Kevin318 > wrote in message >...
> I've seen the arguments in which someone says Autotune is ruining
> music, and then someone says that poeple have been tuning vocals for
> years, it just just more difficult using harmonizers, and other
> methods.
>
> So I'm wondering when this started? And by who? I'm guessing the
> Beatles never had vocals tuned. I know they altered the speed for
> effect, but I don't think there was any manipulation for out of tune
> vocals. When did harmonizers come out? In the eighties? Who were the
> artists from the past that had vocals tuned?
>
> Thanks for any information.

George Martin used to record piano notes under the pitches that the
Beatles sang soft (flat) and blend them into the mixes. Engineering
assistance to singing has been going on for as long as somebody could
figure out how to do it.

In article > none writes:

> I've seen the arguments in which someone says Autotune is ruining
> music, and then someone says that poeple have been tuning vocals for
> years, it just just more difficult using harmonizers, and other
> methods.
>
> So I'm wondering when this started? And by who?

Sam Cooke was apparently bad enough with pitch so that his producers
decided to vary the tape speed to keep his vocals in tune, and let the
music wander where it would. In those days, you couldn't hear enough
of the band when the singer was singing to worry about whether they
were in tune or not.

I wish I could point out an example, but I can't.

I'm sure it wasn't the first application of tuning a vocal, but it
might have been the first to be big on the charts.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article > none writes:
>
>
>>I've seen the arguments in which someone says Autotune is ruining
>>music, and then someone says that poeple have been tuning vocals for
>>years, it just just more difficult using harmonizers, and other
>>methods.
>>
>>So I'm wondering when this started? And by who?
>
>
> Sam Cooke was apparently bad enough with pitch so that his producers
> decided to vary the tape speed to keep his vocals in tune, and let the
> music wander where it would. In those days, you couldn't hear enough
> of the band when the singer was singing to worry about whether they
> were in tune or not.
>
> I wish I could point out an example, but I can't.
>
> I'm sure it wasn't the first application of tuning a vocal, but it
> might have been the first to be big on the charts.
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers - )

How would that be possible?
If you vary the tape speed on playback the vocal pitch still would be
out of tune relative to the track. If the music "wandered where it
would" implies that the vocal would have to be on a separate machine and
varispeeded separately from the backing track.
FWIW I thought the Sam Cooke stuff sounded pretty damn good pitch-wise
or maybe the performances are so incredible it didn't matter.

--
--
John Noll
Retromedia Sound Studios
Red Bank, NJ 07701

Phone: 732-842-3853 Fax: 732-842-5631

http://www.retromedia.net

I was doing it with samplers in the '80s. PITA

Bill L

"Kevin318" > wrote in message
...
> I've seen the arguments in which someone says Autotune is ruining
> music, and then someone says that poeple have been tuning vocals for
> years, it just just more difficult using harmonizers, and other
> methods.
>
> So I'm wondering when this started? And by who? I'm guessing the
> Beatles never had vocals tuned. I know they altered the speed for
> effect, but I don't think there was any manipulation for out of tune
> vocals. When did harmonizers come out? In the eighties? Who were the
> artists from the past that had vocals tuned?
>
> Thanks for any information.

On 13 Jul 2003 06:22:58 -0700, (RL,nyc) wrote:

>Kevin318 > wrote in message >...
>> I've seen the arguments in which someone says Autotune is ruining
>> music, and then someone says that poeple have been tuning vocals for
>> years, it just just more difficult using harmonizers, and other
>> methods.
>>
>> So I'm wondering when this started? And by who? I'm guessing the
>> Beatles never had vocals tuned. I know they altered the speed for
>> effect, but I don't think there was any manipulation for out of tune
>> vocals. When did harmonizers come out? In the eighties? Who were the
>> artists from the past that had vocals tuned?
>>
>> Thanks for any information.
>
>George Martin used to record piano notes under the pitches that the
>Beatles sang soft (flat) and blend them into the mixes. Engineering
>assistance to singing has been going on for as long as somebody could
>figure out how to do it.

