The Death of Auto Tune

[UstadKhanAli]

No real professional recording has 0 autotune.

 

 

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

You're fookin' killin' me!!!!! What an awesome sense of humor you have!!!!!!!

 

[Beck]

Even if I couldn't sing I would get someone who could before I'd use AutoTune on my muisc. It's not even an option.

 

And think about it

[keithtoxic]

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! You're fookin' killin' me!!!!! What an awesome sense of humor you have!!!!!!!

 

Any recording you hear on the radio has SOME autotune. When it comes to major labels pressing mass ammounts of cds, they require even subtle autotune to make it perfect.

[Beck]

 

Any recording you hear on the radio has SOME autotune. When it comes to major labels pressing mass ammounts of cds, they require even subtle autotune to make it perfect.

 

 

It did cross my mind that maybe your sense of humor is even dryer than mine (If that's possible) but you got me worried now. Are you ok?

[Cry Logic]

I think the 1 thing you're all missing is the simple fact that many people

like Autotune.

 

I'm talking about "in your face" totally over the top "sound like a robot"

autotune.

 

They see it (hear it?) as an effect, just like wah wah or flanging etc etc ...

Not as a corrective measure to bring a singers pitch into line, but as a

creative effect.

[Kaiborg]

 

Any recording you hear on the radio has SOME autotune. When it comes to major labels pressing mass ammounts of cds, they require even subtle autotune to make it perfect.

 

 

Now you're frightening the children. Seriously bro, don't pretend you know how records are made. It's obvious that you don't.

[keithtoxic]

 

Now you're frightening the children. Seriously bro, don't pretend you know how records are made. It's obvious that you don't.

 

 

My bad, I haven't sit in on major artists being recorded or anything...oh wait.

[halljams]

Ohh poo poo.

I use it all the time if i need/want it and i often do, it's a great tool. Basses, cellos, vox etc.

 

Hate the "effect sound" of it though. It's easy to make it transparent if you learn how.

I think i heard it on Zak Claxton's latest.

[Cry Logic]

 

Ohh poo poo. I use it all the time if i need/want it and i often do, it's a great tool. Basses, cellos, vox etc. Hate the "effect sound" of it though. It's easy to make it transparent if you learn how. I think i heard it on Zak Claxton's latest.

 

 

 

If it's done so well that no one can hear it then no one hears it.

Therefore they can't comment on it or like or dislike it.

 

I wasn't referring to autotune as a device for correcting tuning errors.

 

My post was about obvious autotuning.

It's an effect.

Some people like it.

Sounds like a vocoder only different.

 

Some people use it intentionally as an effect,

because they know people like it.

[Beck]

 

Ohh poo poo. I use it all the time if i need/want it and i often do, it's a great tool. Basses, cellos, vox etc. Hate the "effect sound" of it though. It's easy to make it transparent if you learn how.

 

 

Well maybe some people can't hear it, but I can with one ear tied behind my back

[amplayer]

 

I think the 1 thing you're all missing is the simple fact that many people like Autotune. I'm talking about "in your face" totally over the top "sound like a robot" autotune. They see it (hear it?) as an effect, just like wah wah or flanging etc etc ... Not as a corrective measure to bring a singers pitch into line, but as a creative effect.

 

 

Agreed. Anyone who listens to popular Hip Hop or RnB knows that. Actually, I do like it as an effect too, but I'm now sick of it. In 20 years I think people will look back on this as the Robotic era and easily parody it. You know, like putting tons of phasers and wah on stuff and call it a '70s parody, they'll just put a robotic autotune on the vocal and call it the 2000s era.

[amplayer]

 

Never used it. Don`t even have it in my studio for clients. If they can`t sing, I`m not recording them.:poke:

 

 

You may not have the Autotune brand of pitch correction, but since you are a DP user, you do have a very good pitch correction program at your disposal. It is an "automation" effect in DP. You might look into it.

[Philter]

 

Ohh poo poo. I use it all the time if i need/want it and i often do, it's a great tool. Basses, cellos, vox etc. Hate the "effect sound" of it though. It's easy to make it transparent if you learn how. I think i heard it on Zak Claxton's latest.

