Page 1 of 4
#1
I am looking for a legit source that explains what it is and how it is harmful to music.

If you want to complain about auto tune, feel free.
I am the only sane person on the planet. Does that make me crazy?

Crank the Mids
#5
I think it's fine. It's sort of like a talk box that replicates the sound of your voice instead of the instrument you're playing. Sounds stupid, but the idea is cool I think.
Jackson RR5 ivory w/ EMG 81/85
Jackson DX6 w/ SD Distortion & Dimarzio Super Distortion
Fender Starcaster Sunburst
Mesa/Boogie DC-3
Johnson JT50 Mirage
Ibanez TS-9
Morley Bad Horsie 2
Boss CE-5

ISP Decimator
Boss DD-6
Korg Pitchblack
#7
anyone have a source i can use in a research paper?
I am the only sane person on the planet. Does that make me crazy?

Crank the Mids
#9
Anyone who can help my paper, i'll post it if you want.
I am the only sane person on the planet. Does that make me crazy?

Crank the Mids
#10
Quote by apak
I think it's fine. It's sort of like a talk box that replicates the sound of your voice instead of the instrument you're playing. Sounds stupid, but the idea is cool I think.

I think you may be thinking of a vocoder. Auto-tune is used for pitch correction.
Banging on a trash can
Drumming on a street light
#11
Let's back up a second- you want research papers that provide a qualitative opinion on whether something is ruining music? These are inherently biased, if such research papers have been written. You cannot empirically measure the "ruin index" of something used in art and performance. Your paper's sources are flawed to begin with.

And also, research papers involve research, so really, why should we do your work for you?
#12
One i was just asking for help and i am looking and checking here too. Secondly, the point is to say how men destroy something as sacred as art, merely to make money. I was referencing to auto-tune because it takes out the talent portion of music and what it truly means to be an artist.

"Most people take advantage of the simplicities and luxuries of life; the arts receive the greatest collateral damage from the greed amongst men. Something used for thousands of years that is arguably the most important thing in any person’s life has become an avenue for a “get rich quick” scheme. Pop icons such as Miley Cyrus exemplify how the life of a pop star is completely asinine. She uses a stage name, Hannah Montana, to avoid the idiocies of normal people who cannot conceive the idea of good music, and are caught in what people tell them (Hannah Montana). If someone says music is good, people believe them. Nobody takes the time to discover what real music is, nor do they explore greater horizons to what music can represent. Corporations take advantage of this and use the ignorance of people to attain what they want most: money and lavish comfort. "

Then i talk about auto tune.
I am the only sane person on the planet. Does that make me crazy?

Crank the Mids
#13
Quote by Deliriumbassist
Let's back up a second- you want research papers that provide a qualitative opinion on whether something is ruining music? These are inherently biased, if such research papers have been written. You cannot empirically measure the "ruin index" of something used in art and performance. Your paper's sources are flawed to begin with.

And also, research papers involve research, so really, why should we do your work for you?

(Invalid img)
burn.
Banging on a trash can
Drumming on a street light
#14
Quote by Bluesy...
anyone have a source i can use in a research paper?



You want to write a research paper on this?


Christ.
#15
Right, so how the hell are you going to prove that autotune users = only for the money performers? What about the fact that almost every band around will have used Autotune to an extent in order to help streamline the recording process, which involves 14 hour days? Try singing for 14 hours- I doubt you'd be able to keep hitting the right notes consistently. Not many people can. What is "real music" and how can you define it and back up that definition?

What you have written is not the beginning of a research paper, it's the ramblings of an infantile music snob. I'm not trying to be mean, but you can do a much better research paper than what will simply become a biased opinion paper.
#17
Quote by Bluesy...
One i was just asking for help and i am looking and checking here too. Secondly, the point is to say how men destroy something as sacred as art, merely to make money. I was referencing to auto-tune because it takes out the talent portion of music and what it truly means to be an artist.

"Most people take advantage of the simplicities and luxuries of life; the arts receive the greatest collateral damage from the greed amongst men. Something used for thousands of years that is arguably the most important thing in any person’s life has become an avenue for a “get rich quick” scheme. Pop icons such as Miley Cyrus exemplify how the life of a pop star is completely asinine. She uses a stage name, Hannah Montana, to avoid the idiocies of normal people who cannot conceive the idea of good music, and are caught in what people tell them (Hannah Montana). If someone says music is good, people believe them. Nobody takes the time to discover what real music is, nor do they explore greater horizons to what music can represent. Corporations take advantage of this and use the ignorance of people to attain what they want most: money and lavish comfort. "

Then i talk about auto tune.

