Re: auto-tune

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"James Boyk" > wrote in message ...
> I confess amazement at use of Auto-Tune, or whatever it's called. A
> musician's intonation is as personal as anything about his or her
> music-making except possibly rhythm. It's one of the things that that
> musician's music personal and identifiable. Of course I'm speaking of
> voice and instruments where the player controls the pitch. As a pianist,
> my only role in this aspect of music-making is to choose the tuner,
> which I do whenever possible.
>
> I'm amazed that anyone would give up control of intonation---or am I
> missing the boat. Is this done on only one or two clunker notes, not on
> the whole line?
>
> James Boyk
>

<reply from a 'bottom feeder' with 30 years of recording>

I am coming to the conclusion that it is being done everywhere that
the client, producer or engineer deems that there is the even the
slightest discrepancy. I also get the feeling that these same people
are merely running, track by track, *all* sources through the device
in a 'passive' mode to check intonation and will stop and correct any
variance that registers on the metering of the device as being slightly
off of the root key (which must be programmed into the device).

I find it rather offensive, as have many of my clients over the years
that Auto-tune been present. However, the more these people are
exposed to the device, the more they seem inclined to use it as a
crutch.

As an occassional crutch is one thing, but 'tuning' every note that varies
in intonation to the point of near perfection actually sounds very *bad*
to me in the end result. Tuning three fiddles (or violins) for example,
that comprise three notes of a chord to be in *perfect* pitch using this
machine or software, is very abrasive and unnatural to say the least.

Through the noise of a crowded restaurant not long ago, I could have
sworn that I was actually hearing something that featured Alvin and
The Chipmunks (playing on a juke box, no less). Upon commenting,
my girlfriend said, "No, that's the Dixie Chicks." Sure enough.....

There is an 'auto' mode which can be used to pass the entire track
through and there is the option of being very precise and selecting
only tiny portions of a note. It is a monophonic device in that it will
not function on more than a single note - no 'poly' correction, thank
goodness.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

[Romeo Rondeau]

It's being used way to much, in my opinion... I hear it on nearly everything
coming out of Nashville these days. These guys are using the auto mode with
the slider almost to zero. I prefer to only draw the notes that need to be
fixed, course it would be nice if you didn't have to fix them at all :-)
Autotune on harmonies can get nasty if you go too far, you can hear the
frequencies beating against each other, that's probably the harshness you
are talking about, also when there are a lot of harmonics present in the
signal, you can hear some aliasing type distortion sound in the output.

> I am coming to the conclusion that it is being done everywhere that
> the client, producer or engineer deems that there is the even the
> slightest discrepancy. I also get the feeling that these same people
> are merely running, track by track, *all* sources through the device
> in a 'passive' mode to check intonation and will stop and correct any
> variance that registers on the metering of the device as being slightly
> off of the root key (which must be programmed into the device).
>
> I find it rather offensive, as have many of my clients over the years
> that Auto-tune been present. However, the more these people are
> exposed to the device, the more they seem inclined to use it as a
> crutch.
>
> As an occassional crutch is one thing, but 'tuning' every note that varies
> in intonation to the point of near perfection actually sounds very *bad*
> to me in the end result. Tuning three fiddles (or violins) for example,
> that comprise three notes of a chord to be in *perfect* pitch using this
> machine or software, is very abrasive and unnatural to say the least.
>
> Through the noise of a crowded restaurant not long ago, I could have
> sworn that I was actually hearing something that featured Alvin and
> The Chipmunks (playing on a juke box, no less). Upon commenting,
> my girlfriend said, "No, that's the Dixie Chicks." Sure enough.....
>
> There is an 'auto' mode which can be used to pass the entire track
> through and there is the option of being very precise and selecting
> only tiny portions of a note. It is a monophonic device in that it will
> not function on more than a single note - no 'poly' correction, thank
> goodness.
>
> --
> David Morgan (MAMS)
> http://www.m-a-m-s.com
> http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

[James Boyk]

To me as a musician, this all sounds insane. What you're describing, I
mean. Don't musicians and engineers realize that "in-tune-ness" cannot
be defined without taking into account the exact context? "B" that's
part of a G7 chord going to C is not the same as "B" that's part of Emin
chord going to C7 going to F. What's implied is that the musicians
don't--even intuitively--understand harmony. Saying it another way,
they're not musicians.

But, OK, I'm sure there are moments--notes--when one is glad to have
such a thing. OK. OK. But to use it throughout a musical line, for an
entire voice? Something's nuts about this.

The ancient Greek trio of basic subjects was math, music and rhetoric
(what we'd call "English"), was it not? I've long known that our culture
is a-mathematical or anti-mathematical. It's well known that it's
illiterate (1/3 of adults functionally illiterate I believe). And now
we're confirming that we're also a-musical. Arg.

James Boyk

[Ekechi K. E. Nwokah]

James Boyk wrote:
>
> I confess amazement at use of Auto-Tune, or whatever it's called. A
> musician's intonation is as personal as anything about his or her
> music-making except possibly rhythm. It's one of the things that that
> musician's music personal and identifiable. Of course I'm speaking of
> voice and instruments where the player controls the pitch. As a pianist,
> my only role in this aspect of music-making is to choose the tuner,
> which I do whenever possible.
>
> I'm amazed that anyone would give up control of intonation---or am I
> missing the boat. Is this done on only one or two clunker notes, not on
> the whole line?
>
> James Boyk

Just about every major label record now has the lead vocal autotuned. It
seems to have become prevalent in the last 2 or 3 years where all of a
sudden everyone has perfect pitch. For background vocals, some do, some
don't. Personally I leave the background vocs alone unless there is a
particularly bad note.

One of the problems is that a lot of the top engineers will have one of
their assistants or the pro tools guy do the autotune because it's so
tedious. However, they just go in and draw a single line at the note
from beginning to end and it is easily (and unpleasantly) audible. Also,
due to budget constraints and such for most projects nowadays, there is
pressure to finish the record in a specific amount of time and therefore
the engineers will sometimes not care about pitch when tracking the
vocal. The problem with is that the farther the singer is from the
correct pitch, the more the Autotuning becomes audible, so you requently
get that "chipmunk" sound because the singer was, say, a whole semitone
under pitch (for the whole track!) when tracking.

Done correctly though, it can have have a major effect on even the best
singers. And once you tune a few notes, you'll find that other notes are
all of a sudden slightly off pitch so you almost always have to tune the
entire vocal track.

I personally prefer a _very_ conservative approach to autotuning, but I
wouldn't dare release a record without the lead vocal tuned at all. Not
if I want radio play. I also usually tune solo string instruments if
it's not a classical record. It saves having the string player do 20
takes (and paying them union wages!!) and the artifacts of autotuning on
strings are not nearly as audible as on a vocal.

Ekechi

[Fill X]

I have a friend doing a lot of major label work where it's demanded by A&R
people etc that things be "just so". He makes Herculean effort to just grab
little parts of notes and use as little as possible of it when it's needed. he
goes for getting the right pitch to begin with but some people are not capable,
sadly. Sadder far though to me, is the demands that certain people place on
engineers to makes things sounds a certain way "or else". And usually "or else"
means Tom Lord Alge is mixing it.

This is the nice things about having a smaller corner of the world. I've never
used auto-tune, nor do I intend to. It's not snobbery, if someone can make me a
better record with it than without it, than it will be the exception that
proves everyone wrong. hey, I still am not sure anyone has made a truly great
record on pro tools yet, though I'm pretty sure that's not the fault of pro
tools.

Lest anyone think I'm a luddite, I do like some movies that are in color.


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

[Artie Turner]

Les Cargill wrote:

> BTW, a B on a G7 is technically a Bb, not a B natural. G7 to C
> is a V7-I ( among others, but that's the main one ). But I
> knew what you meant.

?? Now you know why auto-tune is so prevalent, James! All the G7 chords
I've ever played had G B D F - no B flat. No flats or sharps in the key
of C.

Artie
>

[OKden]

Les Cargill wrote:

> J
>
> BTW, a B on a G7 is technically a Bb, not a B natural. G7 to C
> is a V7-I ( among others, but that's the main one ). But I
> knew what you meant.
>

hmmm...OK then.

[James Boyk]

Les Cargill wrote:
> In the context of by-golly Equal Temperament, the context doesn't matter.

But--goodness!--the only instruments equal-tempered are the ones for
which this is forced by physical necessity.


