Singer Question, (Auto tune or no auto tune)


PDA

View Full Version : Singer Question, (Auto tune or no auto tune)


guitarpoplin
12-13-2009, 01:47 AM
Hey Guys,
I have a question,

Our front man is ok at singing and we are getting at the point where we wanna write our own music and stuff. he sings good for slower stuff and not so distorted. but when it comes to upbeatish stuff he does not do so good.

we are wondering should we go to auto tune and use that to help out to our Electronica sound?

please write back cause all info will help.

Drummerrrrr?
12-13-2009, 01:54 AM
I'm ****ing sick of hearing auto tune everywhere imo

Ramblin'_Man
12-13-2009, 02:32 AM
If you can use it correctly, and appropriately it can add to a song, but if it is overdone and overproduced, i.e. T-Pain and Kanye West, it is just awful. There are many good electronica-instrumental bands out there that don't use auto-tune, I suggest checkign them out. Here's a very small list:

STS9 (Sound Tribe Sector 9)
Lotus
Disco Biscuits (I don't like them, but many people do)
Infected Mushroom
Umphrey's McGee (on a limited # of songs)
Ronald Jenkees
Galactic (on Ruckus)
MGMT (I think they're kinda meh, but you can't ignore them)
EOTO

CODE
12-13-2009, 02:57 AM
Don't do the t-pain stuff. It is an overused effect, you aren't going anywhere by using it.

Auto-tune is perfectly fine when recording vocals. There are imperfections in almost every vocal
take, auto-tune is made to fix those if that is what you are going for.

JDizzle787
12-13-2009, 03:18 AM
well, even to get that "T-Pain" sound, as demonstrated on a youtube video about auto-tune and debunking how it works, you still have to be a very good singer. you can sound like crap and auto tune, and it will still sound like crap. I do second that I've heard that it is good for covering up imperfections though.

breakdown123
12-13-2009, 06:33 PM
as long as your not trying to be the next attack attack, it can be a cool effect.

guitarpoplin
12-13-2009, 07:19 PM
not into the screaming. it would be more upbeatish with guitars and bass and more dancing type music but in a rock way with cool synths. dont know how to explain it lol.

JAHellraiser
12-13-2009, 07:44 PM
no dont do it.
just make sure he practices, and with time he'll get better

take_it_t
12-13-2009, 09:43 PM
I can't understand how a song being upbeat would have any effect on your singer's ability to hit pitches.

Souls United
12-13-2009, 09:57 PM
I can't understand how a song being upbeat would have any effect on your singer's ability to hit pitches.
Yeah, me either man.

Sounds like a problem with his style. Also this should go in the vocals section of musician talk.

Avery1
12-13-2009, 10:14 PM
Whats auto-tune?

its_alive
12-15-2009, 12:16 AM
^lol.
If you think it'll help, you might as well go for it. Other than that though, I really dislike it.

blue_strat
12-15-2009, 12:20 AM
Everything is fair play these days. If the end-product sounds good, then go for it.

the humanity
12-15-2009, 02:45 AM
try bitcrusher instead.

Syphen
12-15-2009, 06:25 PM
no autotune.

please for the heavens.

instead of trying a gimmick, just work on changing the overall musical direction or the way hes approaching the song.

there are plenty of ways to go about playing upbeat music. if you are trying to mimic a certain style or sound of another band then its a very good possibility he just doesnt have the voice to pull it off.

find out exactly where he shines vocally, and then work on creating a more upbeat style that his voice would fit into, rather than a style of music that is obviously not made for his voice.

giving him something that covers his mistakes or his lack of ability will make him become reliant upon that instead of actually improving his singing.

or then again.

use it. and try to get as many teenage girls as possible. while everyone else just shakes their head.

or.

change the music slightly

get him to practice the vocals

be in a band that actually will have staying power

and get all the girls.


decisions decisions

muddymoose
01-08-2010, 02:05 AM
Autotune is the devil.

blue_strat
01-08-2010, 02:08 AM
Autotune is the devil.
Bandwagoning is the devil.

muddymoose
01-08-2010, 02:43 AM
Bandwagoning is the devil.
Bandwagoning on the anti-bandwagoning bandwagon is the devil.

Anyway it was an interesting gimmick when it first surfaced, but now it's become cliche in pop music and it needs to go away. Since I've had this opinion for years, I don't see the bandwagoning you speak of. I do, however, realize I slightly necroposted this. Apologies.

