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

[bp]

The atomic bomb didn't make the list. I'd say that is the number one worst invention ever.

[UstadKhanAli]

If we're arguing between which is worse, AutoTune or Loudness Maximizers....well, I don't know the answer to that, but I wouldn't want to live on the difference!

[UstadKhanAli]

The atomic bomb didn't make the list. I'd say that is the number one worst invention ever.

 

 

That and overfarming.

[UstadKhanAli]

The atomic bomb didn't make the list. I'd say that is the number one worst invention ever.

Oh, but only if it's not abused!

[blue2blue]

 

 

I was going to say the same thing. How can one know?

 

I'm one of the biggest cry babies ever about bad tuning. Beck is certainly right that Nashville pop has been lousy with obvious and clumsy vocal tuning for most of this decade.

 

But I've also sat in on a session at a friend's studio where he and then the talent (when my pal was called away) were in the middle of a vocal tuning session. The music was jazz, the talent was a fine guitarist and soulful singer. But it was his first big release (which ended up doing quite well, I guess) and he wanted it just so. Plus, he'd made a couple of in-tune/harmonic but incorrect note choices. Mostly, he moved phrases but in some places he had no choice but to make corrections in mid-phrase. It did take some time and work (and I held his feet to the fire on a couple of places where he was at first willing to 'settle' but where there were artifacts) but he was able to achieve a corrected vocal that was essentially free of noticeable artifacts to my quite fussy ear.

 

 

Pet Topic Rant...

 

Mention of BB King's bend pitch choices on guitar above brings to the fore an issue which is never far from my thinking when discussing vocal pitch correction: the vagaries of the 12 Tone Equal Temperament system. There seems to be a slowly increasing awareness of the issue among some recordists and musicians but it's surprising how many seem blissfully unaware of the harmonic compromises implicit in 12TET, which dominates the tuning of keyboards and fretted guitars -- and plain vanilla vocal pitch correction.

 

But it's worth noting that 8 of the 12 tones in the scale are out of tune -- by a range of from 12 to 31 cents.

 

Only the root and octave are completely in tune. The perfect 4th and 5th are only 2 cents out, the Major 2nd is about 4 cents out. From there, the pitch mayhem jumps drastically, culminating in the minor 7th, which, in certain harmonic contexts, is a whopping 31 cents sharp of the true harmonic value of a minor 7th.

 

12 Tone Equal Temperament v Just Intonation chart

[UstadKhanAli]

Isn't Lee Flier arguing about the principal and ramifications of AutoTune, and not simply whether it's discernible?

[claveslave]

Only the root and octave are completely in tune. The perfect 4th and 5th are only 2 cents out, the Major 2nd is about 4 cents out. From there, the pitch mayhem jumps drastically, culminating in the minor 7th, which, in certain harmonic contexts, is a whopping 31 cents sharp of the true harmonic value of a minor 7th.

I'm glad you edited that major fourth reference out. I was losing sleep over it.

[Lee Flier]

 

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.

 

 

But a lot of times people think it should be, without consulting the artist. And even if it's not a quarter tone, like I say, the correction may still be audible.

 

Let's just say that I hear tons of recordings where it's obvious to me that pitch correction was used and it's obvious it was not supposed to be an intentional "effect."

 

 

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;

 

 

Well then, why not practice it until you can do it without running out of gas? This is the crux of the problem really - I think this stuff makes people lazy, even people who might normally work hard.

 

 

I think the objection most people have to Auto-Tune is when it's just left on automatic pilot for pitch correction.

 

 

No, that's just the most obvious offense. Like I say, I hear minor offenses all the time, and it's really effin irritating when you hear a couple of notes corrected in an otherwise good performance, and I can never help thinking that it probably wasn't necessary to correct it.

 

 

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.

 

 

Well I happen to think that's a {censored}ty reason to make that kind of decision. I spend a lot less money on records than signed artists do and yet somehow I manage to live without Autotune.

 

 

With me, a lot of time elapses between cutting a vocal and finishing a song.

 

 

That happens with me a lot too, but I don't understand how it could take a month to figure out that a vocal was so far out of tune that it "needs" correction.

 

 

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.

 

 

Exactly! So if there's something they don't like, we do another take - then and there. At least have several comps so that you can always find one that works with that backing vocal part a month later.

 

 

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.

 

 

Like I said earlier, I agree with that. But I still think that maximizers have "legitimate" uses if they are not abused, and I've heard them used tastefully often enough - I even use them myself at times. Can't say the same for Autotune.

 

And I have seen articles in the mainstream media (probably including Time) complaining about the abuse of maximizers. You know things have gotten out of hand when non musicians/audio people get annoyed by the degree of abuse. I think both Autotune and the loudness wars deserve all the bad press they get.

[Lee Flier]

Isn't Lee Flier arguing about the principal and ramifications of AutoTune, and not simply whether it's discernible?

