

A few years ago my bum neck and a weak moment got an AT device into my studio. TC Helicon Voice One. The thinking being that I'll just fix those spots that maybe could have been better since I can no longer go to the lengths that I once did to do things to my satisfaction in one to three takes. I worked with it and got it to do it's thing fairly unobtrusively. But I couldn't bring myself to print a mix that matters with it. Better to suffer the pain from the wood shed and feel good about it...or go work in the garden instead. Well, now I can't get the ding dong thing out of the rack 'cause of a stripped screw!

 

 

 

 

[MikeRivers]

I once did a recording of a lute player, straight to stereo, that must have had 300 edits (this was on tape) on the LP. He'd play until he fumbled something, stop, back up a couple of measures, play it again, and move on. Was it wrong to not tell him to come back when he could play the whole piece? I dunno. I got paid the same hourly rate whether I was pushing the Record button or cutting and splicing tape.

 

There's lots of time that goes into an AutoTune session. Although it's possible to just engage the plug-in on the whole track and say "do it," most people have recognized that this doesn't work very well, and it's certainly no way to use it as an effect.

 

But I don't think that CDs would cost any less if they didn't spend hours working on them with AutoTune, either to be sure that you hear it in the way the producer or artist wants you to hear it, or that you don't notice it.

 

As far as the importance of having every not be perfectly on-pitch - well, I'm not much of a listener to pop music, but I'll say this about what I've heard, and of course there are bound to be a lot of exceptions: Lyrics are typically sparse and repetitive, tempos never change, chord progessions and melodies aren't very interesting. I suspect that an out-of-tune vocalist would tend to be annoying in the midst of all that boring stuff. That may be the justification for perfection.

 

People still buy old records of Bob Dylan, Tom Waits, and Leonard Cohen.

 

[UstadKhanAli]

For those who truly love the sound of AutoTune as an effect, giving it that oh-so-modern sheen, I present to you this on this fine Sunday.

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

If she can't hit the notes, then why didn't they just hire a real singer?

[nat whilk II]

If she can't hit the notes, then why didn't they just hire a real singer?

 

 

You're joking, surely.

 

nat whilk ii

[Vito Corleone]

Yep. I was facetiously referring to those who think that the use of Autotune automatically means the singer can't sing. And yes, I also know this is just some silly homemade piece of junk somebody with way too much time on their hands posted on YouTube.

 

But the posting of that song brings up a good point: "Set Fire To The Rain" was produced by Fraser T Smith. A guy who is absolutely no stranger to AutoTune. But also obviously a smart enough guy to know when to use it and when not to based on the song and the style. Here's another #1, multi-platinum single he produced a couple of years back: [video=youtube_share;y_SI2EDM6Lo]

[UstadKhanAli]

 

 

You're joking, surely.

 

nat whilk ii

 

 

Indeed, he is.

[Beck]

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.

 

Speaking of which, I don't see all that many competent engineers in today's scene. Maybe that's part of my point. A new breed of incomptent enginners have been ruining recorded music for quite some time now. Competent engineers require in depth knowledge across multiple disciplines and the ability to connect seemingly dissimilar concepts that need to be connected for invention, enlightenment and solution to occur. There's a long list of things to know to be an effective engineer/producer, and anything to do with how the human body and mind works is at the top of the list.

 

As for my skepticism about the "experiment" maybe something short and sweet will help...

 

Even if I agreed that the idea of listening tests were useful in this case, an informal online uncontrolled experiment like this is not valid because anyone can research the production of the song in question. As I said before, people don't know how to conduct a proper survey or experiment for this issue. There are right ways to research a topic and there are wrong ways. Whatever just happens to pop into an untrained head is not going to cut it.

[RockViolin]

I once did a recording of a lute player, straight to stereo, that must have had 300 edits (this was on tape) on the LP. He'd play until he fumbled something, stop, back up a couple of measures, play it again, and move on. Was it wrong to not tell him to come back when he could play the whole piece? I dunno. I got paid the same hourly rate whether I was pushing the Record button or cutting and splicing tape.

 

There's lots of time that goes into an AutoTune session. Although it's possible to just engage the plug-in on the whole track and say "do it," most people have recognized that this doesn't work very well, and it's certainly no way to use it as an effect.

 

 

 

Were the hours not considerably longer, (and more tedious) cutting and splicing than they would have been just pressing record?

 

I'd have told him to go practice and come back when he could play it without screwing up so much. He saves $$$ and I save sanity and quite likely a better, more cohesive (though perhaps less perfect on a moment to moment basis) recording is the result. But the fear is he'll just go elsewhere? Well then so be it! And yes that's me and I've ALWAYS been like that!

 

What hath man wrought?!

 

 

Having a hybrid studio and seeing how I wouldn't think of tracking with it, I had a choice between mixing with the TC in bypass until the offending moment occurs, or just kicking it at the spot and suddenly hearing the converters-which is worse than hearing them the whole way. Fortunately my scruples won and I didn't have to choose. The piece does a lot more than auto-tune and I might use it to mess up a snare sample or something though-I guess. Some things are cool and somethings aren't...we all get to decide.

 

 

[MikeRivers]

 

Were the hours not considerably longer, (and more tedious) cutting and splicing than they would have been just pressing record?

 

Yes, but I didn't charge very much, and he bought dinner. It was pretty much a "favor for friend" project, but then just about every recording project I've done has been like that. I could never make it as a business, and never really wanted to. It was what I did for fun and a little money.

 

I had a project of assembling some field recordings of a solo fiddler who was no longer alive. One tune had a note that was just too far off to leave alone and it couldn't be fixed with an edit, and it was the only take of this tune. I rented a Harmonizer H910, connected a bench power supply through a push-button switch to its external pitch shift input (where you'd connect a CV pedal) and adjusted it for the proper amount of pitch shift to correct the one note. Played the tape through the Harmonizer and when the bad note came along, pushed the button. That was fun, too. I got to play with the Harmonizer for a day before I had to return it, and the client (friends) bought dinner.

 

This was long before AutoTune, strictly a tape-to-tape project with only the crude digital processing of the first generation Harmonizer, a miracle worker at the time.

I didn't feel the least bit guilty about this fix. No need to preserve the mistake of an important and historic player who couldn't correct it himself.

[Ernest Buckley]

 

I wouldn't. Sounds natural to me.

 

 

 

You do know I was joking?

[Ernest Buckley]

I once did a recording of a lute player, straight to stereo, that must have had 300 edits (this was on tape) on the LP. He'd play until he fumbled something, stop, back up a couple of measures, play it again, and move on. Was it wrong to not tell him to come back when he could play the whole piece? I dunno. I got paid the same hourly rate whether I was pushing the Record button or cutting and splicing tape.

 

I was in a choir back in the 90s. We did a record over the weekend. We were pretty good, having performed at Lincoln Center and various other NYC mainstays. The first day of recording we pretty much sang half the record over the course of 4-5 hours. We started and stopped, started and stopped dozens of times. I was so disgusted I quit the group after that first day of sessions. I never got a copy of the album either knowing how it was "Frankensteined". No thanks. Today, I do dozens of overdubs but the genre is different. My point is that different styles call for different techniques and tools.

 

Later, I engineered classical records using the same overdubbing techniques…. I also got paid for it.

 

As an artist, I was completely disgusted with overdubbing a classical record.

 

As an engineer, I was doing my job, giving the artist what they wanted.

 

At this point in my life, its about making a connection with the listener and whatever means to get there is what should be done.