> Musicians - per se - do not have to understand harmony
any more than actors have to understand writing. They
just have to hit their mark. Granted, the good ones *do*,
but they ain't gotta.

Excuse me for disagreeing; but yes, they gotta. They don't need to know
the names of things, but they gotta understand the "tendencies" of notes
in voice-leading and harmony. And they do understand these things.
There's nothing rare about this. But apparently there's nothing rare
about the opposite, either.

(Surely you're not saying that actors don't have to understand their
roles and the plays!)


> BTW, a B on a G7 is technically a Bb, not a B natural.
G7 to C is a V7-I ( among others, but that's the main one ).
But I knew what you meant.

If G7 to C is V7-I, which is what I meant, then the B in the G7 chord is
indeed a B-natural. For the other example, I meant the B-natural that's
in Emin, moving to the B-flat that's in V7 of F.



> Why? Supppose somebody aesthetially prefers the mechanical-ness of it.

Sure. Fine. I imagine this is case once in a thousand times; or if
there's a fad, 999 in a thousand---for a few months.


> Why on earth would anybody want to play an electric guitar
through an amplifier that's pushed to the point of distress?
Yet an entire industry was spawned from this.

That's a matter of sonority, which is far less crucial musically than pitch.


> In the U.S., the wars are won on the playing fields of
<insert your favorite university here>.

Well, "W" didn't win any wars on any Yale playing fields I know of,
though his dad was a fine collegiate first-baseman, I believe.



> By the same token, the little ( 50k ) town I live in has
a full symphony. May not be top flight, world class, but
it gets the job done and they're competent, so far as I can tell.

That's wonderful. And with all respect to them, sometime go listen to a
top-flight orchestra and hear the difference. One thing is simply that
the dynamic range is a lot wider on both ends (Sheffield Lab found
LAPhil peaking 5 dB louder than Pasadena Symphony in identical circs.)
Also the tone will be much more beautiful and will maintain that beauty
over a wider dynamic range. And the ensemble -- the "togetherness" --
will be a lot better. But I'm not saying this to put down lesser
orchestras. The important thing is to Have an orchestra.

(But I never volunteered to be a weirdo anywhere.)

James Boyk

[Les Cargill]

Artie Turner wrote:
>
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
> > BTW, a B on a G7 is technically a Bb, not a B natural. G7 to C
> > is a V7-I ( among others, but that's the main one ). But I
> > knew what you meant.
>
> ?? Now you know why auto-tune is so prevalent, James! All the G7 chords
> I've ever played had G B D F - no B flat. No flats or sharps in the key
> of C.
>

ROFL! I was thinking "gee seventh minor", not "gee minor seventh".

Sheesh.

> Artie
> >


--
Les Cargill

[John Cafarella]

"James Boyk" > wrote in message
...
> To me as a musician, this all sounds insane. What you're describing, I
> mean. Don't musicians and engineers realize that "in-tune-ness" cannot
> be defined without taking into account the exact context? "B" that's
> part of a G7 chord going to C is not the same as "B" that's part of Emin
> chord going to C7 going to F. What's implied is that the musicians
> don't--even intuitively--understand harmony. Saying it another way,
> they're not musicians.

> James Boyk

No argument here, but how do you cope with that as a pianist?

I can't say that I've ever given any conscious thought to this, but as a
electric bass player (fretted) I find myself sometimes applying a little
subtle vibrato to notes because it "feels" better, more musical. Perhaps
this is why. Not an option on a piano though :-)

--
John Cafarella
End Of the Road Studio
Melbourne, Australia

[Scott Reams]

Autotune, if used correctly, does not force equal temperament. In graphical
mode, the engineer/musician has full control over where a pitch lands.

-S

"James Boyk" > wrote in message
...
> Fill X wrote:
> > I have a friend doing a lot of major label work where it's demanded by
A&R
> > people etc that things be "just so".
>
> If the A&R people think that "just so" means equal-temperament, they are
> amusical idiots.
>
> James Boyk
>

[Les Cargill]

James Boyk wrote:
>
> Les Cargill wrote:
> > In the context of by-golly Equal Temperament, the context doesn't matter.
>
> But--goodness!--the only instruments equal-tempered are the ones for
> which this is forced by physical necessity.
>
> > Musicians - per se - do not have to understand harmony
> any more than actors have to understand writing. They
> just have to hit their mark. Granted, the good ones *do*,
> but they ain't gotta.
>
> Excuse me for disagreeing; but yes, they gotta. They don't need to know
> the names of things, but they gotta understand the "tendencies" of notes
> in voice-leading and harmony. And they do understand these things.
> There's nothing rare about this. But apparently there's nothing rare
> about the opposite, either.
>
> (Surely you're not saying that actors don't have to understand their
> roles and the plays!)
>

I am saying that there are people who are identified as actors who
don't have much of a sense of the work as a sum thing. These may
or may not be *good* actors, but they exist, nonetheless.

Likewise, there are people who are very popular entertainers who
are identified as musicians, who are not very technically adept.

> > BTW, a B on a G7 is technically a Bb, not a B natural.
> G7 to C is a V7-I ( among others, but that's the main one ).
> But I knew what you meant.
>
> If G7 to C is V7-I, which is what I meant, then the B in the G7 chord is
> indeed a B-natural. For the other example, I meant the B-natural that's
> in Emin, moving to the B-flat that's in V7 of F.
>

Of course. Sorry about the error.

> > Why? Supppose somebody aesthetially prefers the mechanical-ness of it.
>
> Sure. Fine. I imagine this is case once in a thousand times; or if
> there's a fad, 999 in a thousand---for a few months.
>

I think it still is a fad. Either that or it's something
the producers feel they need to remain competitive.

I don't get it, either. Sounds like somebody singing through
a comb wrapped in paper.

> > Why on earth would anybody want to play an electric guitar
> through an amplifier that's pushed to the point of distress?
> Yet an entire industry was spawned from this.
>
> That's a matter of sonority, which is far less crucial musically than pitch.
>
> > In the U.S., the wars are won on the playing fields of
> <insert your favorite university here>.
>
> Well, "W" didn't win any wars on any Yale playing fields I know of,
> though his dad was a fine collegiate first-baseman, I believe.
>

I am just saying that music is less represented in the culture
than are sports.

> > By the same token, the little ( 50k ) town I live in has
> a full symphony. May not be top flight, world class, but
> it gets the job done and they're competent, so far as I can tell.
>
> That's wonderful. And with all respect to them, sometime go listen to a
> top-flight orchestra and hear the difference. One thing is simply that
> the dynamic range is a lot wider on both ends (Sheffield Lab found
> LAPhil peaking 5 dB louder than Pasadena Symphony in identical circs.)
> Also the tone will be much more beautiful and will maintain that beauty
> over a wider dynamic range. And the ensemble -- the "togetherness" --
> will be a lot better. But I'm not saying this to put down lesser
> orchestras. The important thing is to Have an orchestra.
>
> (But I never volunteered to be a weirdo anywhere.)
>

It's just one of the risks of specialization.

> James Boyk


--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Wayne wrote:
>
> >Les Cargill wrote:
> >
> >> BTW, a B on a G7 is technically a Bb, not a B natural. G7 to C
> >> is a V7-I ( among others, but that's the main one ). But I
> >> knew what you meant.
>
> >?? Now you know why auto-tune is so prevalent, James! All the G7 chords
> >I've ever played had G B D F - no B flat. No flats or sharps in the key
> >of C.
> >
> >Artie
>
> The 7th tone in the C7th chord is Bb.
>
> No flats or sharps in the 7 tone C scale or the triads(1st, 3rd, 5th) of the
> tonic, sub-dominant and dominant chords. Can get kinky when you start hanging
> numbers on letters Artie.
>
> Wayne

No, Artie busted me good. That's probably what I was thinking about,
a C7, but there was no C7 except in my imagination.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Scott Reams wrote:
>
> Autotune, if used correctly, does not force equal temperament. In graphical
> mode, the engineer/musician has full control over where a pitch lands.
>

Right - and I remember it also enforcing Just or possibly
Pythagorean temp. as menu options. Dunno from "graphical"
mode - this was using an ActiveX plug on a PC.