Really? I've never heard that before. On which songs?

On 13 Jul 2003 11:35:31 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article > none writes:
>
>> I've seen the arguments in which someone says Autotune is ruining
>> music, and then someone says that poeple have been tuning vocals for
>> years, it just just more difficult using harmonizers, and other
>> methods.
>>
>> So I'm wondering when this started? And by who?
>
>Sam Cooke was apparently bad enough with pitch so that his producers
>decided to vary the tape speed to keep his vocals in tune, and let the
>music wander where it would. In those days, you couldn't hear enough
>of the band when the singer was singing to worry about whether they
>were in tune or not.
>
>I wish I could point out an example, but I can't.
>
>I'm sure it wasn't the first application of tuning a vocal, but it
>might have been the first to be big on the charts.

I wish you could point out an example, too :). I'd love to hear that.

>
>The first device that worked like a Harmonizer used rotating heads. We
>had one at Motown in the mid '60s although people avoided using it.

Bob, what kind of rotating heads? Are you talking about like the ones on the
old 2" quad video machines?

NeilH

>George Martin used to record piano notes under the pitches that the
>Beatles sang soft (flat) and blend them into the mixes. Engineering
>assistance to singing has been going on for as long as somebody could
>figure out how to do it.
>

Can you give your source for this info? I'd like to hear more about it.
Steve

>
>>George Martin used to record piano notes under the pitches that the
>>Beatles sang soft (flat) and blend them into the mixes. Engineering
>>assistance to singing has been going on for as long as somebody could
>>figure out how to do it.
>>
>
>Can you give your source for this info? I'd like to hear more about it.
>Steve


That's a cool trick - I do the same with pedal steel & fiddle only I sing the
correct pitches under their notes & blend.



My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

In article > writes:

> How would that be possible?
> If you vary the tape speed on playback the vocal pitch still would be
> out of tune relative to the track. If the music "wandered where it
> would" implies that the vocal would have to be on a separate machine and
> varispeeded separately from the backing track.

It's a matter of perception. The vocal is enough louder than the
backing (which might be plinking piano chords and a share with
brushes) that you focus on the vocal and don't really notice the
backing. So if you change the speed to keep the vocal on pitch, the
band goes off pitch, but hey, they're just the band and you're not
supposed to pay attention to them (and the producer hopes that you
won't).

> FWIW I thought the Sam Cooke stuff sounded pretty damn good pitch-wise
> or maybe the performances are so incredible it didn't matter.

Works, doesn' it?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

John Noll > wrote:
>How would that be possible?
>If you vary the tape speed on playback the vocal pitch still would be
>out of tune relative to the track. If the music "wandered where it
>would" implies that the vocal would have to be on a separate machine and
>varispeeded separately from the backing track.

I did this occasionally. You record vocals with a rough backing track,
then varispeed the vocals (usually in bits and pieces and taping them
all back together), then redo the backing track.

With simple vocal+guitar stuff, you can do the whole track... the guitar
goes out of tune instead of the vocal and that is less annoying.

I hate it. Overall, it's a lot more work, and less effective than a properly
used autotune.

I don't see autotune as being a bad thing. But I see the way autotune is
being used aggressively and without thought as being bad.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

NeilH011 > wrote:
>>
>>The first device that worked like a Harmonizer used rotating heads. We
>>had one at Motown in the mid '60s although people avoided using it.
>
>Bob, what kind of rotating heads? Are you talking about like the ones on the
>old 2" quad video machines?

Was this the German "timestretcher" machine, or the rotating head thing with
the bin loop?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Bill Lorentzen" > wrote in message >...

> I was doing it with samplers in the '80s. PITA


Up until the late '90s I was doing it by telling the singer "you were
a little sharp/flat on that line, let's do it again."

I suppose that was a PITA also...

(Buster Mudd) wrote:

>Up until the late '90s I was doing it by telling the singer "you were
>a little sharp/flat on that line, let's do it again."
>
>I suppose that was a PITA also...

Nah, just the common sense approach. ;)

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

Re: Tuning vocals started when, by who?