Instead of jumping to a conclusion and then trying to find evidence to support it, why don't you write a paper that poses the question: "is auto-tune destroying music?"

After doing your research, you'll probably end up with the following answer: "No."
Banging on a trash can
Drumming on a street light
#18
Art is creative. Being a talented artist in terms of music is about composing music. Good singing is great, but it makes you a talented singer, not a talented artist. If a talented songwriter can make their song sound better through effects, then more power to them.

That said, noticeable autotune sounds like a fucking arsehole. Unless it's electronic music.
I'LL PUNCH A DONKEY IN THE STREETS OF GALWAY
Last edited by whalepudding at Dec 1, 2009,
#19
autotune sounds great when you know how to sing.
Most of the important things


in the world have been accomplished


by people who have kept on


trying when there seemed to be no hope at all
#20
Quote by Deliriumbassist
Right, so how the hell are you going to prove that autotune users = only for the money performers? What about the fact that almost every band around will have used Autotune to an extent in order to help streamline the recording process, which involves 14 hour days? Try singing for 14 hours- I doubt you'd be able to keep hitting the right notes consistently. Not many people can. What is "real music" and how can you define it and back up that definition?

What you have written is not the beginning of a research paper, it's the ramblings of an infantile music snob. I'm not trying to be mean, but you can do a much better research paper than what will simply become a biased opinion paper.


the point of my paper is to say that greed amongst men destroy itself. (that makes sense in my head) and i use auto tune as an example.
I am the only sane person on the planet. Does that make me crazy?

Crank the Mids
#22
Quote by Nelsean
autotune sounds great when you know how to sing.

this
people use it to try and make up for their crap singing and it sounds evan worse >.<
Quote by neopowell
That would be amazing. "I WILL BURN EVERYTHING!" *Garrigan appears with bucket* "Fuck this for a giggle, I'm outta here..."

Blog?
follow me
#23
Here is my paper.

Waves on a Cliff
“We [as human beings] are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess” (Twain). Man is never satisfied with his own talents, abilities, or achievements. Something always lurks within him, always pining for more. Mankind’s evolution as a species spiked in the last century, due to a superfluity of technological advancements. The questions man asks and the ambition within him contribute to the success thereof. Every progression he makes for advancement only adds to the avarice that influences his actions. Despite his many achievements he has turned into something with no inner self. Achievements of wealth and prosperity influence his actions. Man can never achieve a simple, happy life, although some religions attempt to grasp this concept, yet this life cannot be achieved through the hateful and materialistic actions he currently ensues upon; he should not act for personal gain or glory, but act only through a set of core beliefs and doing only what is right. Even in something as pure as art, man looks for ways to further his position and destroys something sacred in the midst, and thus mankind continues to erode the landscape that is humanity and culture.
Every want is derived from an initial need. Human beings have necessities to survive, different ones to live, and then there are the lavish desires surrounding them. These things that compel us to act are like cake. Cake has three basic parts: frosting, filling, and the cake itself. One obviously cannot have a cake without the cake itself, which represents the basic necessities of life: the ingredients in the batter being the basic survival needs. The frosting represents the material items that people think they cannot live without, things that merely make life better. Although there are types of cake without frosting, but most people prefer frosting opposed to the cake by itself. The filling is the part of life that acts as lavish desires that are unneeded but still an enjoyable function. Yet few people would prefer a simple and small angel food cake with no frosting or filling if they could afford a layered and lavish one. There are even competitions for who can make the most extravagant, eloquent and elaborate cake. Life is the same way for some people. People compete with each other to see who can become the best: get the prettiest spouse, become the most successful, make the most money, and achieve greatness.
Everything done is done with desire, not even necessarily by one’s own consciousness. People act upon what other people think, not necessarily by what is right. Man acts in a manner to further his position and loses himself in the process:
Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu wrote 2500 years ago: ‘There is no greater calamity than lavish desires, no greater guilt than discontentment and no greater disaster than greed.’…human beings continue to be reshaped by consumer culture into restless, dissatisfied, and all desiring economic pawns (Schumaker).
This idea of vanity has lurked within man for thousands of years. He always wants more; enough is never enough. One could argue that by acting to preserve oneself is not acting out of desire, but merely survival; however, in acting with one’s own best interest, they want what is best for them and want to preserve their being. But all of these wants and needs consume man because he is so gluttonous. He is a bottomless pit with desires never satiated. Every decision he makes is to further his own position in some way, shape or form: whether it be a physical manifestation of reward, or a simple positive emotion by doing something that one feels is right. However, not many people act in a righteous manner anymore; they only partake in good deeds for selfish reasons. Under countless circumstances people choose to do things for other people for the mere gratification, not because of the fact that it is the right thing to do. Derrick Jensen, an activist and author, compares the corporate entrepreneur, a person renowned within a capitalist society to an “economic manifestation of the Buddhist notion of 'hungry ghosts'—spirits that roam the earth, always eating, never satiated.” This is what man has become: an ethereal shell that gives the illusion of success. If these are the role models, the leaders of our society, how can man ever achieve what is right? Is he too far gone, too damaged beyond repair?
I am the only sane person on the planet. Does that make me crazy?