> -S
>
> "James Boyk" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Fill X wrote:
> > > I have a friend doing a lot of major label work where it's demanded by
> A&R
> > > people etc that things be "just so".
> >
> > If the A&R people think that "just so" means equal-temperament, they are
> > amusical idiots.
> >
> > James Boyk
> >


--
Les Cargill

[Scott Reams]

True... in auto mode there are several preset scales of varying temperament
to choose from... and if you choose a scale and then switch to graphical
mode, it provides a grid to show where the absolute pitches are based on the
scale. The grid, however, is only there as a reference in graphical mode.
You can do anything you like, really, in that mode.

-S

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Reams wrote:
> >
> > Autotune, if used correctly, does not force equal temperament. In
graphical
> > mode, the engineer/musician has full control over where a pitch lands.
> >
>
> Right - and I remember it also enforcing Just or possibly
> Pythagorean temp. as menu options. Dunno from "graphical"
> mode - this was using an ActiveX plug on a PC.
>
> > -S
> >
> > "James Boyk" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Fill X wrote:
> > > > I have a friend doing a lot of major label work where it's demanded
by
> > A&R
> > > > people etc that things be "just so".
> > >
> > > If the A&R people think that "just so" means equal-temperament, they
are
> > > amusical idiots.
> > >
> > > James Boyk
> > >
>
>
> --
> Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

James Boyk > wrote:
>Fill X wrote:
>> I have a friend doing a lot of major label work where it's demanded by A&R
>> people etc that things be "just so".
>
>If the A&R people think that "just so" means equal-temperament, they are
>amusical idiots.

If they weren't amusical idiots, they wouldn't have wound up in A&R....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Artie Turner]

Les Cargill wrote:

> No, Artie busted me good. That's probably what I was thinking about,
> a C7, but there was no C7 except in my imagination.

No big thang, it's one of the "blue notes" man, you're just playin' a
little jazz with it, that's all.

I was watching one of Ken Burns' jazz specials on PBS last night. There
was one scene with a tenor sax player and and a trumpet playing a line
togther - I forget who they were - but one of them was out of tune with
the other, and after a phrase or two, the tenor player reaches up and
adjusts his mouthpiece back some small amount, and continues.

That's the kind of thing that's largely missing in pop music today.
Everyone tunes to a tuner and forgets listening, or worse they can't
tell if someone's out of tune. Technology's creating a lot of musical
cripples.

Artie
>
> --
> Les Cargill

[James Boyk]

Scott Reams wrote: >Autotune, if used correctly, does not force equal
temperament.
In graphical mode, the engineer/musician has full control over where a
pitch lands.

But it isn't the engineer who should control intonation! That is not the
engineer's job. ("It is now," I hear you say.)

It's clear that musicians, in certain circumstances, have become
piece-workers turning out takes in an environment denatured of natural
acoustics and of human communication. This is nauseating. That's not
what music is, though admittedly it may be what "music" is.

James Boyk

[Scott Reams]

> But it isn't the engineer who should control intonation! That is not the
> engineer's job. ("It is now," I hear you say.)

No one is perfect. As I mentioned in another reply... sometimes a vocalist
hits a word with a certain character that cannot be easily reproduced... and
sometimes he/she is a hair flat are sharp doing so. I say go for the best
performance first... and if the singer was slightly off on a couple pitches
in that best performance... don't be afraid to nudge them. The same is true
for a solo guitarist... You might land that once in a lifetime guitar solo,
but discover that one bend didn't quite reach the target note. Don't throw
the solo away... make the subtle change that allows it to be used.

-S

[Scott Reams]

> Excuse me for disagreeing; but yes, they gotta. They don't need to know
> the names of things, but they gotta understand the "tendencies" of notes
> in voice-leading and harmony.

But understanding this does not suddenly allow a singer to sing every note
perfectly on every take. Pitches sometimes slip here and there, even if the
vocalist "understood" that they shouldn't have.

-S

[Arny Krueger]

"James Boyk" > wrote in message


> I confess amazement at use of Auto-Tune, or whatever it's called. A
> musician's intonation is as personal as anything about his or her
> music-making except possibly rhythm. It's one of the things that that
> musician's music personal and identifiable. Of course I'm speaking of
> voice and instruments where the player controls the pitch. As a
> pianist, my only role in this aspect of music-making is to choose the
> tuner, which I do whenever possible.
>
> I'm amazed that anyone would give up control of intonation---or am I
> missing the boat.

It seems to me that if a vocalist is in control of his intonation, then he
doesn't need Autotune.

Isn't the Autotune just a more advanced tool for removing "clams"?

[James Boyk]

Scott Reams wrote:
> ...understanding this does not suddenly allow a singer to sing every note
> perfectly on every take. Pitches sometimes slip here and there, even if the
> vocalist "understood" that they shouldn't have.

Sure. So what? That's called "performance." It's a human activity. Some
humans are better at it than others. Changing pitches that are humanly
incorrect to ones that are inhumanly "correct" doesn't make things
better. What makes things better is for the humans to learn more and
practice harder.

James Boyk

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

I think an over abundance of folks are going for drawing the 'straight line' in
autotune, inducing a perfect note without considering the vocalists 'style'.
Can you imagine autotuning Bob Dylan, Arlo Guthrie or Ella Fitzgerald
for instance?

I think the ocassional scoop or the slightest of overshoot to the destination
note, with many singers, is a unique and appreciated style of delivery that's
overlooked in too many autotune cases. While big scoops that are obviously
intended must be left alone, there are plenty of other more minute fluctuations
that get far too much attention, IMHO and ears. It may get a near perfect
note, but perhaps at the sacrifice of the singer's actual intent.

Just because the bass and guitar happened to hit the root a beat before
the singer's stylistic scoop got to the correct pitch... why does this mean
there's something that needs autotuned, moved in time or otherwise 'fixed'?
Rather than singers making hits, engineers are making singers.

The first time I saw autotune work the engineer said, "Wanna' see the
'Cher effect' ?" No matter how it was really done (vocoder, etc.), he hit
the nail on the head with two setting adjustments on Antares AT.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com


"Scott Reams" > wrote in message .com...
> True... in auto mode there are several preset scales of varying temperament
> to choose from... and if you choose a scale and then switch to graphical
> mode, it provides a grid to show where the absolute pitches are based on the
> scale. The grid, however, is only there as a reference in graphical mode.
> You can do anything you like, really, in that mode.
>
> -S
>
> "Les Cargill" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Scott Reams wrote:
> > >
> > > Autotune, if used correctly, does not force equal temperament. In
> graphical
> > > mode, the engineer/musician has full control over where a pitch lands.
> > >
> >
> > Right - and I remember it also enforcing Just or possibly
> > Pythagorean temp. as menu options. Dunno from "graphical"
> > mode - this was using an ActiveX plug on a PC.
> >
> > > -S
> > >
> > > "James Boyk" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Fill X wrote:
> > > > > I have a friend doing a lot of major label work where it's demanded
> by
> > > A&R
> > > > > people etc that things be "just so".
> > > >
> > > > If the A&R people think that "just so" means equal-temperament, they
> are
> > > > amusical idiots.
> > > >
> > > > James Boyk
> > > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Les Cargill
>
>

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message ...

> Isn't the Autotune just a more advanced tool for removing "clams"?
>
>

Autotune *is* often used across entire tracks in "auto" mode, chasing
as best it can every note for the perfect pitch. Combine a few tracks
like this and it's... well... very different.

I have a 'principle' problem with it's current trend, however I wouldn't mind
seeing and learning to use it proficiently for "clams".

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

[Romeo Rondeau]

If the record company pays the bills, and they want it AT'd, then they get
it that way.

> If the A&R people think that "just so" means equal-temperament, they are
> amusical idiots.
>
> James Boyk
>

[Scott Reams]

> I've studied thousands of guitar solos, and I can't tell you how many of
the
> great ones would have been completely ruined if the engineer had decided
to
> 'nudge' them because of what he percieved as a 'mistake'. Same goes for
the
> great horn players, as well as the great singers.

Well, of course. Bad judgement is another consideration... but not every
pitch correction is bad judgement.

-S

[Scott Reams]

> Just because the bass and guitar happened to hit the root a beat before
> the singer's stylistic scoop got to the correct pitch... why does this
mean
> there's something that needs autotuned, moved in time or otherwise
'fixed'?

It doesn't. When I autotune, my number one priority is to preserve the
performance. I despise vocal tracks that have been tuned with the straight
line method... or anything remotely like it.

