Autotune makes TIME Magazine's "50 Worst Inventions" list

[Geoff Grace]

 

Whenever I talk to people about, say, MS Office 2007, if the menu issue comes up, they almost all express frustration and bewilderment at why such a change was imposed. If MS had made the new system an option -- even a default option -- few would have had any real complaints, I don't think. But by removing the old, familiar, quite effective system entirely they really messed up. (Unless things have changed you have to go to a third party add-in -- with all the security and support issues that potentially entails -- to regain this most basic functionality.)

 

I agree that it would have been better to have the old menus available alongside the new ribbon. That said, I've been using MS Office 2007 daily on Windows for the last few months, and I like its ribbon interface much better than the toolbar and menu layout on Office 2008 for the Mac.

 

But then, I also love tabbed browsing, and I would never dream of surfing the web without it, so YMMV.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[the stranger]

It's a tool. It's the fools that over use it that are the bad invention.

fools with their new tools
machines to sing you a song
but she had nice breasts

[Geoff Grace]

Never thought of it that way, but it's a brilliant observation. IIRC keyboards quantize to the nearest semitone as well

True, although many keyboards can more easily be "refretted" for different intervals.

 

I would love the ability to play a fretless keyboard, though.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[the stranger]

Cool thread.

[Anderton]

People do abuse punching and comping too, obviously. But the abuses of Autotune are far more widespread and audible.

Well, here I think it's important to differentiate between Auto-Tune being used for pitch correction or as an effect. If it's used for pitch correction and is audible, then I would consider that abuse (not to mention annoying). But if it's used as an effect, then it's doing what the person intended it to do, and at that point "abuse" becomes as subjective as using distortion on a guitar, which many people used to consider "abuse."

I really don't agree that Auto-Tune will be audible if it's doing more than, say, a few cents of correction. Most people simply don't understand how to edit objects and use retune speed controls. But, they will if they read this article. I saw it in the Antares newsletter and decided to make my own personal contribution to fewer instances of annoying Auto-Tune by asking to reprint it on HC They said okay, so there it is. People who don't use Auto-Tune controls are like people who punch up presets on synths, don't use controllers or other performance gestures, then wonder why their synth parts don't sound expressive.

As to vocals that are more moving since Auto-Tune, I'd put anything Peter Gabriel has done up there, as well as Trent Reznor, Chuck D's rapping, and the only Celine Dion song I can stand to listen to - "That's Just the Way it Is." There are many Zouk artists with compelling vocals, and I know Auto-Tune is available to them, because they're on compilations with other artists who do use it (to their detriment, I believe, but whatever).

Closer to home, Saul T. Nads' vocal on "Black Market Daydreams" is just the right combination of anomie and rawness, and I just mastered an album by a guy named Troy Castellano and I love his vocals. (Then again, I love his entire CD...it was recorded not only without Auto-Tune, but basically, without anything - very close to a live performance. And I'm not alone; I played one of his cuts at a recent seminar in Alaska to demo before-and-after mastering, and people were asking "Hey, who was that? It was great!"). I could go on, but you get the point.

Correlating vocal impact with the invention of Auto-Tune may have some minor relationship, but I think a far more prevalent and important reason for diminished vocal impact is artists producing themselves rather than relying on the expertise of an outside producer who knows how to extract a great performance, coupled with fewer venues for live playing where people can get immediate feedback from an audience that improves their vocals.

FYI I never think as I do a vocal "I won't worry about it, I can fix it later." First of all, I can count on one hand the times I've used pitch correction (Sonar's V-Vocal) on my vocals. Second, it only becomes apparent that I want to use it during the mixdown process.

And while I'm all over the map here, I'd also agree that improper use of loudness maximization has done far more damage to all kinds of music than Auto-Tune. Lots of great music without any pitch correction at all has been ruined by bad mastering.

[Anderton]

True, although many keyboards can more easily be "refretted" for different intervals. I would love the ability to play a fretless keyboard, though. Best, Geoff

Sounds like you need a polyphonic ribbon controller. Would that be cool, or what?

Hey Geoff - - I think a multitouch touch screen could probably do this!!! Seriously!!

[Geoff Grace]

Hey Geoff - - I think a multitouch touch screen could probably do this!!! Seriously!!

Great idea, Craig! I'll have to look into it once I have some discretionary income.

Best,

Geoff

[Lee Flier]

 

Well, here I think it's important to differentiate between Auto-Tune being used for pitch correction or as an effect. If it's used for pitch correction and is audible, then I would consider that abuse (not to mention annoying). But if it's used as an effect, then it's doing what the person intended it to do, and at that point "abuse" becomes as subjective as using distortion on a guitar, which many people used to consider "abuse."

 

 

Yeah, I agree with that. The "trend" of using Autotune as an effect annoys the living crap out of me, and I think in 10 years is going to sound as dated and lame as gated reverb on Linn drums, but if that's what somebody wants to do as an artistic decision, I don't have any objection to that.

 

 

I really don't agree that Auto-Tune will be audible if it's doing more than, say, a few cents of correction.