Crank the Mids
#24
Most people are unaware of their actions. They have little, if any character and “develop their minds in simply benefiting themselves. Thus if they do benefit themselves and some perversity is the outcome, they are unaware [of it].” The same principle applies to propriety as well as obstinacy (Chonzanshi 128). If man is unaware of his own folly, as well as his good deeds, how is he to understand what to change? A man only knows what he is taught, nothing more, nothing less. Hate is taught through actions of those around them. Everybody knows that it is wrong to hate, yet gluttonous and lavish action with money is completely condoned within society. People lack respect for anything and anyone, including themselves. However, a belief in Hinduism known as Namaste states “the god in me respects the god in you” (Bhagavad-Gita). This belief is something that some people use as their credo, something people use to act in a way that is morally correct. Nobody takes the time to look past the skin deep foolishness of senseless banter between what is right and lack the capacity to respect the differences of others and only act in their own moral codes uninhibited by the foolishness of others. This idea is something that should be accepted through all people, but is only used by those who practice the religion, and yogis. And those are only the ones who know about it. Even still, there are many people in all religions that do not fully practice and respect every single part of their religion because there are things in their life that have greater prevalence, the greatest of which: money.
Money corrupts people by giving them a sense of power, a sense of achievement. If a person has more money, they feel better about themselves. A common cliché used in attempts to avoid this corruption states: “money does not buy happiness;” but it certainly buys everything else. There are many things that attribute to this concept. Money is used as a measure of success “…but there is a dark side to this fact: People tend to forget that money is only a measure. Some people focus on money for its own sake” (Brooks). In thus, they lose sight of what really matters. Happiness finishes in last to ambition and success in this race of life. Happiness can only be achieved after one accepts the dark and cold reality of life. This acceptance relates to the Japanese concept of Tzu Jan, defined as spontaneity and the nature within. In The Demon’s Sermon on the Martial Arts, This is one of the defining principles of attaining complete control of one’s mind and to always prevail (Chozanshi 26). The human brain is capable of achieving great things, but when it is tainted with silly ambition and foolishness, it cannot achieve anything. It will always fail. But if you allow it to be pure within itself, untainted, and uninfluenced, then the mind can overcome any obstacle. Man does not allow his minds to be spontaneous. He is influenced by the stupidities of those around him and allow ambition to blind his true nature.
In conversation, a question arises as a matter of a formality, people ask “what do you do?” In the answer to this question one can determine all that they need to know about someone purely on their job, how much they have. People need the satisfaction of others in order for them to feel some form of self worth. Most of this satisfaction occurs with material things. High school students spend hundreds of dollars on a single outfit, solely to flash their status. Similarly, they buy pointless objects such as a “grill,” a form of jewelry worn on the teeth, which serves no purpose other than for people to ask how much they spent on it (Kopkowski). This materialistic world in which we live in is so asinine that nobody ever takes the time to think about why they do what they do. A weak minded person is influenced easily. Man puts a dollar value on everything. Things that have a higher dollar value are worth more, according to him. However, something small, cheap, and resourceful can be more valuable than anything that anyone ever could buy.
Most people take advantage of the simplicities and luxuries of life; the arts receive the greatest collateral damage from the greed amongst men. Something used for thousands of years that is arguably the most important thing in any person’s life has become an avenue for a “get rich quick” scheme. Pop icons such as Miley Cyrus exemplify how the life of a pop star is completely asinine. She uses a stage name, Hannah Montana, to avoid the idiocies of normal people who cannot conceive the idea of good music, and are caught in what people tell them (Hannah Montana). If someone says music is good, people believe them. Nobody takes the time to discover what real music is, nor do they explore greater horizons to what music can represent. Corporations take advantage of this and use the ignorance of people to attain what they want most: money and lavish comfort. Many new pop stars use a pitch correction program known as auto tune. This makes popular music “perfect” in a way because it removes the human error by using a computer, “like using Photoshop for the human voice” (Tyrangiel). But Photoshop, as well as auto-tune are only good if used in moderation. The idea of a device that eliminates parts of a musical creation and “corrects” it is completely foolish. Art is the expression of one’s soul through music, yet people feel the need to alter it, just to make a quick buck. Even in the most traditional form of the music world, classical composers take advantage of their credentials and try to make the most money, not the best music. An outrageous amount of money is spent on few people in the classical music world, and they continue to make music not for the music itself, but for the fame, the glory, and mostly, the fortune (Kuerti). In order for an artist to live in any society well, they have to sell their art, and sometimes must compromise what they think is the best work in order to survive. But there is only so much one really needs to survive. Someone who sells their soul for the sake of money does not deserve it for not creating what is truly within their soul. These men destroy the sanctity of what art truly represents. The biggest part of man’s culture wilts away like the prettiest rose whose water is frivolously wasted.
This progressive path of destruction that man ensues seems to never end. Is there no hope? Man has proven how he cannot look past his ambition, his vanity. Some attempt a happy life through the simplicity of faith. But man has lost his faith in anything that is worth true value, not a price. Man is deeply flawed in his basic design, and has known these flaws for thousands of years. Our aspirations consume our lives and skew our perspective upon what life can be. Happiness is something people think they can achieve by making money, not by believing in anything. People who want to be happy want a simple life, yet they complicate it by acting in foolish ways. This problem can be fixed, but the only way to do so is for man to clear his mind of foolish behavior and to have faith in something non-material. The only problem with the solution is that man is to ignorant and foolish to see his own folly and does nothing to fix it but to wallow in ignorance to give him a shred of hope, hope that his life is nearly done and that he has caused his own demise, for it is his nature, like a cliff eroding in the waves: nothing to stop it, sad, but true.
I am the only sane person on the planet. Does that make me crazy?