 

 

Yes, thank you.

[Lee Flier]

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.

 

Sure, but again, there are an awful lot of cool things done with Photoshop too. It has so much obvious creative potential that the abuses can be overlooked. Same thing with multitrack editing and a lot of things.

 

I don't think photography or art would be better off if Photoshop had never been invented, in other words, but I do think music would be better off if Autotune had never been invented. So there's a big difference.

[claveslave]

A chain saw is a useful tool if a tree has dangerous boughs overhanging a house. It can also be used to kill and dismember people. It's the intent of the user that determines the result.

[Lee Flier]

A chain saw is a useful tool if a tree has dangerous boughs overhanging a house. It can also be used to kill and dismember people. It's the intent of the user that determines the result.

Yes I think we've heard this argument about 900,000 times, thank you for playing.

[claveslave]

Yes I think we've heard this argument about 900,000 times, thank you for playing.

Clearly, it needs to be stated 1,000,000 times so that it might sink in

[Lee Flier]

Clearly, it needs to be stated 1,000,000 times so that it might sink in

 

I think when you have a technology where the cases of abuse far outweigh legitimate use, the statement isn't terribly relevant. Sometimes you do have to question the whole premise behind the technology.

[UstadKhanAli]

Sure, but again, there are an awful lot of cool things done with Photoshop too. It has so much obvious creative potential that the abuses can be overlooked. Same thing with multitrack editing and a lot of things. I don't think photography or art would be better off if Photoshop had never been invented, in other words, but I do think music would be better off if Autotune had never been invented. So there's a big difference.

Of course. I mean, I use Pro Tools, I use PhotoShop, and they're useful tools. I love PhotoShop....it's a lot of fun for me to use, and I feel really creative with it, and to a certain degree, I feel the same way with Pro Tools, although I tend to use it more like a tape machine than most people do, I suspect.

And I know you know this, but although I've voiced my distaste for AutoTune over the years, I'm not as violently opposed to it as you are. If someone bought it for me and taught me how to use it in a very transparent manner, I'd probably use it to fix a note here or there once in a while when other options were closed to me. I mean, I'm not hardcore about it. But I'm just not motivated enough to buy it or learn it. I think I have some sort of pitch correction thing with the Waves Renaissance Bundle V7, and I just can't be bothered.

I see the difference between AutoTune and PhotoShop and Pro Tools - or, to put it another way, I see the point you are making rather clearly. I just don't feel quite as strongly about it as you do.

[UstadKhanAli]

I think when you have a technology where the cases of abuse far outweigh legitimate use, the statement isn't terribly relevant. Sometimes you do have to question the whole premise behind the technology.

Would germ warfare fall into this area?

[claveslave]

 

I think when you have a technology where the cases of abuse far outweigh legitimate use, the statement isn't terribly relevant. Sometimes you do have to question the whole premise behind the technology.

 

 

Whatever. It's here and it ain't going away. As I've said, I find AT useful in a professional capacity. I agree that I don't like the Cher style use of it or that incompetent performers can be made to sound somewhat competent. It does however, have its place when time and money are of the essence.

[Anderton]

But a lot of times people think it should be, without consulting the artist. And even if it's not a quarter tone, like I say, the correction may still be audible. Let's just say that I hear tons of recordings where it's obvious to me that pitch correction was used and it's obvious it was not supposed to be an intentional "effect."

Well, then those people used Auto-Tune incorrectly. I don't think anyone (at least here) advocates the use of Auto-Tune to the point where it's audible/annoying. All I'm saying is that it can be done without being audible/annoying, so when people say "But I hear it, so it's annoying," THAT'S THE POINT. If you hear it, it's not being used correctly IMHO unless it's being used as an effect.

Well then, why not practice it until you can do it without running out of gas?

Because practice won't make it better, it's a physical issue. Running a couple miles a day would, however, make it better

This is the crux of the problem really - I think this stuff makes people lazy, even people who might normally work hard.

It's not a question of "laziness," it's a question of time management. If a tool lets me fix a vocal annoyance in a couple minutes, it sounds better, and there are no audible artifacts, why should I spend much more time re-cutting the vocal - which may not result in a better performance, so it may just end up being a waste of time anyway - when I could spend that time getting a better amp miking, playing with my daughter, or running a couple miles so I can sing better in the first place? I don't have time to do all of them, I have to pick my battles.

No, that's just the most obvious offense. Like I say, I hear minor offenses all the time, and it's really effin irritating when you hear a couple of notes corrected in an otherwise good performance, and I can never help thinking that it probably wasn't necessary to correct it.

One more time: If you can hear it, it's being used wrong (or the singer IS being lazy by not re-cutting it). If after applying pitch correction you can hear the correction and it's an annoyance, THEN it's worth getting the vocal re-cut. Otherwise, why should anyone care?

Well I happen to think that's a {censored}ty reason to make that kind of decision.