 

 

It takes more than a few cents to be audible, yes. But if it's say, a quarter tone flat or sharp, and probably less, I can generally hear pitch correction regardless how well somebody has used it. And given a choice between listening to a great singer singing a note or two a quarter tone off, and hearing those notes pitch corrected, I'd much rather not hear the pitch correction. Either it's bad enough to warrant a re-take or a comp, or I'd just as soon leave it alone. Sorry, but I'm always going to come down on the side of emphasizing the "humanity" in music (a few notable exceptions like Trent Reznor notwithstanding), even music that is supposed to be very precise. If it isn't humans achieving that precision, where's the mastery? By leaving that note or two un-corrected, you're making a statement about how much the singer really can hit the note perfectly.

 

Others may and obviously do disagree with this philosophy, but just saying.

 

 

Correlating vocal impact with the invention of Auto-Tune may have some minor relationship, but I think a far more prevalent and important reason for diminished vocal impact is artists producing themselves rather than relying on the expertise of an outside producer who knows how to extract a great performance, coupled with fewer venues for live playing where people can get immediate feedback from an audience that improves their vocals.

 

 

I'll agree with you about the live venues, but a lot of big name producers are just as guilty of the "we'll fix it later" mentality as self produced artists.

 

And I think my point was there was no shortage of really moving and well executed vocal parts on records before the invention of Autotune, therefore I don't think the argument that Autotune enabled you to keep that great vocal take that you couldn't have otherwise, is valid.

 

 

FYI I never think as I do a vocal "I won't worry about it, I can fix it later." First of all, I can count on one hand the times I've used pitch correction (Sonar's V-Vocal) on my vocals. Second, it only becomes apparent that I want to use it during the mixdown process.

 

 

Well again... if nobody notices on playback during the tracking session that it's so bad, I have to wonder if it's really necessary.

 

 

And while I'm all over the map here, I'd also agree that improper use of loudness maximization has done far more damage to all kinds of music than Auto-Tune. Lots of great music without any pitch correction at all has been ruined by bad mastering.

 

 

Well I won't disagree with you there! However I do think that loudness maximizers still have more legitimate uses than pitch correction does, so I can't really call it a bad invention.

[drewfx1]

Just as there is no use legitimate use for pitch correction for people who don't want to correct pitch, there is no legitimate use for loudness maximizers for those of us who don't want to maximize our loudness.

Luckily, at least so far, they don't seem to be trying to use autotune to destroy classic recordings. Sadly, I can't say the same for loudness maximizers.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Remember the proposed copy-protection scheme for digital recordings that inserted a steep notch well within the range of human hearing? If a "worst inventions" list was complied for just the audio industry then this would surely rank near the top: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Putting+a+notch+into+digital+sound-a06507687

 

 

IIRC, it was somewhere right around 4kHz where our hearing is MOST sensitive too. It was a REALLY DUMB idea - thankfully, it was never widely implemented.

[UstadKhanAli]

I would love the ability to play a fretless keyboard, though.

 

 

Pitchbend is your friend, pitchbend is your friend....

[UstadKhanAli]

Luckily, at least so far, they don't seem to be trying to use autotune to destroy classic recordings.

 

 

Oh, geeez, I hope that doesn't happen!!!!

[the stranger]

Why isn't Photoshop listed?

[UstadKhanAli]

I'm sure Lee is probably thinking about the inherent abuse of PhotoShop. PhotoShop can be used and abused just the way any other technology for music can be abused, whether it's Pro Tools, AutoTune, looping, or...frets on instruments.

[the stranger]

Yeah, but it's usually highly amusing when it is. Unlike Autotune.

[UstadKhanAli]

Yeah, but it's usually highly amusing when it is. Unlike Autotune.

Don't overlook fretless instruments. That can be amusing too.

[the stranger]

I tend to prefer the Steve DiGiorgio school of fretless playing.

[RockViolin]

I wonder how many violinists feel that guitar players are cheaters for playing a fretted instrument. Best, Geoff

:poke: They aren't cheaters. They're handicapped.







J/K--and totally ready to run away.




Plus a whammy bar to undo the frettedness. And then with teh "violin-like sustain".

It's OK. I've done my darndest to get my electric violin to sound electric guitarish...so we're square.

[VanHalen]

Why isn't Photoshop listed?

Dude, just because you're having operator errors doesn't mean it's a bad product.

[blue2blue]

Originally Posted by Geoff Grace It's interesting that you should bring up guitars in an Auto-Tune thread, since one could make a case that frets on a guitar are akin to pitch correction on a vocal track. Never thought of it that way, but it's a brilliant observation. IIRC keyboards quantize to the nearest semitone as well

 

 

I've always thought the cello would be a much more pleasing instrument with frets. Get rid of all the lugubrious soulfulness...

 

Also... it's almost through the patent process, but I've got a device that will take the guesswork and imprecision out of slide guitar... no more irritating glissandi or annoying tremolos.