Group: rec.audio.pro Date: Sun, Jul 13, 2003, 10:20pm From:
(Scott=A0Dorsey)
NeilH011 > wrote:
The first device that worked like a Harmonizer used rotating heads. We
had one at Motown in the mid '60s although people avoided using it.
Bob, what kind of rotating heads? Are you talking about like the ones on
the old 2" quad video machines?
Was this the German "timestretcher" machine, or the rotating head thing
with the bin loop?
--scott<<<<<<<<<

IIRC it was called the ELTRO. Either made by Neumann or EMT and
distributed by Gotham Audio. We had one at Gotham Recording for
squeezing or stretching spots. You could change the pitch without
changing the tempo or the other way around.

Eric



--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article >,
Eric Toline > wrote:

>it was called the ELTRO

That's the one!

--
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!

In article >, Buster
Mudd > wrote:

>Up until the late '90s I was doing it by telling the singer "you were
>a little sharp/flat on that line, let's do it again."

That didn't always work. In many cases a performer was so popular that
it made sense to spend enough time to fix it. What we call stardom
involves a lot of different skills. Very few people have all the
musical chops in addition to everything else that is needed.

--
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!

<< In many cases a performer was so popular that
it made sense to spend enough time to fix it >>

And in some cases, the bigger the star the less time they want to spend in the
studio taking any kind of direction.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

<< So who are these stars (from the past)? >>

I never said these were "stars of the past" and I personally wouldn't put that
kind of information ina newsgroup. It's called being discreet.







---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

>>"I know enough to know I don't know enough"
>
>So who are these stars (from the past)? And on what specific songs?
>I'd really like to hear what tuning sounded like pre autotune.

I couldn't tell you specifically which songs, but for years Bob
Clearmountain had the vca of the rightmost fader on his mixing console
assigned to the pitch control of a harmonizer. It probably was fairly
useful if he put that kind of mod together for the task. And he wasn't
mixing Star Search Wannabes, either.

I saw one of my clients spend lots of money for "specialist in
Nashville" to tune his vocal, pre-autotune. Those results were dubious
at best, but they were obviously result of bouncing with a harmonizer
in the right spots.

It was pretty easy to do, really, you just bounced the track a section
at a time with the harmonizer in or out of line with appropriate
correction in place.

Autotuning is often the only hope of many mid-level artists who have
no more steam the day they record. I use it often and I usually can't
tell where I put it after a couple of weeks away from the tune. Then
again, I spend a lot of time doing it as carefully as possible, so you
can't tell it's there. It may help to have done years of dialogue
editing to spot areas that won't be discerned if fixed and when to
keep something "natural."

I think the results are worth it. Hell, we lie about ambience, reverb,
dynamics, whether it's done in one take, how breathy the singer is,
and every other possible thing. Tuning is just another tool in service
of the song (if appropriate.)



Kurt Riemann

In article >, EggHd
> wrote:

>And in some cases, the bigger the star the less time they want to spend in the
>studio taking any kind of direction.


Actually JUST spending more time than necessary. This is why high-end
studios will never go away.

--
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!

Kurt Riemann <> wrote in message >...
> >>"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

> I saw one of my clients spend lots of money for "specialist in
> Nashville" to tune his vocal, pre-autotune. Those results were dubious
> at best, but they were obviously result of bouncing with a harmonizer
> in the right spots.
>
> It was pretty easy to do, really, you just bounced the track a section
> at a time with the harmonizer in or out of line with appropriate
> correction in place.
>

Yep - back in the early to mid 1990s that was one way to do it around
here. The usual tool was an Eventide product; the 3000 was very
popular, I was fond of the 3500. I believe the 4000 had a type of
auto-tuner on it.