JackFlash19
01-08-2010, 04:44 AM
You people are retarded. Autotune is to help salvage records of those singers who can't hit the notes exactly. Simply because T-pain and all those other fad-tastic bullshtters use the extreme limits of autotune does not and should not downgrade the usefulness of autotune for a vocalist. Nearly EVERY producer/engineer uses autotune or some form of it to strengthen the musical quality of the records they produce. If you want a quality sounding album, use it. Even if the vocalist doesn't necessarily need it, use it to clean up the microscopic parts he deviated pitch on.

Please don't get on the anti-bandwagon bandwagon and ignorantly follow what other auto-tune-haters state, simply to seem like you are cool and rebellious. Autotune is a tool of professionals. It is also a tool of artists. Just the same as you can make an audio file unique with autotune you can also make an image file unique with photoshop. It is not a bad thing. It is not the devil. It is all in how you use it.

It is NOT a gimmick. Autotune has been around a LOT longer than t-pain. People think autotune is a cliche or a fad. They don't realize because of their ignorance that autotune is not a fad. It is the OVEREXTENSION of autotune that is the fad.

Please be intelligent about the subject matter you speak about before stating your opinion as 'fact'

muddymoose
01-08-2010, 07:44 AM
Autotune is to help salvage records of those singers who can't hit the notes exactly.
I know that.

Simply because T-pain and all those other fad-tastic bullshtters use the extreme limits of autotune does not and should not downgrade the usefulness of autotune for a vocalist.
I guess I should have said "*The abuse of* autotune is the devil", but I thought that was obvious.

Please don't get on the anti-bandwagon bandwagon and ignorantly follow what other auto-tune-haters state, simply to seem like you are cool and rebellious.
I've always been amused that whenever two or more people come together and agree on something, there's automatically some sort of magical bandwagon involved. If you agree that the overuse of autotune is the devil, then you're on this bandwagon too.

Withakay
01-08-2010, 08:44 AM
should we go to auto tune and use that to help out to our Electronica sound?I hate it when 'out of tune' songs make the radio. To me that is both a producer and a radio programmer failing at their job. Out of tune notes almost physically hurt me.

That said, I don't like auto-tune either. It was a fun gimmick when Cher used it in 'Believe', but now all the songs using the extreme auto-tune setting sound like an obvious déjà-vu. This sound will not age well. Those songs will be buried along with seventies' clothing and fifties' wallpaper as testaments of bad taste.

But what really bothers me with auto-tune is the deception. It falsely lets you believe the singer can actually sing. What's the difference with Madonna, Britney Spears and Milli Vanilli pretending to be singing live shows while (most of the time) they're lip-synching? For any musician it is hard to respect that. (Even if above mentioned artist have other qualities).

The simple truth is: if you can't play the guitar, you shouldn't pretend to either. If you can't sing in tune, you have no business being a singer.
I can't understand how a song being upbeat would have any effect on your singer's ability to hit pitches.Because when you sing faster it's harder to get the pitch right every single time.

But this is actually an encouraging clue. If your singer can sing fairly well during slower parts, that means he has the ability to sing in tune. He can get better with practice.

Black Star
01-08-2010, 10:00 AM
I hate it when 'out of tune' songs make the radio. To me that is both a producer and a radio programmer failing at their job. Out of tune notes almost physically hurt me.

That said, I don't like auto-tune either. It was a fun gimmick when Cher used it in 'Believe', but now all the songs using the extreme auto-tune setting sound like an obvious déjà-vu. This sound will not age well. Those songs will be buried along with seventies' clothing and fifties' wallpaper as testaments of bad taste.

But what really bothers me with auto-tune is the deception. It falsely lets you believe the singer can actually sing. What's the difference with Madonna, Britney Spears and Milli Vanilli pretending to be singing live shows while (most of the time) they're lip-synching? For any musician it is hard to respect that. (Even if above mentioned artist have other qualities).

The simple truth is: if you can't play the guitar, you shouldn't pretend to either. If you can't sing in tune, you have no business being a singer.
Because when you sing faster it's harder to get the pitch right every single time.

But this is actually an encouraging clue. If your singer can sing fairly well during slower parts, that means he has the ability to sing in tune. He can get better with practice.

I was getting worried in this thread. Everybody was shooting down the anti-autotuners simply because of bandwagoning.

In my opinion, autotune sounds like total shit. Even when it's done subtlely, I kind of like hearing slight (slight) imperfections in my music. Listen to The Beatles. There's a number of songs where Paul doesn't sing perfect, but it still sounds good. Off the top of my head, Let it Be comes to mind, though I know there are countless more. The imperfections make the song more personal: more human.