 

 

[VanHalen]

Question: How the {censored} did ELO get by without Autotune? That band had more harmonies than ABBA, and they were all perfectly in pitch.

1RJPaj97H24

[Beck]

I can hear Autotune 100% of the time even when used in a so-called correct way... not as an effect. And I'm sure most people can hear it subconsciously. It never sounds natural on what are supposed to be natural sounding vocals. If the vocal is awash in other effects and isn't supposed to sound natural you can get away with it.

I really don

[Lee Knight]

Dude, just because you're having operator errors doesn't mean it's a bad product.

Without realizing it, you just made my point.

[Anderton]

Yeah, I agree with that. The "trend" of using Autotune as an effect annoys the living crap out of me, and I think in 10 years is going to sound as dated and lame as gated reverb on Linn drums, but if that's what somebody wants to do as an artistic decision, I don't have any objection to that.

 

On the plus side, when you're listening to an oldies station in 2030, you'll able to pinpoint the precise decade in which the music was made

 

It takes more than a few cents to be audible, yes. But if it's say, a quarter tone flat or sharp, and probably less, I can generally hear pitch correction regardless how well somebody has used it.

 

Ouch! A quarter tone?!? They don't need pitch correction, they need a voice coach.

 

And given a choice between listening to a great singer singing a note or two a quarter tone off, and hearing those notes pitch corrected, I'd much rather not hear the pitch correction.

 

First of all, I can't imagine a "great" singer singing a quarter tone off unless it's done on purpose, in which case it should of course not be corrected.

 

I think a lot of the applicability of pitch correction depends on where the problems occur. I just mastered a cut by Sam Look where his pitch was obviously off at the beginning of a section, and thanked him for NOT using pitch correction for the reasons you mentioned. It's the same thing as my standard BB King argument against pitch correction, where he bends a note up shy of the tonic, and that's part of his sound.

 

However, thinking about my own use of pitch correction, it's always been on the last note of a phrase. In that case I don't want the "human" quality of running out of gas on a really long phrase. If I re-do the phrase, I'm still going to run out of gas; if I punch, it's going to sound, well, you know how I feel about punching. Again, it always comes down to making appropriate artistic decisions about what is "right" and what is "wrong." Fixing every pitch just because it's off a little bit, or automatically quantizing any MIDI data that's outside the grid, simply indicates that decisions aren't being made on artistic merit. It's like where Madonna goes way off tune in "Ray of Light" - it's the vocal equivalent of a guitar pushing a speaker into clipping.

 

That's why being able to edit objects in Auto-Tune is so important, because you can apply it only when needed. I think the objection most people have to Auto-Tune is when it's just left on automatic pilot for pitch correction.

 

I'll agree with you about the live venues, but a lot of big name producers are just as guilty of the "we'll fix it later" mentality as self produced artists.

 

Big-name producers ain't what they used to be...

 

And I think my point was there was no shortage of really moving and well executed vocal parts on records before the invention of Autotune, therefore I don't think the argument that Autotune enabled you to keep that great vocal take that you couldn't have otherwise, is valid.

 

Can't agree that's the correct conclusion to draw. There was no shortage of really moving vocal parts before the invention of multitrack, or color television, for that matter. For me, "keeping that great vocal take that you couldn't have otherwise" is more about practical considerations than anything else. People don't make albums the same way they did a few decades ago. Budgets are down, and parts are often done in isolation. A vocal that sounded great at the time might have a flaw revealed when a month later, the backup vocalists come in and do their overdub. With pitch correction you can go back and fix the note in the lead vocal that clashes without having to spend more time or money.

 

With me, a lot of time elapses between cutting a vocal and finishing a song. It was never that way when I was doing albums in traditional studios, so if circumstances required a change, no problem, everything was set up and ready to go and I could re-do or punch. These days, if I find a problem in the vocal a month or two later when I'm doing the mix, even with presets and such I can almost never duplicate the vocal sound, so it sounds out of place. Fixing a note with pitch correction means I don't have to do the vocal all over again.

 

Well again... if nobody notices on playback during the tracking session that it's so bad, I have to wonder if it's really necessary.

 

I always tell artists if there's something that grates on them, they better fix it before the music is released or it will bother them every single time they hear it.

 

I do think that loudness maximizers still have more legitimate uses than pitch correction does, so I can't really call it a bad invention.

 

Yet Time feels justified in calling Auto-Tune a bad invention because people abuse it. Why not apply the same standards to maximizers? One could argue that maximizers have the potential to cause even more damage because as pointed out, they're being used to "re-master" older recordings that had nothing wrong with them, and making them suck.

[Anderton]

I can hear Autotune 100% of the time even when used in a so-called correct way... not as an effect.

 

 

But how can you be SURE that Auto-Tune isn't being applied, even when it is? I've done some pitch correction that I truly believe you would never know it was being applied. I could even post a couple examples so you could determine if you could hear these (what I think are) "correct" applications of Auto-Tune.

 

Trust me, it CAN be applied without being audible. Really. Just because it usually isn't doesn't mean it can't be done.