Another method was to use a Fairlight. The track would be transferred
into a Fairlight and the operator and client would go thru it phrase
by phrase & shift pitch. A long and laborious process as I recall,
but similar to using the graphical mode in Auto-tune in some respects.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:38:26 -0800, Kurt Riemann <> wrote:

>Autotuning is often the only hope of many mid-level artists who have
>no more steam the day they record.
>
>Kurt Riemann

This makes sense to me. So what you're saying is that it's not that
the singer(s) in question couldn't do it, it's just that given
recording deadlines, and other issues, you've got to do what you can,
right?

On 16 Jul 2003 00:07:19 GMT, (EggHd) wrote:

><< So who are these stars (from the past)? >>
>
>I never said these were "stars of the past" and I personally wouldn't put that
>kind of information ina newsgroup. It's called being discreet.

The topic is stars of the past (pre autotune). I'm aware of many stars
of today who are using it. In fact, I'd be surprised if there are any
recordings that don't. I read recently that Autotune was used on David
Bowie's last CD, and I'm sure he has the ability to sing in tune.
Maybe people today don't care about their reputation as much as they
did in the past.

I'm just wondering if the people of the past who needed tuning were of
the "cheesy" variety. I would have guessed that someone like Fabian
would have needed help more than Sam Cooke, as far as people of the
50's go.

Maybe the question should be, how many people in the Rock n Roll Hall
of Fame had their vocals tuned?

Because the feeling is, people can't sing anymore. Everyone always
throws stones at today's singers (usually at people like Britney
Spears, but I think it's the alternative people who can't sing.)

So did Elvis need tuning? Chuch Berry? Mick Jagger? Aretha Franklin?
Marvin Gaye? Stevie Wonder? Paul McCartney? Elton John? Freddie
Mercury? Sting? Elvis Costello? Bono? Michael Jackson? Madonna? Kurt
Cobain? Fred Durst? Kid Rock?

If I were to guess, I'd guess that Madonna, Fred Durst, Kid Rock and
maybe Kurt Cobain needed tuning.

I'd still love to hear what tuning sounded like from the past. Can't
someone name one specific song?

<< I'm just wondering if the people of the past who needed tuning were of
the "cheesy" variety. >>

We know that Mili Vanili weren't even good enough to tune that used studio
singers. There was another case of a dance record where the singer sued and was
the real singer. Paula Abdul had a huge thing over a studio singer who claimed
she sang along with Paula on the hits.

So you never know who did what.

<< Maybe the question should be, how many people in the Rock n Roll Hall
of Fame had their vocals tuned? >>

Where would someone get this information? Tell all books, I guess. Producers
don't go around and say what they did to make an artist "better" than they were
and then work again.




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Kurt Riemann <> wrote:

> It was pretty easy to do, really, you just bounced the track a section
> at a time with the harmonizer in or out of line with appropriate
> correction in place.

Actually, you can control the Harmonizer via MIDI and adjust pitch as
you go, recording the changes in the sequencer of your choice.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:43:25 -0700, Kevin318 > wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:38:26 -0800, Kurt Riemann <> wrote:
>
>>Autotuning is often the only hope of many mid-level artists who have
>>no more steam the day they record.
>>
>>Kurt Riemann
>
>This makes sense to me. So what you're saying is that it's not that
>the singer(s) in question couldn't do it, it's just that given
>recording deadlines, and other issues, you've got to do what you can,
>right?

Bingo. As an engineer you are often left to clean up a producer's mess
- for instance when they run the vocalist ragged before he/she even
gets to the end of the song.

I've had a few sessions lately where the vocalist never made it past
the first chorus without the producer yelling "STOP" because of simple
phrasing issues. The poor guy simply gets tired.

Autotuning is not necessarily the great falsifier of art, it's a
unique tool when you're trying to come in on-budget with $3500 album
and you need to just fix one obvious gack that nobody noticed the
first day. OR if you have added a new chord and that passing note on
the vocal track is now a flat five. OR the studio is not going to be
available within the singer's schedule for the next couple of days.
Why NOT fix something with available technology?

If on the other hand, you are Kid Rock and you simply Suck, you may
need it more than others. What seems to happen then (and I have a
Nashville artist / client who does this) is the artist looks at me and
says, "You can fix that in autotune, right?" and then drives off to
whatever they need to do next.