-S

[reddred]

"Scott Reams" > wrote in message
.com...
> > But it isn't the engineer who should control intonation! That is not the
> > engineer's job. ("It is now," I hear you say.)
>
> No one is perfect. As I mentioned in another reply... sometimes a vocalist
> hits a word with a certain character that cannot be easily reproduced...
and
> sometimes he/she is a hair flat are sharp doing so. I say go for the best
> performance first... and if the singer was slightly off on a couple
pitches
> in that best performance... don't be afraid to nudge them. The same is
true
> for a solo guitarist... You might land that once in a lifetime guitar
solo,
> but discover that one bend didn't quite reach the target note. Don't throw
> the solo away... make the subtle change that allows it to be used.
>
> -S
>

I've studied thousands of guitar solos, and I can't tell you how many of the
great ones would have been completely ruined if the engineer had decided to
'nudge' them because of what he percieved as a 'mistake'. Same goes for the
great horn players, as well as the great singers.

jb






>

[Scott Reams]

> Sure. So what? That's called "performance." It's a human activity. Some
> humans are better at it than others.

The bottom line is the delivered product. If you can't hear it as a
listener, then there isn't a problem. Complaining about Autotune being used
in a way that cannot be detected is like complaining how immoral it is that
hookers you never saw may have been in the studio. Your issue is with the
principal, but as long as no one tells you, you probably won't know either
way. In fact, if you have any favorite modern recordings, I bet some of them
have been Autotuned to some degree.

-S

[Bob Olhsson]

In article >, James Boyk >
wrote:

>This is nauseating. That's not
>what music is, though admittedly it may be what "music" is.


Thankfully new title sales are in the toilet. Imagine how bad off we'd
be if the public actually showed a preference for this stuff!

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing, Mastering, Audio for Picture
615.385.8051 FAX: 615.385.8196 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they ever imagined!

[Scott Reams]

> As you point out, pianist can't deal with it via pitch alterations; but
> we can do things with timing, dynamics (including chord 'voicing'),
> possibly articulation. Those are the three things we have to work with.

True... and the whole time, you are playing an instrument that is
conveniently "autotuned" for you. Wouldn't your definition of the word
"musician" require that you play an instrument over which you have full
pitch control? Wouldn't using a piano, a keyboard, or autotune constitute
cheating?

Bottom line... to assume that any vocalist who's ever had an ounce of
Autotune applied to his/her voice is not a musician is quite the extreme
generalization... and I'd say just a bit unfair.

The world of music has really gone downhill when artists start determining
which other artists are "real musicians" and which are not by some
preconceived specific definition of the word.

-S

[Scott Reams]

> These guys (several different unrelated artists!) were doing
> outrageous things. They'd do overblowing stuff creating great chuffs of
> noise, imitating deer. They'd be playing notes, and would lean
> ruthlessly on the note, making it a freaking quarter-tone sharp, or just
> explore all microtonally, with no fear at all of breaking equal
> temperament, and it worked, it really worked. Just monophonic bamboo
> flute notes, but the freedom was infinite.

Different styles of music require different treatment... and many styles use
different non-Western scales as their basis.

There is such a thing as flat and sharp in certain contexts, and it is
welcome in some, but not all, cases.

Shakuhachi performances do not entail the same pitch requirements as, say,
the Vienna Boys Choir. It can't be used as a basis for everything.

-S

[Fill X]

It's a strange world, not even considering blue notes or "wrong notes" from
singers, think about how certain bop horn players play a bit sharp on purpose
for the edge is gives. At any rate, um, whatever works, works. I just dont
think most of us subconciously like the sound of auto tune.


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

[Scott Reams]

> It's a strange world, not even considering blue notes or "wrong notes"
from
> singers, think about how certain bop horn players play a bit sharp on
purpose
> for the edge is gives.

Absolutely. I wouldn't touch anything that was done "on purpose". The
problem is... everyone, even the best musicians in the world, make mistakes
sometimes.

> At any rate, um, whatever works, works. I just dont
> think most of us subconciously like the sound of auto tune.

Oh boy, do I agree. I think Autotune is abused all too often. I can't stand
it in auto mode... and too many people don't know how to get good enough
results in graphical mode. The issue... many of the examples out there give
a terrible impression of a product that -can- be used tastefully... and the
good examples are those you can't detect anyway... so it's tough to judge
it.

-S

[Romeo Rondeau]

Actually Scott, you can use a straight line method by turning the retune
slider up to like say 60 or 80, then drawing in straight lines only where
you want the retune to occur, this allows you to leave scoops alone and not
pitch correct certain notes, but with the retune slider it lets a certain
amount of vibrato through. It's sort of a selective auto-mode, and on some
singers it works better then the normal method of drawing pitch. There are
so many different techniques to using Autotune.

>
> It doesn't. When I autotune, my number one priority is to preserve the
> performance. I despise vocal tracks that have been tuned with the straight
> line method... or anything remotely like it.
>
> -S
>
>

[Romeo Rondeau]

The masses don't buy this and microtonality would be lost on them. It
wouldn't sound good to their ear, after all that is what's being Autotuned.
Besides that, I know of absolutely no bamboo flute music being Autotuned :-)

>
> These guys (several different unrelated artists!) were doing
> outrageous things. They'd do overblowing stuff creating great chuffs of
> noise, imitating deer. They'd be playing notes, and would lean
> ruthlessly on the note, making it a freaking quarter-tone sharp, or just
> explore all microtonally, with no fear at all of breaking equal
> temperament, and it worked, it really worked. Just monophonic bamboo
> flute notes, but the freedom was infinite.
>
> I ended up saluting this by taking a sine-wave synthesizer tone, and
> improvising a pentatonic lead over my Japanese-themed track, all the
> while leaning on the pitch bender whenever I wanted, and continually
> playing with where the pitch 'sat' in relation to the other music- it
> was great, really liberating. I still like that tune.
>
> If you understand the gestalt of the performance so little that
> you're not asking, "WHY is the note that seems a little off, also the
> note that I want to keep and use for the final result? WHY is it the
> once in a lifetime guitar solo that features the melodic phrase that
> struggles wrenchingly to hit the intended pitch?"... then maybe you
> should just keep doing what you're doing. But it might be hurting your
> art.
>
>
> Chris Johnson
>

[Scott Reams]

> The bad judgement is mucking around with it. Let it be real.

I guess, by that argument, any "mucking around" is bad judgement... which
would include EQ (mucking with frequency content provided by the
instrument/vocal), Compression (mucking with dynamics as the artist
performed them), and artificial reverbration (mucking with the natural room
sound of the recording). Ever used any of those?

-S

[Scott Reams]

I'll say it again..

The bottom line is the end product, not the means. I'll bet there are a ton
of recordings out there that contain pitch correction that you could never,
ever detect. If you have any modern recordings in your collection, I'll bet
a few of your favorites already contain some pitch correction.

-S


"reddred" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott Reams" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > I've studied thousands of guitar solos, and I can't tell you how many
of
> > the
> > > great ones would have been completely ruined if the engineer had
decided
> > to
> > > 'nudge' them because of what he percieved as a 'mistake'. Same goes
for
> > the
> > > great horn players, as well as the great singers.
> >
> > Well, of course. Bad judgement is another consideration... but not every
> > pitch correction is bad judgement.
> >
> > -S
> >
>
> The bad judgement is mucking around with it. Let it be real.
>
> jb
>
>
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"David Morgan (MAMS)" > wrote in message


> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Isn't the Autotune just a more advanced tool for removing "clams"?

> Autotune *is* often used across entire tracks in "auto" mode, chasing
> as best it can every note for the perfect pitch. Combine a few tracks
> like this and it's... well... very different.

I can imagine.

Perfect pitch as a special effect.

Whoda thunk!

> I have a 'principle' problem with it's current trend, however I
> wouldn't mind seeing and learning to use it proficiently for "clams".

I edit a lot of amateur stuff, and could appreciate it for that purpose if
it worked.

OTOH if these $#@!! would rehearse before performing...

LOL!

[James Boyk]

A lot of the justification for A-T seems to be an implicit argument that
the world is waiting for THIS recording, THIS performance---therefore
we've got to fix it. But the world couldn't care less. If a performance
isn't good enough, don't release it.

On the other hand, narcissistically, we WANT to release our performances!