If you have the ability to sing, you should sing, without autotune. If you can't sing, you have no business acting like you can in the first place.

Also, what's going to happen when you play live? Lip-sync?

HOWEVER: Autotune can work in electronica music. But then, do you want to sound like every other electronica band?

axemanchris
01-08-2010, 08:34 PM
I'm going to take a bit of an issue with the Madonna example. She was around before anyone even dreamed that a computer could correct pitch difficulties. She *can* sing.

Now, I wouldn't find it surprising, in spite of that, to find out that she lip syncs her shows. I think the reason for that is that a Madonna show (or a Brittney Spears show, or a Janet Jackson show or whatever) isn't about the singing. It's about the *show.* It's the dancing, the costumes, the choreography, the staging, the lighting, etc. The singing is - I was going to say secondary - really only tertiary. People know she isn't singing, but they're okay with that. So, if everyone is okay with that, then why not?

And really... If I was a Madonna fan, I would rather see her perform her show perfectly and give me what I want and lip sync the show than have her come out and sound all winded for the last half of the show, as a result of the dancing that she does. That would actually begin to *detract* from the show, because it would be obviously bad, as opposed to "close enough to suspend my disbelief for an hour or so."

Now, if I go see a rock band, people *expect* them to be singing and playing their own instruments. The staging and lights and all that are part of the show, sure, but they are not THE show. The most important thing in one of those shows IS the music, which includes the singing.

It's just one of those things that goes along with a different genre of music is the different expectations for the live performance of said show.

CT

isaac_bandits
01-09-2010, 12:40 AM
I don't see why not. You probably want to just use it to correct the pitch, and not to get the T-Payne kind of effect. You can use it just to correct pitch, and you won't even notice that the singer's using it, it will just sound like they can hit all the pitches right on.

HeavyReverb
01-09-2010, 12:54 AM
try bitcrusher instead.

high five

Black Star
01-09-2010, 01:37 AM
I don't see why not. You probably want to just use it to correct the pitch, and not to get the T-Payne kind of effect. You can use it just to correct pitch, and you won't even notice that the singer's using it, it will just sound like they can hit all the pitches right on.

Actually, most of the time, it is painfully obvious when someone is using autotune. However, the closer the person is to the right pitch in the first place, the less obvious it is. Of course, the only way to make autotune completely unnoticeable is to be singing on pitch in the first place, in which case you wouldn't need autotune anyways.

isaac_bandits
01-09-2010, 02:05 AM
Actually, most of the time, it is painfully obvious when someone is using autotune. However, the closer the person is to the right pitch in the first place, the less obvious it is. Of course, the only way to make autotune completely unnoticeable is to be singing on pitch in the first place, in which case you wouldn't need autotune anyways.

Its still a fail-safe. Alot of professionals use it, when they don't need it, just in case.

dst127
01-09-2010, 02:55 AM
There is nothing inherently wrong with using autotune, but your singer needs to learn how to sing without it. It is fine to use autotune as a tool, but don't use it as a crutch.

Best of luck with your band.

JackFlash19
01-09-2010, 05:40 AM
I know that.

Good for you. Do want a cookie?


guess I should have said "*The abuse of* autotune is the devil", but I thought that was obvious.

You may think you are the only person, but there are MANY purists out there who are against auto-tune, even if the pitch correction is extremely minor. You probably don't fully realize the extent that auto-tune and pitch correction is ACTUALLY used in the industry, but I'll let it slide because I'm sure your excuse is that you're just young.


always been amused that whenever two or more people come together and agree on something, there's automatically some sort of magical bandwagon involved. If you agree that the overuse of autotune is the devil, then you're on this bandwagon too.

funny you say that, because the title of this thread is not "the overuse of autotune". Please generalize this discussion to fit what you think it's about rather than what it actually is. Your ignorance is a waste of my time.


Actually, most of the time, it is painfully obvious when someone is using autotune. However, the closer the person is to the right pitch in the first place, the less obvious it is. Of course, the only way to make autotune completely unnoticeable is to be singing on pitch in the first place, in which case you wouldn't need autotune anyways.

..........ACTUALLY it is not 'painfully obvious' when someone is using autotune. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back a little harder because of your perfect ear to hear not only the millisecond pitch shifts it executes, but that you can tell the difference which songs use autotune and which ones don't......


.....No go ahead, keep patting.....I'll wait till you are done.............



