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

[Geoff Grace]

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

I guess punk and new wave bands were mostly exempted from that requirement.

Best,

Geoff

[Lee Flier]

I guess punk and new wave bands were mostly exempted from that requirement.

True, and I would hope no one would Autotune a punk band today either, although I'm sure it's been done.

[UstadKhanAli]

I guess punk and new wave bands were mostly exempted from that requirement.

Oh, no, it's just a matter of time until we remix 'em. We'll AutoTune Darby Crash and the whole lot of 'em, and while we're at it, we'll put 'em on the grid just for good measure, yee haaaa!!!!

[Rekel]

I guess punk and new wave bands were mostly exempted from that requirement. Best, Geoff

I'm personally not much into punk and new wave music but I think the odd out of tune notes in this style of music that I've heard were actually part of the charm.

I am a lead singer myself and have done (and still do) lots of background harmony vocals in studios. I'm sure if I would have sang off pitch before AT existed, I would have been fired on the spot.

As a matter of fact, I find it extremely hard to sing out of tune. I guess I must have some natural AT device build into my vocal chords. Although certain people still refer to that ability as skill and talent

[UstadKhanAli]

 

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.

 

 

I don't know if it's like this for everyone, but as a photographer, I have not gotten lazier as a result of PhotoShop. If anything, in a funny way, it gives me more work!!!! But when I'm traveling, doing advertisements, or whatever, I still have to frame the shot correctly, get the right exposure, have the right settings, use a good lens/camera, set people at ease, be creative, and do everything that a photographer does to get a good shot.

 

I'm not sure that I would think the same way if I am a vocalist and have AutoTune.

 

So I believe that is in part the difference that you are making here.

 

Now, you can also make that case for Pro Tools. For example, I don't have the greatest sense of time, particularly with guitar. Sense of melody, texture, hell yeah, but my time is a bit wonky at times. Now, I try and play the bloody guitar parts to the best of my ability, absolutely. I really do. I think it sounds better when i do.

 

But once in a while, I cheat. I confess. I will move something around. I will brainfart and start playing something worse. I will come back and discover that a part that I thought was right on was a little off, so I'll move something else over that WAS good or shift something or edit or whatever. I'm not proud of this. It's "cheating". But I do it.

 

And this is where Lee and I would differ.

 

If I could actually be bothered to 1.) buy AutoTune, and 2.) learn to use it so that it'd be transparent, I'd probably use it. I freely admit it. And while I don't think my music would really benefit greatly from this, I'd probably use it when all else failed and I wanted to get a project done.

 

I respect the fact that Lee has a different approach. It fits her aesthetic. I also have to tip my hat to that sort of integrity, in sticking to recording in the manner that she feels is best and is right.

 

My distaste for AutoTune is largely aesthetic. And a bit of it is the principal of it, but I'm not hardcore about it, as I don't use AT partially out of frugality, partially out of laziness. But if I could wave a magic wand, sure, I'd probably fix a note here and there, probably not terribly unlike what Craig or Phil might do.

 

But I totally get where she is coming from.

[Rekel]

Hehehe. I remember the last time this discussion came up and I asked why Antares felt the need to advertise this thing with a picture of a 'singer' wearing a brown paper bag over his/her head. I don't recall I've ever received an answer to that question

[UstadKhanAli]

As a matter of fact, I find it extremely hard to sing out of tune. I guess I must have some natural AT device build into my vocal chords.

 

And see, this is where we differ. I seem to have an anti-AutoTune thing built into my voice!!

 

(actually, I sing somewhat in key, but my phrasing is godawful and I can't do really talented note-hitting, just simple stuff...just going for the easy joke here! )

 

Sometimes, I feel like I have some sort of anti-quantize feature when I'm trying to play guitar.

[Rekel]

) Sometimes, I feel like I have some sort of anti-quantize feature when I'm trying to play guitar.

LOL. That was funny, Ken. You're cool, dude

[UstadKhanAli]

True, and I would hope no one would Autotune a punk band today either, although I'm sure it's been done.

Ehhhhh....it might be really funny to AT and quantize The Germs...

I'll let someone else do that.

[Anderton]

Check out this thread:

 

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?p=39892711#post39892711

 

I figured a different thread was in order so the responses could be on-topic. We can continue the general discussion here.

[Anderton]

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?