James Boyk

[Scott Reams]

> A lot of the justification for A-T seems to be an implicit argument that
> the world is waiting for THIS recording, THIS performance---therefore
> we've got to fix it. But the world couldn't care less. If a performance
> isn't good enough, don't release it.

Ever moved the lead vocal fader during a mix because a word or phrase was
too loud or to soft? If so... you probably should retrack the vocal until
the singer gets the dynamics right.

:)

-S

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Well, of course. Bad judgement is another consideration... but not every
> pitch correction is bad judgement.

Only the ones made without judgement.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I was researching Japanese music for an album I was doing
> that was to have an Japanese-themed track, and I came across some
> shakuhachi music, the bamboo flute.

> These guys (several different unrelated artists!) were doing
> outrageous things. They'd do overblowing stuff creating great chuffs of
> noise, imitating deer. They'd be playing notes, and would lean
> ruthlessly on the note, making it a freaking quarter-tone sharp, or just
> explore all microtonally, with no fear at all of breaking equal
> temperament, and it worked, it really worked.

So how many records did they sell? As many as Britney or Ricky or
Mmmmm? It's like Archie Shep or Roland Kirk, or even B. B. King or
Blind Lemon Jefferson - creating tension by not quite ever getting to
pitch before moving on to another note. There's a difference between
"See how that note holds you on the edge of your chair?", "I played it
wrong, can we fix that note?" and "We have to put everything in tune
because people won't like it otherwise."



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message ...
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" > wrote in message
>
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> Isn't the Autotune just a more advanced tool for removing "clams"?
>
> > Autotune *is* often used across entire tracks in "auto" mode, chasing
> > as best it can every note for the perfect pitch. Combine a few tracks
> > like this and it's... well... very different.
>
> I can imagine.
>
> Perfect pitch as a special effect.
>
> Whoda thunk!
>
> > I have a 'principle' problem with it's current trend, however I
> > wouldn't mind seeing and learning to use it proficiently for "clams".
>
> I edit a lot of amateur stuff, and could appreciate it for that purpose if
> it worked.
>
> OTOH if these $#@!! would rehearse before performing...
>
> LOL!

I do a boatlaod of jazz and swing... if I even so much as offered to
autotune the occasional 'blue note' I would be hurled from the room.

And you are correct... autotuning several parts of an ensemble which
combine to make a chord to perfect pitch, is most definitely a 'special'
effect.

DM

[Mike]

James Boyk > wrote in message >...
> I confess amazement at use of Auto-Tune, or whatever it's called. A
> musician's intonation is as personal as anything about his or her
> music-making except possibly rhythm. It's one of the things that that
> musician's music personal and identifiable. Of course I'm speaking of
> voice and instruments where the player controls the pitch. As a pianist,
> my only role in this aspect of music-making is to choose the tuner,
> which I do whenever possible.
>
> I'm amazed that anyone would give up control of intonation---or am I
> missing the boat. Is this done on only one or two clunker notes, not on
> the whole line?
>
> James Boyk

I think a lot of people just use it to fix parts the singer goofed on.
Of course a good singer would just retake it. More importantly people
use it for singers who can't sing well.

I have used it and the problem is, it doesn't make a bad singer sound
good.


Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

[Arny Krueger]

"James Boyk" > wrote in message


> A lot of the justification for A-T seems to be an implicit argument
> that the world is waiting for THIS recording, THIS
> performance---therefore we've got to fix it. But the world couldn't
> care less. If a performance isn't good enough, don't release it.

One could hope that all musicians feel this way. But back in the real world,
the way to Carnage Hall is practice, practice, practice; at least until the
possibility of Autotune, Autotune, Autotune.

> On the other hand, narcissistically, we WANT to release our
> performances!

But doing things right is so much work...

Thinking about a musician who basically told me last weekend that he
objected to recordings that didn't have enough room ambience to cover up his
group being significantly off-key or off-time. He objected to all condenser
mics in the same discussion.

My own thinking is that if I have to push buttons and move knobs right, they
should sing and play right. I'm sure I couldn't get away with this in the
modern world of commercial recordings.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Ever moved the lead vocal fader during a mix because a word or phrase was
> too loud or to soft? If so... you probably should retrack the vocal until
> the singer gets the dynamics right.

Either that or leave it a little too loud or too soft. Who's to say
what's right?

I had a friend who was adamant about the fact that if a singer
couldn't just sit down and sing a song into a recorder and be done
with it, he wasn't ready to record. My friend never recorded (other
than for fun) but he also though that there were far too many records
being made, and this was in the mid 1970's.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Bob Olhsson]

In article >, James Boyk
> wrote:

>narcissistically, we WANT to release our performances!

And narcissistically, we WANT them to be perfect. This stuff, sadly,
has usually been artist-diven.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing, Mastering, Audio for Picture
615.385.8051 FAX: 615.385.8196 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they ever imagined!

[Bob Olhsson]

In article <znr1057151587k@trad>, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

>I had a friend who was adamant about the fact that if a singer
>couldn't just sit down and sing a song into a recorder and be done
>with it, he wasn't ready to record.

The problem was folks who could do that whose records you couldn't sell
combined with others whose records you COULD sell but who needed all
the help they could get. Getting a hit record isn't anything like
earning a degree no matter how badly some people want it to be.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing, Mastering, Audio for Picture
615.385.8051 FAX: 615.385.8196 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they ever imagined!

[Mark Plancke]

"Scott Reams" > wrote:

>And I'd add...
>
>If done sparingly, the only people who will ever know it was done are the
>engineer and the performer... and so disliking it on principal won't matter
>much if you aren't one of these two people. It's the audience and their
>perception that matters. I could send you a number of examples and I
>gaurantee you couldn't pick out any of the pitch correction.
>
>-S
>

But sadly, I hear it being abused on a daily basis, just listen to the
radio for about 5 minutes. Does Uncle Cracker ring a bell??? D'oh!

Mark
http://SoundtechRecording.com

"Putting the lion's share of your attention and investment out in front
of the microphones pays off every time." -- Bob Olhsson

[Mark Plancke]

"reddred" > wrote:

>
>"Scott Reams" > wrote in message
...
>> > I've studied thousands of guitar solos, and I can't tell you how many of
>> the
>> > great ones would have been completely ruined if the engineer had decided
>> to
>> > 'nudge' them because of what he percieved as a 'mistake'. Same goes for
>> the
>> > great horn players, as well as the great singers.
>>
>> Well, of course. Bad judgement is another consideration... but not every
>> pitch correction is bad judgement.
>>
>> -S
>>
>
>The bad judgement is mucking around with it. Let it be real.
>
>jb

Well, pretty much as long as there have been decent quality pitch
shifters and samplers this has gone on. It was a lot harder to do but
it still happened.

Mark
http://SoundtechRecording.com

"Putting the lion's share of your attention and investment out in front
of the microphones pays off every time." -- Bob Olhsson

[MS]

You know what I like to do with AT? I like to use it to terminate
arguments.

Such as arguments that go like this: "You're singing a bit flat (or
sharp) there, let's try that again". "No stinking way I'm off, you
can't hear squat".

Soooo, I autotune the ENTIRE vocal track to a new track,
simultaneously play the ENTIRE AT take and the original take in the
cans. This immediately ends all arguments about intonation and/or
lack thereof. I've found that a mono playback usually suffices, but
panning can be enjoyable as well ;-)

And for you vocal instructors:

Yup, used properly (see above), the AT is no threat whatsoever. In
fact it can be one of a vocal coach's most potent sales tools. But
use it sparingly, otherwise the customer will end up at the
performance psychologist for a stint before they can come back to
you...

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> When I say "off", I mean off to in a way that "fixing" it would be generally
> accepted as sounding better. No...

So what's wrong with saying to the singer while he or she is still in
front of the mic "Let's go over the third line in the second verse,
the one that starts with 'Forever and again'. You were a little flat
in there." And what's wrong with paying attention to pitch when
you're tracking so you don't have to fix it after the singer has left
on tour? If you have to 'break the vibe' several times during a
session, then the singer isn't ready or will never be.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Of course a good singer would just retake it. More importantly people
> use it for singers who can't sing well.

With enough singer who CAN sing well, why bother with those who can't?
We have too many recordings to listen to already. A little natural
selection wouldn't hurt.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Chris Johnson]

In article >,
Bob Olhsson > wrote:
> Thankfully new title sales are in the toilet. Imagine how bad off we'd
> be if the public actually showed a preference for this stuff!