95% of producers, engineers, labels, and bands DO use autotune before they finish putting out their cd. It is almost an industry standard that autotune is applied to tracks before they are mastered. I don't understand why people are happy with flat notes and the inability to hit pitches. Does it make the song that much more enjoyable for you to know that the song is totally raw and sounds like sht? Get off your high horse. More than likely, if a vocalist is out of tune in a recorded song, it is NOT because they are trying to be natural, it's because autotune could not effectively correct the pitch without the noticeable pitch shift sounds. They just actually suck that bad.

Granted, yes our goal is to sound as perfect on stage as we do on compact disc, but to sell cds and make them the most appealing to all audiences (mainly those with the ears of perfect pitch) you have to use software to correct MISTAKES. Because that is what they are. Pitch mistakes.......

So if your drummer is having a difficult time hitting the rhythm perfectly of your triple bass lines and it sounds sloppy, (since you are so anti-autotune 'bandwagon'.....and please retort with another bandwagon comment. That would be great with your superior intellect.....) you would rather KEEP the sloppy drum part than waste time in the studio with him playing it over and over and over and over and over? Or would you have the engineer run drumagog on it and correct all the triple bass hits to the time they are supposed to be in? Because that is exactly the same thing vocalists are doing with autotune. Most engineers will autotune songs without a second thought or notice that it's happening.

Nearly EVERY single song on the radio has been run through auto-tune. Don't kid yourself. You CAN'T painfully spot when autotune is used, despite that your prideful and false self-image thinks you can.

Damascus
01-09-2010, 08:14 AM
I think it's clear where this thread has to go - someone needs to set up blind auto-tune detection tests. That'd be awesome. :cool:


Also:
95% of producers, engineers, labels, and bands DO use autotune before they finish putting out their cd. It is almost an industry standard that autotune is applied to tracks before they are mastered.
How do you know that? Not in a bitchy-I-think-you're-lying way, just a genuine I'm-interested-in-how-you-learnt-that way.

Lams
01-09-2010, 09:50 AM
95% of producers, engineers, labels, and bands DO use autotune before they finish putting out their cd. It is almost an industry standard that autotune is applied to tracks before they are mastered. I don't understand why people are happy with flat notes and the inability to hit pitches. Does it make the song that much more enjoyable for you to know that the song is totally raw and sounds like sht? Get off your high horse. More than likely, if a vocalist is out of tune in a recorded song, it is NOT because they are trying to be natural, it's because autotune could not effectively correct the pitch without the noticeable pitch shift sounds. They just actually suck that bad.

Granted, yes our goal is to sound as perfect on stage as we do on compact disc, but to sell cds and make them the most appealing to all audiences (mainly those with the ears of perfect pitch) you have to use software to correct MISTAKES. Because that is what they are. Pitch mistakes.......

So if your drummer is having a difficult time hitting the rhythm perfectly of your triple bass lines and it sounds sloppy, (since you are so anti-autotune 'bandwagon'.....and please retort with another bandwagon comment. That would be great with your superior intellect.....) you would rather KEEP the sloppy drum part than waste time in the studio with him playing it over and over and over and over and over? Or would you have the engineer run drumagog on it and correct all the triple bass hits to the time they are supposed to be in? Because that is exactly the same thing vocalists are doing with autotune. Most engineers will autotune songs without a second thought or notice that it's happening.

Nearly EVERY single song on the radio has been run through auto-tune. Don't kid yourself. You CAN'T painfully spot when autotune is used, despite that your prideful and false self-image thinks you can.

so when you record something, you're recording it for those people with perfect pitch? no wonder you're on an internet forum and not on tour rocking out, if you main target is "mainly those with the ears of perfect pitch".
Also i guess you're not a fan of the lo-fi genre? and live takes? do you know that some bands, besides those on mtv and i guess, radio, actually record stuff without overdubs and digital stuff? i'm not saying it sounds better, but it's not a rule to use all the technology possible to sound good. the white stripes have made it to most of the "best of the decade" lists and they don't use auto tune. it's note a rule.
and i second the justification of that 95% number, and it's on a bitchy-I-think-you're-lying way. it seems that all the music you're considering is those bands who are on the big labels, but there's world outside that

axemanchris
01-09-2010, 10:15 AM
Although the tone is rather biting, I do agree with JackFlash. The major labels want perfectly tuned vocals, and they will impose it if they want it. They are the sort of entity that will even add it after the fact, even if the band doesn't want it. The band can pat themselves on the back for not using it, the label gets a perfect product, and the producer quietly cashes his paycheque and keeps his mouth shut, because his reputation is his future business.