Crank the Mids
#25
Quote by BigFatSandwich
Instead of jumping to a conclusion and then trying to find evidence to support it, why don't you write a paper that poses the question: "is auto-tune destroying music?"

After doing your research, you'll probably end up with the following answer: "No."


This. If done properly, it could be a formidable topic.
98% of people have read that stupid 98% teens and alcohol sig, put this in your sig if you like getting hammered.

Thats it.
#26
That's right. People who like music you don't, or are less passionate about music than you, are really just stupid, idiotic "normal people". Knobhead.

And how does using a pitch correction program ruin the art, or make the music any less an expression of the soul? The effect of the autotune is closer to what they want the piece to sound like, why are they not expressing themselves further by using it? It achieves the same sound, if used well. Why is the out-of-tune sound of someone who hasn't given a perfect performance an expression of the soul, while an artificial recreation of the sound they had in their head, the sound they wanted, isn't?

And how is it any more artificial than distortion, EQing, pre-reverb, or any other effect?

In short, your example is shit and you come across as (and probably are) an elitist, ignorant, closed-minded nutsack.
I'LL PUNCH A DONKEY IN THE STREETS OF GALWAY
Last edited by whalepudding at Dec 1, 2009,
#28
Quote by Bluesy...
the point of my paper is to say that greed amongst men destroy itself. (that makes sense in my head) and i use auto tune as an example.



To re-iterate what I said earlier:


Christ.


As for your paper, here's a hint: sticking a load of quotes in does not make it 'better'. The idea of it being a 'research' paper is also downright lolworthy. It's your stance backed up by a bunch of unconnected things said by people a very long time ago. Utterly pointless.
Last edited by webbtje at Dec 1, 2009,
#30
Warrel Dane doesn't. You can tell because he sometimes goes slightly out of tune and doesn't give a shit.
I'LL PUNCH A DONKEY IN THE STREETS OF GALWAY
#31
Quote by pataldo
Auto-tune is like masturbation, everyone does it, they just don't want everyone else to know.


this.


auto-tuning is a problem because it's not a well known thing. people are getting credit for being talented singers, when in reality they can't hold a note. that title says it all, you could be a great songwriter and a great musician, but a terrible singer. so why leave that out of every interview, that without autotuning it would sound like a turd taking a shit.
RIFT.CANYON.DREAMS.