 

 

You know, I thought I heard it on that last track as well, but I was trying to be polite and not bring it up. So much for that. I like a lot of other things about the track, including the vocal arrangement and the drum recording. But during the first few lines of singing I was pretty sure I could hear autotune messing up the transitions between notes. Having gone through a period of the overuse of autotune myself, I know what that sounds like, although I also know normal singing can actually sound like that. Maybe we can get a comment from the artist.

[Billster]

 

Agreed. Anyone who listens to popular Hip Hop or RnB knows that. Actually, I do like it as an effect too, but I'm now sick of it. In 20 years I think people will look back on this as the Robotic era and easily parody it. You know, like putting tons of phasers and wah on stuff and call it a '70s parody, they'll just put a robotic autotune on the vocal and call it the 2000s era.

 

 

Yeah, the whole autotune stutter pitch deal was too gimmicky to last. I did a thing almost 20 years ago with the pitch shifter on my old Yamaha SPX-90. You could set the pitch interval via midi trigger, so I intentionally sang monotone and then played the melody on keys to trigger the SPX.

[Lee Flier]

 

I think the 1 thing you're all missing is the simple fact that many people like Autotune. I'm talking about "in your face" totally over the top "sound like a robot" autotune. They see it (hear it?) as an effect, just like wah wah or flanging etc etc ... Not as a corrective measure to bring a singers pitch into line, but as a creative effect.

 

 

I don't think anybody's missing that - we all know that is the case and it's been mentioned a few times in this thread. And that's fine if somebody wants to do that as an effect - it's their artistic decision, whether I like it or not.

 

I do agree with amplayer that it's kinda like "gated reverb" in the 80s - Autotune is the cheeseball effect of the 00s, and I'm sure in 10 years will sound just as dated as all those records with gated reverb do today. It was kinda cool and creative the first few times it was used as an effect, but now it's been done to death.

 

And despite the fact that it is often used deliberately as an effect, it is also often used to actually correct singers' pitch.

[Rabid]

I've said it here before and I will say it again. In a few years artists will be calling the studio and asking "Can you remix my hits and take out the autotune sound? I'm releasing a greatest hits CD and that sound is so 2005."

[Lee Flier]

You know, I thought I heard it on that last track as well, but I was trying to be polite and not bring it up. So much for that. I like a lot of other things about the track, including the vocal arrangement and the drum recording. But during the first few lines of singing I was pretty sure I could hear autotune messing up the transitions between notes. Having gone through a period of the overuse of autotune myself, I know what that sounds like, although I also know normal singing can actually sound like that. Maybe we can get a comment from the artist.

 

There is a lot of Autotune on the Zak album, and yes, it is audible. But I don't know why you'd think it impolite to mention it. Neither Jeff nor Phil have made any secret of it - in fact Phil discussed the vocal treatment for Zak at length in his own forum here on HC.

[Lee Flier]

Well, it does bother me if the word is that the untouched performance is excellent and somebody felt like they needed to tune it up so that it sounds like every piece of junk that is totally manufactured. That's like taking a carefully crafted gourmet sauce and adding extra salt so it tastes like TGI Friday's food.

 

Exactly!

 

Yeah, that has to be the worst - taking a singer who is really naturally expressive and ruining their performance with Autotune, over-editing, over-compression... etc. Happens a LOT these days.

[I was The Funk]

If its really that out of tune, the answer is another take.....

 

 

I use autotune a lot these days. But mostly when a singer is double tracking their vocals and some of the unisons aren't quite close enough. If one track is 1/4 pitch sharp and one s slightly flat, thats a half step off, and its disonnent. So we bring it to within a quarter step.

 

 

Its extremely time consuming to do this. And you have to do it in graphical mode one note at a time.

[Lee Knight]

 

Well, it does bother me if the word is that the untouched performance is excellent and somebody felt like they needed to tune it up so that it sounds like every piece of junk that is totally manufactured. That's like taking a carefully crafted gourmet sauce and adding extra salt so it tastes like TGI Friday's food. To me stuff like pitch and time correction are in a different category than using EQ and echo and stuff. I think they do have applications when used as obvious effect , like the Cher thing. But to polish a turd...

 

 

Yeah, that bothers me too.

 

Have you heard the Gravity vocal performance? Do you really feel that your description above describes that? Do you feel it "sounds like every piece of junk that is totally manufactured"?