When autotune (or Melodyne, which is even better) is used for *minor* pitch correction, and used judiciously, I would defy *anyone* to pick it out. *Anyone.* You don't hear it, so you assume it's not there.... but it is.


CT

Withakay
01-09-2010, 11:26 AM
I'm going to take a bit of an issue with the Madonna example. She was around before anyone even dreamed that a computer could correct pitch difficulties. She *can* sing.Hey Chris, yes I know. Actually I've been around that long too. :-) I didn't write she uses auto-tune though. I just pointed out that she is deceiving us too by pretending to sing live nowadays.
Now, I wouldn't find it surprising, in spite of that, to find out that she lip syncs her shows. (...) People know she isn't singing, but they're okay with that. So, if everyone is okay with that, then why not?But people don't know that. After the last show in my country there was a bit of an outrage when they found out. People felt let-down.
And really... If I was a Madonna fan, I would rather see her perform her show perfectly and give me what I want and lip sync the show than have her come out and sound all winded for the last half of the show, as a result of the dancing that she does.Some artist can. I bet P!nk doesn't lip-synch and she is in the same market (for lack of a better term). And if I want to see people dance, I go see a dance show.

I went to see Muse a few weeks ago, and let me tell you up front: I like them a lot. But I was seriously disappointed to clearly hear a synth in some songs while there were only the three band members on stage.
Good for you. Do want a cookie? (...) Your ignorance is a waste of my time.Come on, man. Your arguments are fine but no need to antagonize.
95% of producers, engineers, labels, and bands DO use autotune before they finish putting out their cd. It is almost an industry standard that autotune is applied to tracks before they are mastered.If the number is that high, why are one third of the songs I hear on the radio out-of-tune? Why can't we just have good musicians with decent skills who do not need fixing their voices? Why has the industry lowered its standards to the level that we need fixing and cheating at every turn of the road?
Granted, yes our goal is to sound as perfect on stage as we do on compact disc, but to sell cds and make them the most appealing to all audiences (mainly those with the ears of perfect pitch) you have to use software to correct MISTAKES. Because that is what they are. Pitch mistakes.In my opinion, if they can't put out a few perfect four-five second takes over a whole day recording, then they are not good, and they don't deserve the praise. And no way a singer who can't keep in pitch for a whole song is ever going to be a good live performer.

Withakay
01-09-2010, 11:36 AM
The major labels want perfectly tuned vocals, and they will impose it if they want it. They are the sort of entity that will even add it after the fact, even if the band doesn't want it. The band can pat themselves on the back for not using it, the label gets a perfect product, and the producer quietly cashes his paycheque and keeps his mouth shut, because his reputation is his future business.I'm almost afraid to ask, Chris, but do you? As a producer? And as a singer?
When autotune (or Melodyne, which is even better) is used for *minor* pitch correction, and used judiciously, I would defy *anyone* to pick it out.I don't doubt that. I actually think it's incredible technology. But just like the atom bomb, I think it shouldn't be used.

I also agree that the tone of this thread is turning sour. People, this is not The Pit. Please respect each other's opinions.

Black Star
01-09-2010, 12:26 PM
..........ACTUALLY it is not 'painfully obvious' when someone is using autotune. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back a little harder because of your perfect ear to hear not only the millisecond pitch shifts it executes, but that you can tell the difference which songs use autotune and which ones don't......


.....No go ahead, keep patting.....I'll wait till you are done.............



95% of producers, engineers, labels, and bands DO use autotune before they finish putting out their cd. It is almost an industry standard that autotune is applied to tracks before they are mastered. I don't understand why people are happy with flat notes and the inability to hit pitches. Does it make the song that much more enjoyable for you to know that the song is totally raw and sounds like sht? Get off your high horse. More than likely, if a vocalist is out of tune in a recorded song, it is NOT because they are trying to be natural, it's because autotune could not effectively correct the pitch without the noticeable pitch shift sounds. They just actually suck that bad.


If the singing is flat and the singer can't sing, they shouldn't be singing anyways. It really isn't that hard to tell if a person is using autotune, though it does get harder to tell the closer the singer is to the right pitch, since there is not as noticeable of a jump. I also want to point out that autotune can sometimes mess around with a person's vibrato, which can be a glaring sign. Singing correctly, you always have some vibrato, except for a very small percentage of people. If it's not there on a recording, something's amiss.