*G*

No. ****.


Chris Johnson

[Monte P McGuire]

In article >,
Arny Krueger > wrote:
>Isn't the Autotune just a more advanced tool for removing "clams"?

For some, but for others, it's pretty much an aesthetic decision.
Vocals sound very 'different' when slammed with AutoTune in automatic
mode. Some folks do that to every vocal track and stack them up. The
way they add together is different than with normal 'human' tracks.
They seem to like it that way. I find it cold and impersonal, but
then again, not all music is supposed to give you warm fuzzies.

A lot of what I call Clearchannel Metal is like this, and the folks
who make this music seem to like it that way. I can't begin to tell
you what havoc this causes when you try to do it live, but there are
tech solutions to that too, none of which are very pretty.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[RB]

And as a lurker here enjoying the banter, may I ask a question? Is the
auto-tune referenced in the subject line the same device used on Cher's "Do
you believe in love" that makes her voice snap from one note to the next? If
so, that was entertaining when that song came out, but I seem to be hearing
it quite often nowadays and it really is getting anoying. Or perhaps it's
just me, however, that feels that way.

RB


"James Boyk" > wrote in message
...
> I confess amazement at use of Auto-Tune, or whatever it's called. A
> musician's intonation is as personal as anything about his or her
> music-making except possibly rhythm. It's one of the things that that
> musician's music personal and identifiable. Of course I'm speaking of
> voice and instruments where the player controls the pitch. As a pianist,
> my only role in this aspect of music-making is to choose the tuner,
> which I do whenever possible.
>
> I'm amazed that anyone would give up control of intonation---or am I
> missing the boat. Is this done on only one or two clunker notes, not on
> the whole line?
>
> James Boyk
>

[Romeo Rondeau]

Very well put, John. I always explained it the difference between treating a
recording studio as either a notepad or using it as an art canvas. I like
yours better, though.


"John Cafarella" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" > wrote in message > I do a
> boatlaod of jazz and swing... if I even so much as offered to
> > autotune the occasional 'blue note' I would be hurled from the room.
>
> > DM
>
> I think Scott Dorsey put this very succinctly when he stated that there
are
> two camps of recording, the PRODUCTION camp, and the REPRODUCTION camp.
>
> On the days you're in the PRODUCTION camp, your job is to make whatever is
> thrown at you sound good. It's a judgement call on the engineer as to
> whether trying an additional take is worth the effort. I've recorded
> singers that I KNOW won't get it any better on another take. Autotune,
> sadly, is the tool for this.
>
> On the other hand, if you're in REPRODUCTION mode, you'll hopefully be
> recording a decent artist, and if you tell them they didn't quite hit the
> note at a certain spot, they'll tell you straight out that that's how they
> want it, or they'll thank you and just punch in the phrase, section, whole
> new take, whatever they're more comfortable with.
>
> But this is no news to you .
> --
> John Cafarella
> End Of the Road Studio
> Melbourne, Australia
>
>
>

[Mike]

Bob Olhsson > wrote in message >...
> In article >, James Boyk
> > wrote:
>
> >narcissistically, we WANT to release our performances!
>
> And narcissistically, we WANT them to be perfect. This stuff, sadly,
> has usually been artist-diven.

I enjoy capturing good live performances more than anything. I do
certainly edit them in the studio but I like the idea of capturing the
moment and the excitement and not necessarily being perfect.

I think it a lot of ways commercialism has taken us far away from the
real basis of music in the social context; That social context being
more a music of the people and participated in by the people etc.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> And as a lurker here enjoying the banter, may I ask a question? Is the
> auto-tune referenced in the subject line the same device used on Cher's "Do
> you believe in love" that makes her voice snap from one note to the next?

According to the famous producer interviewed in one of the magazines,
the effect on that recording was produced using other hardware.
However Autotune will give you essentially the same effect.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Brian King]

On 02 Jul 2003 05:40:02 GMT, (Fill X) wrote:

>It's a strange world, not even considering blue notes or "wrong notes" from
>singers, think about how certain bop horn players play a bit sharp on purpose
>for the edge is gives. At any rate, um, whatever works, works. I just dont
>think most of us subconciously like the sound of auto tune.
>
>P h i l i p

I have a love-hate relationship with autotune. My band has our own
studio and an Antares. When we first got it I hated it-- it made
everything sound unnatural and robotic, and also introduced occasional
glitches and pops into the track. But we experimented with it for
many hours, trying many varieties of settings, and got experienced
enough with it to use it almost all the time, without hearing a hint
of unnaturalness, even on a soloed track.

The key is that you cannot pick a single group of settings on the
thing and run all your tracks through it blindly, and you also have to
start out with a pretty good performance. We would record a track
from beginning to end, aiming for 90% of what we wanted in terms of
pitch, and 100% in terms of timing and emotional delivery. Then we
could use the Antares to bring us up near 100% in the pitch
department. We'd have to listen to the soloed track in sections
sometimes, experimenting and changing settings on the unit, and
re-recording the output onto a new track. And each of the band's
three singers required a slightly different approach. Then we
listened to the results with all the instruments to make very sure it
sounded natural.

Fortunately we have our own studio and can afford the time to get it
right, but given a choice between what seems to be the normal method
of set-it-and-forget-it autotuning and not using it at all, I'd rather
go without. Listening to a song on the radio that has obvious
autotuning artifacts in a non-artistic, unintentional context destroys
the appeal of the song to me.

Brian
Lord Only

[Chris Smalt]

James wrote:

> To me as a musician, this all sounds insane. What you're describing, I
> mean. Don't musicians and engineers realize that "in-tune-ness" cannot
> be defined without taking into account the exact context? "B" that's
> part of a G7 chord going to C is not the same as "B" that's part of Emin
> chord going to C7 going to F. What's implied is that the musicians
> don't--even intuitively--understand harmony. Saying it another way,
> they're not musicians.


I'm not defending the way Auto-Tune is used. But the software allows
for in-context retuning. You can specify a key, a scale, and a master
tuning reference. There are a couple of dozen preset retuning scales
that include unusual tunings, up to 53 notes per octave. My sister
plays a lot of music in unusual tunings, recently for instance stuff by
Harry Partch. Her instrument is the viola, but for practice purposes,
she bought a DX7II, that lets you set up microtonal scales. I can
imagine how even just watching Auto-Tune's display while practicing
could help her nail those scales.
Then, each note of a scale can be edited to your liking. You can also
tell the software to disregard particular pitches. For instance, you
can instruct it not to retune anything except F#.
To use Auto-Tune to its fullest in Auto mode, you have to understand
harmony in an analytic way to get musical results. From the manual, I
get the impression that the makers are aware of this, and of the
possible pitfalls. On page 2, there's a cartoon of someone fixing a
robot. The robot says: "Don't fix it! It ain't broke!", and the guy
says: "I can't help myself."


Chris

[Chris Smalt]

Artie wrote:

> ?? Now you know why auto-tune is so prevalent, James! All the G7 chords
> I've ever played had G B D F - no B flat.


Maybe he woke up this morning, and found his baby done gone.


Chris

[Artie Turner]

Chris Smalt wrote:
> Artie wrote:
>
>
>>?? Now you know why auto-tune is so prevalent, James! All the G7 chords
>>I've ever played had G B D F - no B flat.
>
>
>
> Maybe he woke up this morning, and found his baby done gone.

And both cars were gone,
felt so low down, threw my drink across the lawn...


>
>
> Chris
>
>

[Mike Janas]

Bob Olhsson > wrote in message >...
> In article <znr1057143640k@trad>, Mike Rivers >
> wrote:
>
> > I don't see that being slightly
> >off pitch occasionally is going to ruin the experience.
>
> Especially since you can't adjust pitch without ALSO changing the
> timing which COULD ruin the experience. Trying to fix sound by using
> your eyes is always dangerous.

And, gentle readers, as you all well know, both the software and the
hardware really screw up the timing of the track you're tuning. Very
noticeable processing delay. If you're using the hardware, well,uh, I
guess you better like your corrected pitch better than having the
phrasing the way the artist originally intended it. If you're in the
software at least you can nudge your tuned track forward to match up
with the original (and discover the joy of shifting phrases and
syllables by the sample). Painstakingly tedious work. Not fun.
Takes a long time to accomplish something that remotely resembles the
original. But it does pay for a lot of groceries.

[Mike Janas]

"Ekechi K. E. Nwokah" > wrote in message >...