Quote by Oroborous
I'm trying to cover one of my bedroom walls in semen. I'm about half way done.

Pics coming soon
#32
I'm sorry, with my experience, you HAVE TO ACTUALLY KNOW HOW TO SING ON KEY for autotune to even work. All it does is make that "snapping sound" to put it in elementary terms. I have anteres Auto-Tune and I use it all the time for fun. You can even ajdust it to do it smoothly without noticing.

If you cannot sing semi on key, all it does is snap your voice to the closest precise note. and if you're off, it's still off key.

Now vocoders are different, you can actually play the notes on the keyboard/synth and not be on key at all, but the key of your voice will be the exact pitch of the intrument.

Then there are pitch-correction programs like "Melodyne" where you can actually go into the sound wave, and bring up or down the pitch of individual sung parts, which is great if you've sung a whole part and went flat in a spot or two, but Auto-Tune could also fix that.
Last edited by Ignite at Dec 1, 2009,
#33
I use the format of auto tune to describe how someone who is not talented in a vocal manner is getting credit for it. And they get paid more money than someone who could actually sing and write real music. By real i mean music that requires some form of individuality beyond electronics.

As for electric guitar, you have to know how to play guitar in order for any of those effects to sound decent.

You don't have to know how to sing to use auto tune. It is also used in a point saying that we use computers to solve our problems and that people are stupid or lazy. I compare auto tune to photoshop: good only when used in moderation, but not false representation of what someone really is.

If you take away all of the computerized forms of music, music would be a lot different, and there would be a lot fewer people who could understand it, play it and make money off of it. I am not saying that computerized music is bad, i am pointing out the avarice of men.
I am the only sane person on the planet. Does that make me crazy?

Crank the Mids
#34
Quote by webbtje
To re-iterate what I said earlier:


Christ.


As for your paper, here's a hint: sticking a load of quotes in does not make it 'better'. The idea of it being a 'research' paper is also downright lolworthy. It's your stance backed up by a bunch of unconnected things said by people a very long time ago. Utterly pointless.


I am using basic philosophies that were thought of thousands of years go, yet people acted in the opposite way and that is the cause of such cruel world.
I am the only sane person on the planet. Does that make me crazy?

Crank the Mids
#35
Quote by whalepudding
That's right. People who like music you don't, or are less passionate about music than you, are really just stupid, idiotic "normal people". Knobhead.

And how does using a pitch correction program ruin the art, or make the music any less an expression of the soul? The effect of the autotune is closer to what they want the piece to sound like, why are they not expressing themselves further by using it? It achieves the same sound, if used well. Why is the out-of-tune sound of someone who hasn't given a perfect performance an expression of the soul, while an artificial recreation of the sound they had in their head, the sound they wanted, isn't?

And how is it any more artificial than distortion, EQing, pre-reverb, or any other effect?

In short, your example is shit and you come across as (and probably are) an elitist, ignorant, closed-minded nutsack.


By taking out the part where one has to practice and actually achieve something. If something can be fixed by a computer, people ignore it. The point is that i use autotune as an example of what our society represents, not that it is bad. I say it should only be used in moderation because then it would take away from every point of being a successful musician when music created by someone with little musical ability can receive more money than someone with greater ability and works harder. Using auto tune can be compared to any software program. I m not being close-minded, i choose different examples from a wide range of sources and then surmise an opinion. That is the point of a research paper, by the way.
I am the only sane person on the planet. Does that make me crazy?

Crank the Mids
#37
It's not ruining anything, it's just the latest tool people like to mess with. Similarly to when people realised you could manualy move a record to make noises and swapping speakers using stereo sound. It's overused at the moment like everything else that comes into music. It will die down eventually.
#40
Originally Posted by BigFatSandwich
Instead of jumping to a conclusion and then trying to find evidence to support it, why don't you write a paper that poses the question: "is auto-tune destroying music?"

After doing your research, you'll probably end up with the following answer: "No."



Your essay seems biased and peppered with needless quotes. Id take bigfatsanwich's advice on this.
multicolour random messge!

FAC 13
"The hacienda must be rebuilt"
Page 1 of 4