I would say 95% of mainstream producers, engineers, labels, and bands uses autotune. It's a far stretch to say 95% of all bands. It would come as a true shock to me if even half of all metal bands, indie bands, and/or blues artists used it.

I'm interested, though. Why is it you think the music all of us listen to has flat singers who can't sing the right pitches? Of course I'm not happy with singers like that, that's why I don't listen to them. But I don't like the sound of excessive autotune, either.

Now, I do want to clarify something. I'm perfectly alright with autotune being used as a failsafe. As long as it's not used as a crutch. Also, as said, *minor* corrections are also alright, as long as it doesn't go overboard.

Zycho
01-09-2010, 01:14 PM
I don't think people realize that pretty much any record that's produced these days has auto-tune on the vocals. A very minor amount, but auto-tune none the less.

isaac_bandits
01-09-2010, 02:54 PM
so when you record something, you're recording it for those people with perfect pitch? no wonder you're on an internet forum and not on tour rocking out, if you main target is "mainly those with the ears of perfect pitch".

If you make a record that has perfectly in tune vocals, people with perfect pitch will like it (subjectiveness aside) and people with relative pitch will like it too, as it results in all of the intervals being in tune, and people who have bad senses of pitch wouldn't like it any less than out of tune vocals. They just wouldn't notice.

If you set a standard for the pickiest listeners, the less picky ones will like it too.

Also i guess you're not a fan of the lo-fi genre? and live takes? do you know that some bands, besides those on mtv and i guess, radio, actually record stuff without overdubs and digital stuff? i'm not saying it sounds better, but it's not a rule to use all the technology possible to sound good. the white stripes have made it to most of the "best of the decade" lists and they don't use auto tune. it's note a rule.

I would assume most of us don't like music with bad production. I know I would rather hear the same song that's produced well, than one that's sloppy, and/or out of tune and/or has bad tone. And live takes can have auto-tune on them...

and i second the justification of that 95% number, and it's on a bitchy-I-think-you're-lying way. it seems that all the music you're considering is those bands who are on the big labels, but there's world outside that

How would you know that bands don't use it? You can't hear it if you have the settings right, and are singing close to in tune.


I went to see Muse a few weeks ago, and let me tell you up front: I like them a lot. But I was seriously disappointed to clearly hear a synth in some songs while there were only the three band members on stage.

What would you rather have: a recording of the synth part? A person backstage playing the synth part? Some guy that's not part of the band playing it? The song missing the synth part?

I know that I used to feel it was "cheating" to have the synth part just going on with no-one on stage playing it, and as most bands don't want to have a synth player on stage with them, I would've rather heard the song without it. Now, I've decided that I'd rather hear a good final product.

I have no doubts that most of the guys in most bands would be able to play the synth parts for their songs if not playing their normal instruments. Afterall, they are professional musicians, and most synth parts are quite simple.

Why can't we just have good musicians with decent skills who do not need fixing their voices? Why has the industry lowered its standards to the level that we need fixing and cheating at every turn of the road?
In my opinion, if they can't put out a few perfect four-five second takes over a whole day recording, then they are not good, and they don't deserve the praise. And no way a singer who can't keep in pitch for a whole song is ever going to be a good live performer.

Well what are you standards for in tune?

Try this: Get your guitar and a tuner (the kind with a mic, not just the line in). Make sure your guitar is tuned and play a note that is comfortable for your range. Then sing that note as you heard it. Does your tuner say your perfectly in tune? I know most tuners with most voices will have the person's voice a couple cents sharp or flat. You could play that song and sing it, and it would sound fine to most people (since a difference of a couple cents isn't even noticeable), but the autotune will just make it exactly right. They are good musicians.


I don't doubt that. I actually think it's incredible technology. But just like the atom bomb, I think it shouldn't be used.


Why shouldn't it be used? Does it make music "too easy"? Its not really any different than the drummer playing to a click track to stay in time. You could argue that drummers should have a perfect sense of timing, rather than relying on a metronome, so that they aren't 2 bpm fast at the end of a song (a similar error margin to what auto-tune is usually correcting).

If the singing is flat and the singer can't sing, they shouldn't be singing anyways. It really isn't that hard to tell if a person is using autotune, though it does get harder to tell the closer the singer is to the right pitch, since there is not as noticeable of a jump. I also want to point out that autotune can sometimes mess around with a person's vibrato, which can be a glaring sign. Singing correctly, you always have some vibrato, except for a very small percentage of people. If it's not there on a recording, something's amiss.

Have you ever used auto-tune?