If I can I say Yes, because that's what I get big bucks for. But I
won't do it if it'll show, and I'll be very up-front about that.

But I agree with the vast majority of RAPers who believe that it can
kill a record if used stupidly and at the behest of Suits at the label
for whatever reason they can come up with. Some (a lot of) people who
control the autotuners have no taste, either. It CAN be used well.
It's tedious, it's not intuitive, but it can enhance a track if you
approach it with musical insight.





Kurt Riemann

Kevin318 wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:38:26 -0800, Kurt Riemann <> wrote:
>
> >Autotuning is often the only hope of many mid-level artists who have
> >no more steam the day they record.
> >
> >Kurt Riemann
>
> This makes sense to me. So what you're saying is that it's not that
> the singer(s) in question couldn't do it, it's just that given
> recording deadlines, and other issues, you've got to do what you can,
> right?

Makes sense to me. I recently bought, unheard, a second hand LP of Kenny
Rogers named "Country love songs" or something. It all carried songs of
him that I never heard before. Upon listening for the first time I
realized why. The vocals were sung very sloppy and out of tune. I really
can take, and even appreciate, the occasional flaw, but very obvious
flaws every other line makes the record unlistenable for me. Knowing the
fact that KR is perfectly capable of doing a lot better, this must have
been a low-budget record where they didn't have time to book another
session when his cold (or what it was) was over. Nowadays they'd use
autotune for this I suppose, but at the time they just left the flaws in,
and only the very best stuff was released as a single.

With all the competition and the piracy going on, the number of low
budget (and hence autotune) projects is increasing by the day.

The trend of robot-like tuning a la Craig David doesn't help either.
Hopefully this will pass eventually. On some songs it is an interesting
effect, but it becomes pretty annoying when used all the time.

Erwin Timmerman

In article >,
Erwin Timmerman > wrote:

> The trend of robot-like tuning a la Craig David doesn't help either.
> Hopefully this will pass eventually. On some songs it is an interesting
> effect, but it becomes pretty annoying when used all the time.
>
> Erwin Timmerman

It is the blight of modern pop "music" (and I use the term "music"
loosely)

Chris Smalt > wrote:

> Hank wrote:

> > Actually, you can control the Harmonizer via MIDI and adjust pitch as
> > you go, recording the changes in the sequencer of your choice.

> Except this was back when the mixing guys thought midi was some silly
> protocol for amateurs.

Except for some guy named Clearmountain.

--
ha

> > Except this was back when the mixing guys thought midi was some silly
> > protocol for amateurs.



Hank wrote:

> Except for some guy named Clearmountain.


You Mountain people are a weird bunch. But seriously: isn't the
definition of amateur someone who loves midi?


Chris


________________________________
(Love midi tender, love midi doo...)

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message >...
> John Noll > wrote:
> >How would that be possible?
> >If you vary the tape speed on playback the vocal pitch still would be
> >out of tune relative to the track. If the music "wandered where it
> >would" implies that the vocal would have to be on a separate machine and
> >varispeeded separately from the backing track.
>
> I did this occasionally. You record vocals with a rough backing track,
> then varispeed the vocals (usually in bits and pieces and taping them
> all back together), then redo the backing track.
>
> With simple vocal+guitar stuff, you can do the whole track... the guitar
> goes out of tune instead of the vocal and that is less annoying.
>
> I hate it. Overall, it's a lot more work, and less effective than a properly
> used autotune.
>
> I don't see autotune as being a bad thing. But I see the way autotune is
> being used aggressively and without thought as being bad.
> --scott



I have the autotune plugin and so far using it hasn't achieved good
results. It doesn't really make a singer sound better.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

Mike > wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message >...
>>
>> I don't see autotune as being a bad thing. But I see the way autotune is
>> being used aggressively and without thought as being bad.
>
>I have the autotune plugin and so far using it hasn't achieved good
>results. It doesn't really make a singer sound better.

No, it doesn't do that. But it can make a bad take usable, from a singer
that already sounds good.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."