Singers especially have definitely lost their apprehensions about
auto-tune. Several years ago it was not uncommon to hear major-label
artists bitterly argue with producers over the use of it. In my
experience then, it was considered "cheating" by many artists. I
recall one artist who was very hurt when they discovered that their
voice had been pitch-shifted .

But now singers seem to expect it. How does this affect their
performance? Do they concentrate less on their performance, knowing
that it's going to be fixed anyway? Or does it allow them more
freedom to experiment, knowing that it probably doesn't matter anyway
because their voice is going to get the full edit treatment anyway?


> Just about every major label record now has the lead vocal autotuned. It
> seems to have become prevalent in the last 2 or 3 years where all of a
> sudden everyone has perfect pitch. For background vocals, some do, some
> don't. Personally I leave the background vocs alone unless there is a
> particularly bad note.
>
> One of the problems is that a lot of the top engineers will have one of
> their assistants or the pro tools guy do the autotune because it's so
> tedious. However, they just go in and draw a single line at the note
> from beginning to end and it is easily (and unpleasantly) audible. Also,
> due to budget constraints and such for most projects nowadays, there is
> pressure to finish the record in a specific amount of time and therefore
> the engineers will sometimes not care about pitch when tracking the
> vocal. The problem with is that the farther the singer is from the
> correct pitch, the more the Autotuning becomes audible, so you requently
> get that "chipmunk" sound because the singer was, say, a whole semitone
> under pitch (for the whole track!) when tracking.
>
> Done correctly though, it can have have a major effect on even the best
> singers. And once you tune a few notes, you'll find that other notes are
> all of a sudden slightly off pitch so you almost always have to tune the
> entire vocal track.
>
> I personally prefer a _very_ conservative approach to autotuning, but I
> wouldn't dare release a record without the lead vocal tuned at all. Not
> if I want radio play. I also usually tune solo string instruments if
> it's not a classical record. It saves having the string player do 20
> takes (and paying them union wages!!) and the artifacts of autotuning on
> strings are not nearly as audible as on a vocal.
>
> Ekechi

[dmorrell]

On 3 Jul 2003 22:05:38 -0700, (Mike Janas)
wrote:

>But now singers seem to expect it. How does this affect their
>performance? Do they concentrate less on their performance, knowing
>that it's going to be fixed anyway? Or does it allow them more
>freedom to experiment, knowing that it probably doesn't matter anyway
>because their voice is going to get the full edit treatment anyway?

Freedom to experiment? Pfffffft. Come on, Mike. Singers who can't
sing in relative tune are like drummers who can't play in meter.

Autotune is fine for touchups... but it's getting to be like vocal
welfare: someone else will take care of them.

Best - Don

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Singers especially have definitely lost their apprehensions about
> auto-tune. Several years ago it was not uncommon to hear major-label
> artists bitterly argue with producers over the use of it.

It wasn't too long ago when artists, at least those who I was
recording at the time, would say "You're not going to use any
compression on my voice, are you?" or "I don't want any reverb on this
recording." But those were people who could sing pretty well and if
you did compress their voice it was to match it better with the
instruments, not to keep those uncontrolled volume swings from
trying to exceed full scale digital while never going below -2 dBFS
for fear of losing resolution at low levels. (WHAT low levels?)

But times change. Now they don't worry about being off pitch because
they know that it can be corrected. If only some of them would worry
more about the emotion, delivery, and diction that they say is so
important to preserve in every take.

> How does this affect their
> performance? Do they concentrate less on their performance, knowing
> that it's going to be fixed anyway? Or does it allow them more
> freedom to experiment, knowing that it probably doesn't matter anyway
> because their voice is going to get the full edit treatment anyway?

I'm sure that it affects different people different ways. Some for the
good, some for the bad. If the talent says "That's good enough, we can
edit and retune it, can't we?" you know what you got, and what you'll
have to do.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Twist Turner]

James,

Your not taking into account how many amatuer musicians who really can't
play or tune thier instruments who will walk into a studio to record. I
can't tell you how many times it has saved my ass with a singer that
just couldn't tell he was slightly out of key, or a bass player who has
one string out of tune and doesn't have the money to redo the track, or
the upright bass player who is just plain not hitting the notes close
enough, or the sax player who can't blow in tune to save his
life....with good players I rarely ever turn it on but for guys who come
in and want to record, mix and master 4 or 5 songs in 4 or 5 hours it
gets used alot and more often than not. It's usually on the vocal track
because that person should not be singing period in the first place.
I'm not gonna be the one to tell them they suck and lose the business so
I just do the best I can with what they give me to work with.





http://www.vintagemicsales.com

[Willie K.Yee, M.D.]

On 4 Jul 2003 11:28:28 -0400, (Mike Rivers) wrote:

>But times change. Now they don't worry about being off pitch because
>they know that it can be corrected. If only some of them would worry
>more about the emotion, delivery, and diction that they say is so
>important to preserve in every take.

Christ, I wonder what they would have done if they ever got their
hands on Billie Holiday's voice.

--

Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://www.bestweb.net/~wkyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org

[James Boyk]

Personally, I encourage all musicians to record themselves--for release
if they wish. There's nothing that enhances objectivity about one's
playing so much as hearing it on a release. (Of course I do make minimum
assumptions about the level of performance one is willing to release on
an unsuspecting world!)

I even wrote a book for musicians of all instruments about using
recording as a tool in practicing and teaching; it presents a series of
techniques I've developed over a period of 45 years. If anyone's
interested, see http://www.performancerecordings.com/tohear.html .

James Boyk

[Wayne]

>Wayne wrote: > The chromatic scale of C has no sharps or flats.
>
>Surely you mean the *diatonic* scale. There is no such thing as "the
>chromatic scale of C," and if there were, it would have lots or sharps
>or flats (not both in any one version).
>
>James Boyk
>
>
I had another brain phart. Sorry. Acutually, I was thinking of the 12 tone
chromatic scale when I wrote that. Of course it would not apply to the
original post concerning 7 tone major scales.

Wayne

[R Krizman]

<< On 3 Jul 2003 22:05:38 -0700, (Mike Janas)
wrote:

>But now singers seem to expect it. How does this affect their
>performance? Do they concentrate less on their performance, knowing
>that it's going to be fixed anyway? Or does it allow them more
>freedom to experiment, knowing that it probably doesn't matter anyway
>because their voice is going to get the full edit treatment anyway? >><BR><BR>

In my world, nobody wants to be tuned and will work like hell not to have to.
It's a great stimulus.

And then, of course, everything that needs tuning gets tuned.

-R

[transducr]

(Ty Ford) wrote in message >...
> In Article <znr1057349487k@trad>, (Mike Rivers) wrote:
> >
> >In article >
> writes:
> >
> >> Your not taking into account how many amatuer musicians who really can't
> >> play or tune thier instruments who will walk into a studio to record. I
> >> can't tell you how many times it has saved my ass with a singer that
> >> just couldn't tell he was slightly out of key, or a bass player who has
> >> one string out of tune and doesn't have the money to redo the track, or
> >> the upright bass player who is just plain not hitting the notes close
> >> enough, or the sax player who can't blow in tune to save his
> >> life....
> >
> >Why can't we, as an industry, stand up to this crap? Tell the
> >potential client that he can't sing or play and you don't want to
> >waste your time trying to make people think that he can. Tell him to
> >come back after he plays live gigs for about five years and gets
> >better.
> >
> >Unfortunately they'll just go find someone else who's willing to take
> >their money. Or buy ProTools and work in their bedrooms for about five
> >years so they can have a CD to give to their friends.
>
> Fascinating. I think we gave up that ground the first time someone punched
> in a track back in linear times.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
> For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
> click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

why don't we tell Stevie Wonder that he can't play the drums, bass,
keyboards and sing at the same time in 'real life' too? maybe someone
should exhume the body of Hendrix and tell him that you can't *really*
play a guitar backwards. or...

i think we gave up that ground around WWII when tape based recording
came around and allowed you to splice different takes together to make
one complete recorded performance...i could be wrong, but i think that
pre-dates the "punch" by a little bit. in any event, it wasn't long
before musicians and technicians were exploiting recording technology
to their desired ends...even using the medium itself as an instrument
(stockhausen, etc.)

i don't think that's a bad thing. in fact, the ability to use
technology in a musical fashion is one of the things that excites me
most about the artform.

it's annoying, but people even exploit auto-tune in a (i hesitate to
say) creative fashion beyond it's original purpose.

not to get too moralistically grade-school here, but the people using
auto-tune to hide performance flaws are either cheating themselves in
the long run from developing the necessary performance skills or
they're making their lives a little more hassle-free because they're
able to fix one or two pitch problems that they would normally agonize
over or sacrifice an otherwise good performance for.

let the medium be what it is...exploit it's weaknesses and celebrate
it's strengths.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> >Why can't we, as an industry, stand up to this crap? Tell the
> >potential client that he can't sing or play

> Fascinating. I think we gave up that ground the first time someone punched
> in a track back in linear times.