I think it's {censored}ty not to honor a budget commitment.

That happens with me a lot too, but I don't understand how it could take a month to figure out that a vocal was so far out of tune that it "needs" correction.

Because of being referenced to other instruments. As Blue points out, we're working in an even-tempered world. When people sing, or play in string quartets, they tend to sing in just intonation. The best example of this is barbershop quartets, which invariably sing in just intonation. If I'm just singing to, for example, a rhythm guitar part, I'll tend to sing in just intonation and not worry about any beat notes because the guitar has enough of them within itself. But start adding in keyboards, and notes that seemed okay at the time sound more out of tune. Actually I suppose the ideal solution would be to retune the keyboards, but not all keyboards let you do that, and I do like to modulate, so it could end up being a real time sink.

Exactly! So if there's something they don't like, we do another take - then and there. At least have several comps so that you can always find one that works with that backing vocal part a month later.

You'll still run into the same issue if the vocal is done without the rest of the parts in the mix. This is different from "running out of gas," this is actually more about correcting the intonation than the tuning, if you catch my drift.

I'm sure you've had the experience of soloing a vocal and having it sound perfect but when added with the other instruments sounding "off," just as I'm sure you've had the experience of soloing a vocal and having it sound off, but when added to the other instruments, sounding "right" precisely because the tuning difference creates some kind of desirable tension (similarly to the BB King example I gave before).

I mean, if you look at my voice compared to a "perfect pitch grid," it's all over the place. But I think I have the right to correct something I don't like if the end sound is transparent. I can do what I choose, as an artist, to my own music (or as a producer, to do to other people's music if they agree it makes a superior experience for the listener). And if the listener doesn't even know it's been done, who cares?

Like I said earlier, I agree with that. But I still think that maximizers have "legitimate" uses if they are not abused, and I've heard them used tastefully often enough - I even use them myself at times. Can't say the same for Autotune.

I maintain that you can't hear Auto-Tune used tastefully, because if it's used tastefully, you wouldn't hear it being used.

And I have seen articles in the mainstream media (probably including Time ) complaining about the abuse of maximizers. You know things have gotten out of hand when non musicians/audio people get annoyed by the degree of abuse. I think both Autotune and the loudness wars deserve all the bad press they get.

Time's just jealous because they didn't think of "Auto-Tuning the News"

[Lee Flier]

 

Well, then those people used Auto-Tune incorrectly. I don't think anyone (at least here) advocates the use of Auto-Tune to the point where it's audible/annoying.

 

 

You keep saying that, but then, why does it happen so often, even on records that were made by people who ought to know how to use it correctly?

 

 

As Blue points out, we're working in an even-tempered world. When people sing, or play in string quartets, they tend to sing in just intonation. The best example of this is barbershop quartets, which invariably sing in just intonation. If I'm just singing to, for example, a rhythm guitar part, I'll tend to sing in just intonation and not worry about any beat notes because the guitar has enough of them within itself. But start adding in keyboards, and notes that seemed okay at the time sound more out of tune.

 

 

Well, I started working in studios in 1979, by which time people had already started recording a lot of stuff mostly in isolation. By the mid 80s, it wasn't uncommon at all to record one track at a time, as people do now - in fact that was pretty typical. And the 80s, as we know, were very keyboard-centric too. I recorded tons of vocalists where keyboards were subsequently added, as well as loads of backing vocals, etc. Yet, there wasn't a preponderance of out of tune vocals. Quite the opposite in fact. And no Autotune. I wonder why that is?

[Lee Flier]

Would germ warfare fall into this area?

Yes, I'd say so.

[Lee Flier]

I mean, I'm not hardcore about it. But I'm just not motivated enough to buy it or learn it. I think I have some sort of pitch correction thing with the Waves Renaissance Bundle V7, and I just can't be bothered.

 

I have pitch correction in Reaper, and I even know how to use it "properly." But I don't. I just pretend it ain't there.

 

I see the difference between AutoTune and PhotoShop and Pro Tools - or, to put it another way, I see the point you are making rather clearly. I just don't feel quite as strongly about it as you do.

 

And that's fine. I don't expect everyone to feel as strongly about it as I do - I just think it's kind of crazy that a lot of people don't even seem to see the difference at all.

[claveslave]

That's quite some bee you have in your bonnet there, Ms. Flier.

Oh, the reason they didn't use AT in the 80s was... you guessed it... it hadn't been invented back then.

[Rekel]

It belongs on the Top 1 list of worst inventions of all time.

 

 

There really should be a law against the use of it on commercial productions. Professional 'artists' who use AT should be named and shamed, imo.

[Rekel]

Oh, the reason they didn't use AT in the 80s was... you guessed it... it hadn't been invented back then.

There was no need for AT in the 80's because there was enough talented people around who could actually sing in tune

[Lee Flier]

There was no need for AT in the 80's because there was enough talented people around who could actually sing in tune