I've played around with it, and you really can't tell if your just singing steady pitches. When you start doing glissandos, and it jumps by semitones rather then being smooth its obvious, but if you sing flat/sharp on purpose (by like 10-20 cents) then it just bumps it up, and the tone sounds fine (if you have it set up right). You can also set up autotune to auto-vibrato someone's voice after the pitch has been corrected.

dullsilver_mike
01-09-2010, 04:27 PM
Nearly EVERY producer/engineer uses autotune or some form of it to strengthen the musical quality of the records they produce. If you want a quality sounding album, use it. Even if the vocalist doesn't necessarily need it, use it to clean up the microscopic parts he deviated pitch on.


Now that's an exaggeration. I've heard at least as much if not more complaining about using autotune subtly than I have about using it as a specific musical effect. A big portion singers get up their own butt over the issue and how " a real singer shouldn't need it" a lot of producers feel that even subtly used it sucks some of the "organic" sound of a recording--and it is still noticeable to careful ears.

I'm not saying I have a problem with it personally, but I think at least half of the whining isn't even over autotune as an effect in pop music, it's as a crutch that can be detrimental to accurately representing the human voice and the technical skill of singers.

axemanchris
01-10-2010, 12:55 AM
^Actually, as a singer and as a producer, I don't use it. Here's why:

1. It's expensive.
2. I have found, over the years, that often times (most times), it is faster to re-sing the part than it is to edit the crap out of it.
3. As a musician, and as a producer, I draw the line between well-produced and over-produced at that point where you can no longer do live what you can in the studio. If I can't sing it or play it live, I don't want to record it.
4. As much as I like to be as perfect as I can be, I can't justify the expense, given items #2 and #3.

... though I have found that it would be nice to have for some clients I have recorded....

CT

dougl126
01-10-2010, 01:16 AM
okay, but dont be surprised when you get done with a live gig and the "fans" complain because you dont sound as good as on your record...

Withakay
01-10-2010, 08:33 AM
If you make a record that has perfectly in tune vocals, people with perfect pitch will like it (subjectiveness aside) and people with relative pitch will like it too, as it results in all of the intervals being in tune, and people who have bad senses of pitch wouldn't like it any less than out of tune vocals. They just wouldn't notice.
If you set a standard for the pickiest listeners, the less picky ones will like it too.That is well said. Too bad you're pitching for the other side. ;-)[On Muse live] What would you rather have: a recording of the synth part? A person backstage playing the synth part? Some guy that's not part of the band playing it? The song missing the synth part?I'd prefer Muse having a fourth member playing the synth, both in studio and on stage. But I'd settle with either a good session player coming along on tour or Muse performing songs differently than on the album.

You know, that synth part was hardly noticeable at the concert anyway. It may sound great on the record, but it wouldn't have made a big difference if it was missing live.I have no doubts that most of the guys in most bands would be able to play the synth parts for their songs if not playing their normal instruments. Afterall, they are professional musicians, and most synth parts are quite simple.I agree, just as much as I know Madonna can sing. But once you are caught as a fraud, everything is up for grabs, and I should now doubt the entire setup. Maybe the drummer wasn't really playing live either. Maybe none of them were...

I don't really believe that. And I still like Muse. But I cannot help feeling cheated.Well what are you standards for in tune? (...) sing that note as you heard it. Does your tuner say your perfectly in tune? I know most tuners with most voices will have the person's voice a couple cents sharp or flat.That's again an excellent point. I think there is an average that sounds pleasing. I don't have perfect pitch, but I go nuts when the pitch is too much out-of-tune. I think the trick is to gravitate around the right pitch enough. Violin players and (sadly only the better) electric guitarists use vibrato for instance.

There's this song Salvador (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyOXivZcXJw) by Jamie T that I like a lot, even though his voice is terrible in that song. It's sliding out of tune the whole time, but it keeps floating around the correct pitch.Why shouldn't it be used? Does it make music "too easy"?No, because it's deception. The only thing a singer must be able to do is sing. If (s)he can't do that, then why should I respect her/him? And I take great offence at being fooled. Its not really any different than the drummer playing to a click track to stay in time. You could argue that drummers should have a perfect sense of timing, rather than relying on a metronome, so that they aren't 2 bpm fast at the end of a song (a similar error margin to what auto-tune is usually correcting).But I don't mind those 2 bpm, as long as the drummer plays nice organic patterns. And if he is sloppy, I wouldn't want to be in his band. Nor would I buy this band's records. Have you ever seen a concert pianist performing with a metronome? (S)he'd be the laughing stock if that ever happened. Why should we settle for less quality? Because this is only rock/pop? Because we are young? Because we are naive?