For the same reason people over-maximize, use too much reverb on vocals, don't tune their guitars properly before recording, forget to turn off the snares when they record the bass amp, etc. etc.

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?

I would dispute the claim "there wasn't a preponderance of out of tune vocals." Listening back to older music, there were LOTS of out of tune vocals. Granted in a lot of cases it didn't matter, because as has been pointed out, many times that was either part of the aesthetic, a conscious decision, or whatever. Debating whether it mattered, though, is a different animal than debating whether it existed or not, as the former is an opinion, and the latter can be determined objectively.

Just don't interpret this as my saying that it's BETTER that vocals are now more in tune, by and large. I too think that perfect tuning, like perfect rhythm, DOES have the potential to rob charm from a performance. But I never disputed that. The only thing that I have claimed regarding pitch correction is that in the right hands, it can be used transparently enough that it's not noticed. That's all. And I really don't see how anyone can argue that, nor argue with an artist's decision to "fix" a note if they want to, by whatever means they want to use. If you can't tell whether a note was fixed or not and it was, who cares whether it was fixed by punching, pitch correction, or divine intervention?

[Geoff Grace]

I'm personally not much into punk and new wave music but I think the odd out of tune notes in this style of music that I've heard were actually part of the charm.

 

Exactly. A casual attitude has been part of the selling point behind pop and folk music for generations.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Lee Flier]

For the same reason people over-maximize, use too much reverb on vocals, don't tune their guitars properly before recording, forget to turn off the snares when they record the bass amp, etc. etc.

 

But with the exception of over-maximizing, you don't generally hear any of that stuff by the time a record comes out. Not if it's on a major label, anyway.

 

I would dispute the claim "there wasn't a preponderance of out of tune vocals." Listening back to older music, there were LOTS of out of tune vocals. Granted in a lot of cases it didn't matter, because as has been pointed out, many times that was either part of the aesthetic, a conscious decision, or whatever.

 

But I specifically said I wasn't talking about music that's "imprecise" by nature. I was specifically talking about commercial music in the late 70s and 80s, which was very much recorded in isolation with an ear toward perfection and precision. Lots of people (including me) diss hair metal, for instance, but I recorded a ton of that stuff, with layers and layers of overdubbed vocals and keyboards and the like... none of them are out of tune. And I wasn't working with Queen or Yes or even Loverboy - I was working with hair bands who were just out playing in L.A. clubs. They didn't have outlandish recording budgets for the most part, but very modest ones. They did what was required of them to succeed, which at that time meant knowing how to sing in tune.

 

The only thing that I have claimed regarding pitch correction is that in the right hands, it can be used transparently enough that it's not noticed. That's all. And I really don't see how anyone can argue that, nor argue with an artist's decision to "fix" a note if they want to, by whatever means they want to use. If you can't tell whether a note was fixed or not and it was, who cares whether it was fixed by punching, pitch correction, or divine intervention?

 

None of that was really the point I was making... and I'm not trying to "order" anybody not to fix a note if they want to. I just disagree that it's transparent as much as a lot people think it is (well, obviously, because a lot of people who otherwise know what they're doing have made screwups that are audible to me, regardless whether it's "possible" to do inaudible pitch correction, which I know it is). And I'm also pointing out that many people unconsciously use the presence of Autotune as a crutch. If you don't think any of that applies to you, then feel free to ignore me. But I think there are a lot of people who would stand to benefit from what I'm saying, so I say it. It's obviously up to the person reading this whether it will affect their future decisions or not.

[Geoff Grace]

Personally, I don't feel music should be a particular way at all. Quantize? Tune? Do it or don't do it, as long as you do whatever's appropriate to express yourself. Maybe I'll like it or I won't, but it's not your job to please me.

 

If your music pleases me you might get some of my money, and if you please someone else you might get some of theirs. But if you please yourself, you'll at least have a good time, regardless of whose money you get.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Lee Flier]

Ehhhhh....it might be really funny to AT and quantize The Germs... I'll let someone else do that.

 

Actually, my band frequently pitch corrects our own stuff during mix sessions (with it set to auto-correction and the speed set to 0, natch ) just for a laugh. And it IS really funny, so long as it doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

[Anderton]

Actually, my band frequently pitch corrects our own stuff during mix sessions (with it set to auto-correction and the speed set to 0, natch ) just for a laugh. And it IS really funny, so long as it doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

This supports my theory that Time is just jealous they didn't invent Auto-Tuning the News.