 

I don't. That was my point. I seems like you're speaking in general principal but I've given a very specific example. I agree with what you're saying, except for the fact that you're painting a very broad stroke and ignoring my point and specific example.

 

AT = bad. OK.

[Billster]

 

Yeah, that bothers me too. Have you heard the Gravity vocal performance? Do you really feel that your description above describes that? Do you feel it "sounds like every piece of junk that is totally manufactured"? I don't. That was my point. I seems like you're speaking in general principal but I've given a very specific example. I agree with what you're saying, except for the fact that you're painting a very broad stroke and ignoring my point and specific example. AT = bad. OK.

 

 

Granted. I haven't heard the specific tune. But I stand by the statement that if the untouched performance was regarded as excellent, why bother with touching it?

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

Maybe we can get a comment from the artist.

 

 

Sure. But first, let's clarify a semantics problem.

 

"Autotune" is a proprietary technology of Antares. The way it's often used, or misused (as many of you know), is that it's applied across an entire vocal track, and it has global settings that allow you to set the degree of tuning and how the notes transition. Set it to "stun", and you have that horrible T-Pain robot voice. It doesn't HAVE to be used that way, but as we know, a lot of folks are lazy, and some people like the effect of this. I'm not one of them.

 

"Pitch correction" can be an entirely different thing. It can be applied very selectively, on specific areas, and isn't necessarily an automated process. Phil and I have indeed spoken about our use of pitch correction on my album. We use it in the same manner in which engineers on those records from the '70s would literally punch in syllables, or use other analog tricks to get the most pitch-accurate vocal performances on record.

 

We don't rely on this. As my co-producer, Phil has me sing a high number of takes of each track. A lead vocal will often require ten or more run-throughs. His first plan of attack is to find the best phrases and passages from each of those comps.

 

After that part is done, at that point, we absolutely DO use pitch correction. You'll also see that we do NOT use it in other areas... there are still some notes on the album that are not at all perfect. Also, part of my singing style has me sliding into notes, rather than nailing the pitch right in the middle, and you;d definitely hear the Autotune on those note transitions.

 

So, the answer is yes, we use pitch correction. But we use it as a tool to clean up stuff that would otherwise take days of doing vocal comping and punch-ins. And just like any other tool that can help make something sound cooler (i.e., reverb, tube distortion on a guitar, etc.), you can use it in a good way or you can go overboard. I think Phil's use has been judicious, and has resulted in being a huge time saver without being blatantly obvious. He goes in by hand and draws the pitch on a note-by-note basis where required, which is quite a bit different than selecting an entire waveform and pushing a button.

 

I have nothing to be apologetic about. I perform live several times a week with zero vocal processing, and have been complimented time and time again about my vocals. I love the way Phil applies pitch correction (not Autotune), and am super happy with the result.

[amplayer]

 

Sure. But first, let's clarify a semantics problem. "Autotune" is a proprietary technology of Antares. The way it's often used, or misused (as many of you know), is that it's applied across an entire vocal track, and it has global settings that allow you to set the degree of tuning and how the notes transition. Set it to "stun", and you have that horrible T-Pain robot voice. It doesn't HAVE to be used that way, but as we know, a lot of folks are lazy, and some people like the effect of this. I'm not one of them. "Pitch correction" can be an entirely different thing. It can be applied very selectively, on specific areas, and isn't necessarily an automated process. Phil and I have indeed spoken about our use of pitch correction on my album. We use it in the same manner in which engineers on those records from the '70s would literally punch in syllables, or use other analog tricks to get the most pitch-accurate vocal performances on record. We don't rely on this. As my co-producer, Phil has me sing a high number of takes of each track. A lead vocal will often require ten or more run-throughs. His first plan of attack is to find the best phrases and passages from each of those comps. After that part is done, at that point, we absolutely DO use pitch correction. You'll also see that we do NOT use it in other areas... there are still some notes on the album that are not at all perfect. Also, part of my singing style has me sliding into notes, rather than nailing the pitch right in the middle, and you;d definitely hear the Autotune on those note transitions. So, the answer is yes, we use pitch correction. But we use it as a tool to clean up stuff that would otherwise take days of doing vocal comping and punch-ins. And just like any other tool that can help make something sound cooler (i.e., reverb, tube distortion on a guitar, etc.), you can use it in a good way or you can go overboard. I think Phil's use has been judicious, and has resulted in being a huge time saver without being blatantly obvious. He goes in by hand and draws the pitch on a note-by-note basis where required, which is quite a bit different than selecting an entire waveform and pushing a button. I have nothing to be apologetic about. I perform live several times a week with zero vocal processing, and have been complimented time and time again about my vocals. I love the way Phil applies pitch correction (not Autotune), and am super happy with the result.