Allow me to grow a spine.

isaac_bandits
01-10-2010, 10:46 AM
okay, but dont be surprised when you get done with a live gig and the "fans" complain because you dont sound as good as on your record...

Do you not realize that you can use auto-tune live?

I think the trick is to gravitate around the right pitch enough. Violin players and (sadly only the better) electric guitarists use vibrato for instance.

Sadly only the good violinists use vibrato too. However, you never hear bad ones perform, so its not an issue. I think the problem with guitarists is that there are so many bad ones who get to play.

The only thing a singer must be able to do is sing.

You still have to be able to sing to use auto-tune. All it does is correct pitch, but that pitch still needs to be somewhat close, and the singer needs to have good tone, and rhythm.

And I take great offence at being fooled.

But you aren't being fooled if you know your being fooled (well not actually being fooled, they're just trying to fool you). Can't you just enjoy the music while in the back of your head you know they're not actually playing all the parts?

But I don't mind those 2 bpm, as long as the drummer plays nice organic patterns. And if he is sloppy, I wouldn't want to be in his band. Nor would I buy this band's records.

It's just like a singer. A drummer has to be able to play, but most professionals still play to a click track because its important to play in time. You can't use any loops, or, dare-I-say-it, recorded synth parts, if the band is playing 2bpm fast. Singer's have to be able to sing well, but they still use auto-tune as a fail-safe so that they don't hit that one note which is 10 cents flat.

Have you ever seen a concert pianist performing with a metronome? (S)he'd be the laughing stock if that ever happened. Why should we settle for less quality? Because this is only rock/pop? Because we are young? Because we are naive?


Most concert pianists don't need a metronome, because they are playing alone, and don't need to make sure that any recordings that come on later will be in time with them. And they use so much rubato that it'd be silly to try to stay at one tempo, and would usually detract from the song.

eaton1012
01-10-2010, 02:00 PM
No more Auto-Tune!!
Get this guy some singing lessons, he probably isn't breathing the right way.

take_it_t
01-10-2010, 07:49 PM
I don't see how a drummer playing to a metronome is the same, because you aren't modifying or processing the performance, you're only changing the method for which the drummer is finding the beat. The equivalent would be a vocalist listening to a perfectly pitched guide track and singing along.

Withakay
01-10-2010, 11:45 PM
Sadly only the good violinists use vibrato too. However, you never hear bad ones perform, so its not an issue. I think the problem with guitarists is that there are so many bad ones who get to play.Well, by extension, that's kind of my point, isn't it? Only bad singers need auto-tune.
But you aren't being fooled if you know your being fooledI know you're talking about the Muse concert here, but I was surprised they pulled this off. I never knew. And with respect to auto-tune, I've never seen any warning on an album stating: "Pitch-corrected with auto-tune". Other people have written in previous posts that producers are asked by certain label execs to 'clean up' the vocal tracks, sometimes unbeknownst to the performer. Now, if that is not deception, I eat my hat.
Actually, as a singer and as a producer, I don't use it. (...) If I can't sing it or play it live, I don't want to record it.Pfew! What a relief! Chris, man, you just went up a few notches in my esteem. :-)

axemanchris
01-11-2010, 12:09 AM
:D Thanks, man!

Of course, I don't have any label people imposing anything on me, either, so... haha For better or for worse, I am making music entirely on my own terms. Having a good job outside of music allows me to do that.

CT

Primus2112
01-15-2010, 03:25 AM
For a more upbeat song that's not too hard to stay on pitch with; Wannabe In LA - Eagles Of Death Metal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW0pzrqKOec


Jesse Hughes isn't really much of a high singer, at least of the EODM songs I've heard.

a7xb4d
01-16-2010, 09:26 PM
Don't use autotune because your vocalist can't sing a certain type of song. If he can't sing that type of song, then have someone who can sing it sing it, and have him do the other stuff.

Footrot Ninja
01-16-2010, 09:59 PM
I'd prefer Muse having a fourth member playing the synth, both in studio and on stage.

Muse have some extra people on stage when they play live. The guy who does some backing vox, synths and sometimes bass is Morgan Nicholls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Nicholls). He stands at the back so I guess you probably wouldn't see him easily, but you can clearly see him on the H.A.A.R.P. dvd. They also have a trumpet player for a few songs. The only backing track I know they use is the orchestra part on Butterflies and Hurricanes.

/musefanboyknowledge