[Geoff Grace]

LOL, Lee! Next time, try quantizing the drums 100% too.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Anderton]

None of that was really the point I was making... and I'm not trying to "order" anybody not to fix a note if they want to. I just disagree that it's transparent as much as a lot people think it is (well, obviously, because a lot of people who otherwise know what they're doing have made screwups that are audible to me, regardless whether it's "possible" to do inaudible pitch correction, which I know it is). And I'm also pointing out that many people unconsciously use the presence of Autotune as a crutch. If you don't think any of that applies to you, then feel free to ignore me. But I think there are a lot of people who would stand to benefit from what I'm saying, so I say it. It's obviously up to the person reading this whether it will affect their future decisions or not.

 

Fair enough. At least you're putting the blame on the people, where I feel it rightly belongs, instead of the technology. That's the fundamental problem I have with the premise of this thread - that pitch correction is the problem. It's not the problem, misapplying it is the problem. Not that I expect Time to dig beneath the surface of any story, let alone one as frivolous as a story involving pop music.

[MikeRivers]

 

I can hear Autotune 100% of the time even when used in a so-called correct way...

 

Awwwww . . . you're just braggin' now. But actually, if you're dealing with pop music, it's like predicting the weather. You can guess the same thing (it's been AutoTuned) 100% of the time and be right 80% of the time. I suppose that any time the vocals are perfectly in tune, you can with very good certainty say that it's been done tuned. Nobody sings perfectly in tune all the time. I don't understand why that's become the only way to do it, but it seems that it has.

 

I wonder how much AutoTune is used in other genres, though. Is it used on Doyle Lawson or Ralph Stanley records (bluegrass)? Or cajun, or string bands? Or opera singers?

 

AutoTune doesn't kill music, musicians kill music.

[Lee Flier]

LOL, Lee ! Next time, try quantizing the drums 100% too.

Done that too... and gated reverb on the snare.

[MikeRivers]

 

That's the fundamental problem I have with the premise of this thread - that pitch correction is the problem. It's not the problem, misapplying it is the problem.

 

What does "misapplying" mean? Is it wrong to get every note in tune? Is it better to let some clunkers slip through and only retune the worst ones? Who decides? Is AutoTuning a greater sin than asking the singer to re-sing a line and punch it in? Is "perfectly in tune" the thing that makes it obvious and therefore misused?

[Anderton]

What does "misapplying" mean?

 

 

To me, it's taking a natural-sounding vocal and every now and then, hearing this weird robot timbre coming out of nowhere for a second or two then disappearing. I find it disconcerting, and it interferes with my enjoyment of the vocal as a performance. To my ears it's the equivalent of when a cell phone drops out - I still get the gist of the conversation, but it's annoying.

 

If I can't tell it was done, I don't care one way or the other. As a listener I'm really only interested in the end result, not how it was achieved. On the other hand as an engineer, if someone played me a song with a fantastic vocal and told me the entire thing had been pitch corrected, I'd want to know how they got it to sound natural.

[Lee Flier]

Fair enough. At least you're putting the blame on the people, where I feel it rightly belongs, instead of the technology.

Well, people invented the technology. I don't understand why technology always has to be blameless. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "the medium is the message." Technologies aren't value neutral - different technologies "promote" or "enable" different usage patterns and results, even if they don't intend to. Watching TV, for instance, is a fundamentally different experience from reading a book, or surfing the Internet. It activates different parts of the brain, and it's a much more passive activity. This has nothing to do with whether good television programs exist. Obviously, good people can use the medium in a good way to make good programs, but that doesn't change the inherent effect of television.

Not only that, but although most people know that watching too much TV is bad for you, most people watch too much TV anyway. So obviously, with some technologies it takes a huge amount of conscious effort to use it "correctly" and not give in to the temptation to abuse it. So sure, "people" can overcome abuses of technology, but I think some technologies have to share at least some of the blame too.

[claveslave]

Nobody sings perfectly in tune all the time.

 

 

Neither does Autotune. It requires someone who has a good sense of pitch to dial in the parameters for it to do its job in an invisible fashion. Songs frequently change intonation from beginning to end due to temperature changes and other factors inherent in the instrument being played. Setting Autotune to C chromatic (or whatever), + or - a few cents, in a fixed mode, is fraught with danger if used during the entirety of a song unless you're paying attention.

[the stranger]

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