 

 

Even though some here have a problem with pitch correction of any kind, I have no problem with the kind of pitch correction you describe here. Why not make it sound a little better if you can?

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

Even though some here have a problem with pitch correction of any kind, I have no problem with the kind of pitch correction you describe here. Why not make it sound a little better if you can?

 

 

That's the idea. Again, there's nothing new about these concepts. The specific tools are semi-recent, but the ideas have been in place for decades. All of those Fleetwood Mac, Aerosmith, Linda Ronstadt, Eagles, etc. records you heard (many years before Autotune was invented) used many studio techniques to ensure great vocals. It doesn't mean that those people weren't good singers. They were, and in some cases still are. But you really want to do everything you can to capture the best possible performance on record. Once it's out there, you don't have the chance to make it better again.

 

Last note: not all styles of music should be "fixed". There's a lot of music where I love the rawness, including the off-key vocals. Hell, I'm a Neil Young fan! But for my style and many others, I'm glad to have these tools at my disposal to use when needed.

 

My personal advice/opinion, in order of importance.

 

1. Work with a good singer.

2. Use comping/punching before trying anything else.

3. Don't be afraid to try other tried-and-true techniques like doubling to smooth out pitch.

4. If you have to use pitch correction, don't just slather it on globally.

[Lee Flier]

Granted. I haven't heard the specific tune. But I stand by the statement that if the untouched performance was regarded as excellent, why bother with touching it?

 

Yeah, that's my feeling as well. The problem is that we don't have the untouched vocal to compare, either, so how do we know that we wouldn't prefer that if we could hear them side by side? I agree that the whole idea of "he sang great, but you have to use Autotune to compete with modern radio" is a bogus premise.

 

I just listened to "Gravity" and although I agree that it's a cool vocal part, 1) I can still hear the pitch correction in a few spots, and 2) John Mayer is already a good singer, therefore the processor didn't have to work too hard to correct his pitch. You can aspire to be "subtle" with your use of Autotune so that the sound is less audible and less "processed", but if you don't start off with a good singer, you won't be able to. We all know that the harder a processor has to work, the more audible it's going to be. So if the singer is more than a few cents off, the chances of the pitch correction being audible go way up.

 

So then, you might argue, if you do have a good singer then where's the harm in correcting those last few cents of an already great performance, and making it "perfect"? Well, the trouble there is that most really good singers use pitch bends as a mode of expression, and where I most often hear pitch correction (even in situations where the goal was obviously for it not to be audible) is in transitions between notes. Often a singer will intentionally slide up or down to a note, or will bend the pitch a little while holding a note, and it's really difficult in those cases for the mix engineer to 1) correctly judge the artist's intention if the singer isn't present during the mix, and 2) correctly pick the right spot to pitch correct so that the transition or pitch bend isn't at least partially obliterated.

 

So, basically what you have there is a mix engineer making artistic decisions on behalf of a singer and getting it wrong a whole lot. Of course, if the singer actually likes what the engineer did with the pitch correction and/or was there to guide the engineer during the mix, that's fine. But that isn't often the case, and there are also a lot of cases where they're simply pressured into it because they're insecure and someone is telling them it "has to be done this way" for the record to be successful.

 

Last but not least, I think the rampant use of pitch correction has made the public way more sensitive to "imperfect" notes, and I don't think that's a good thing, any more than it's a good thing for people to expect real people to look like airbrushed and surgically enhanced supermodels. Many of my favorite artists do not sing perfectly in tune, never have and the way they sing is inextricably part of their art. It'd be a complete disaster to pitch correct them, and yet there are some people who hear their stuff now and can't appreciate it because they can't get past the fact that they're "out of tune." So then you have certain "indie rock" artists who deliberately go in the other direction, try to sound as out of tune as possible, which of course is just as contrived.

 

It'd be nice if people could be a little more genuine and not go to extremes about everything just for the sake of it, but I guess I'm asking for too much there.