You've got a point there, and there's a point at which I'll stop
punching in and tell the no-talent to get someone else to sing the
track or play the part, or to work out a different part that he CAN
play. But I know that the process has been extended to construct a
track note by note.

I'll let someone try to play a part better a couple of times or fix a
clam (just as I'll punch in a singer) and if I had AutoTune I might
retune a couple of notes. But if it's necessary all over the damn part
I'd rather not be part of the conspiracy.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Scott Reams]

> You've got a point there, and there's a point at which I'll stop
> punching in and tell the no-talent to get someone else to sing the
> track or play the part,

Sometimes what we are dealing with is paying customers... and if their
process entails punching one note a time, it's their dollar.

It seems to me that it would be the producer's role to determine whether or
not a talent or non-talent should continue in the same manner... not the
engineer's. It really isn't up to the engineer to dictate what an artist
should do with his or her (or the label's) paid-for time.

-S

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> i don't think that's a bad thing. in fact, the ability to use
> technology in a musical fashion is one of the things that excites me
> most about the artform.
>
> it's annoying, but people even exploit auto-tune in a (i hesitate to
> say) creative fashion beyond it's original purpose.

I have no problem with that, but auto-tuning a singer who simply can't
sing is a different thing. What's creative about that? What would be
creative would be to either make the off-pitch creative with words or
inflections (we call that "singing style") or if it really needs to be
on pitch, getting someone who can really sing to sing it and direct
the singer to provide the proper emotion.

> not to get too moralistically grade-school here, but the people using
> auto-tune to hide performance flaws are either cheating themselves in
> the long run from developing the necessary performance skills or
> they're making their lives a little more hassle-free because they're
> able to fix one or two pitch problems that they would normally agonize
> over or sacrifice an otherwise good performance for.

I'll agree with the former. But they probably should be able to either
correct the latter with another pass or be able to live with it. After
all, it's real, and one of the goals of a recording is to make us
share the experience of the writer/performer.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Artie Turner]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> I'll agree with the former. But they probably should be able to either
> correct the latter with another pass or be able to live with it. After
> all, it's real, and one of the goals of a recording is to make us
> share the experience of the writer/performer.

That's just one of the goals of recording, and these goals aren't shared
by everyone. It seems that Goal # 1 for a lot of folks is to sell as
much product as possible regardless of how much trickery, gimmickry,
fraud, etc. it takes. Remember Milli Vannilli? Poster Boys for Goal # 1.

The average music-buying teen couldn't care less if there are 500
punch-ins, sampled drums, and auto-tune on everything. Long as it sounds
big, the video is flashy, and has some suggestive lyrics, it'll get its
15 minutes of fame. This is Commodity Music we're talking about; kind of
like making sausage or legislation, it's not particularly pretty to watch.

Artie


>
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Sometimes what we are dealing with is paying customers... and if their
> process entails punching one note a time, it's their dollar.

Yeah, and it's my time and my patience, and time I could be spending
with some good talent that might make my name as an engineer look
good. If they can't sing and they can't play, and they can still have
hit records, they have a bigger budget to get the job done and they
don't come to me anyway. I spent too many years dealing with "almost
ready" talent. Now I'd rather read a book than take their money.
Others may not be so fortunate.

> It seems to me that it would be the producer's role to determine whether or
> not a talent or non-talent should continue in the same manner... not the
> engineer's.

I agree, but on most of my projects, there's no designated producer so
it's the talent vs. the engineer making the decisions. But you're
right, when the money's flowing freely, the talent usually gets every
opportunity he wants to take.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> That's just one of the goals of recording, and these goals aren't shared
> by everyone. It seems that Goal # 1 for a lot of folks is to sell as
> much product as possible regardless of how much trickery, gimmickry,
> fraud, etc. it takes. Remember Milli Vannilli? Poster Boys for Goal # 1.

Granted, but for every one of us in this bar who works on projects
like Milli Vanilli (or April Lavigne) there are 10,000 who are
struggling to get their own singing good enough so that they can get
a cut from their CD played more than once on the local college radio
station. Or make something that won't make people cringe when they get
their free promo copy.

And people don't get to work on big bucks projects just because they
made some minimal-talent kid sound like he doesn't (though knowing the
techniques helps).




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Lord Hasenpfeffer]

<lurking cloak deactivated>

transducr wrote:

> even using the medium itself as an instrument
> (stockhausen, etc.)

10cc, "I'm Not In Love"!!!

> i don't think that's a bad thing. in fact, the ability to use
> technology in a musical fashion is one of the things that excites me
> most about the artform.

100% Agreed.

Myke

<lurking cloak reactivated>

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(transducr) wrote:

> it's annoying, but people even exploit auto-tune in a (i hesitate to
> say) creative fashion beyond it's original purpose.

Speaking of which...

Has anyone heard the vocal ending of the new Audioslave single?

It's got some kind of Cher-esque ****ing about on it, but I have to
admit that it sounds cool as hell. Almost Eastern....


CT

[Chris Smalt]

Scott wrote:

> True... and the whole time, you are playing an instrument that is
> conveniently "autotuned" for you.


Hey, let's not idealize this situation. Most of the times, it means
playing an instrument that's out of tune, and not being able to do
anything about it. Even a lot of sampled pianos aren't in tune.


Chris

[Lorin David Schultz]

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
...
>
> In the V/O industry as well, there was a line that separated the
> amateurs from the pros. [...] With digital editing, a LOT more people
> lesser talented can get work


The lesser talented can get work -- once. Just long enough for the
producer to appreciate the pro that wasn't there that day.

Editing can correct outright screwups, but it can't add inflection or
make a voice sound like something it ain't.

VO work is acting, and talent still shows.

--
"I got into audio because I like pushing buttons...
...never figured on all this freakin' wire!"
- Lorin David Schultz

[Scott Reams]

As a software-Autotune user, I make it a point to almost always use
graphical mode... and avoid "auto" mode.

This ensures that, if you know what you are doing, the result is natural.

-S

"Brian King" > wrote in message
...
> On 02 Jul 2003 05:40:02 GMT, (Fill X) wrote:
>
> >It's a strange world, not even considering blue notes or "wrong notes"
from
> >singers, think about how certain bop horn players play a bit sharp on
purpose
> >for the edge is gives. At any rate, um, whatever works, works. I just
dont
> >think most of us subconciously like the sound of auto tune.
> >
> >P h i l i p
>
> I have a love-hate relationship with autotune. My band has our own
> studio and an Antares. When we first got it I hated it-- it made
> everything sound unnatural and robotic, and also introduced occasional
> glitches and pops into the track. But we experimented with it for
> many hours, trying many varieties of settings, and got experienced
> enough with it to use it almost all the time, without hearing a hint
> of unnaturalness, even on a soloed track.
>
> The key is that you cannot pick a single group of settings on the
> thing and run all your tracks through it blindly, and you also have to
> start out with a pretty good performance. We would record a track
> from beginning to end, aiming for 90% of what we wanted in terms of
> pitch, and 100% in terms of timing and emotional delivery. Then we
> could use the Antares to bring us up near 100% in the pitch
> department. We'd have to listen to the soloed track in sections
> sometimes, experimenting and changing settings on the unit, and
> re-recording the output onto a new track. And each of the band's
> three singers required a slightly different approach. Then we
> listened to the results with all the instruments to make very sure it
> sounded natural.
>
> Fortunately we have our own studio and can afford the time to get it
> right, but given a choice between what seems to be the normal method
> of set-it-and-forget-it autotuning and not using it at all, I'd rather
> go without. Listening to a song on the radio that has obvious
> autotuning artifacts in a non-artistic, unintentional context destroys
> the appeal of the song to me.
>
> Brian
> Lord Only