Is there Auto-tune here?

[Paul[_13_]]

Some people think so, but wouldn't the bleed from the
piano into the vocal mics ruin the auto-tune?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVDg8fVC4EQ

[gareth magennis]

"Paul" wrote in message ...


Some people think so, but wouldn't the bleed from the
piano into the vocal mics ruin the auto-tune?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVDg8fVC4EQ




Art Garfunkels very first "Over" on "over troubled water" kind of gives it
away.
Plus there is no man on earth, particularly that old, who could be that
pitch perfect on a live gig, it all sounds horribly synthetic to me.

I don't think there is much on Paul Simons voice, if any, he slides and
vibratos like a man with a good voice and a lot of experience.


I don't see how the piano is going to much go down the mics though?


Gareth.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 9/3/2013 12:02 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>
> "Paul" wrote in message ...
>
>
> Some people think so, but wouldn't the bleed from the
> piano into the vocal mics ruin the auto-tune?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVDg8fVC4EQ
>
>
>
>
> Art Garfunkels very first "Over" on "over troubled water" kind of gives
> it away.
> Plus there is no man on earth, particularly that old, who could be that
> pitch perfect on a live gig, it all sounds horribly synthetic to me.
>
> I don't think there is much on Paul Simons voice, if any, he slides and
> vibratos like a man with a good voice and a lot of experience.
>
>
> I don't see how the piano is going to much go down the mics though?
>

Yeah, it's likely a closed lid piano with mics inside.

But what do you listen for exactly? I can't really hear it.
I suppose if I owned a unit, I would know what to listen for....

[geoff]

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/3/2013 12:02 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Paul" wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> Some people think so, but wouldn't the bleed from the
>> piano into the vocal mics ruin the auto-tune?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVDg8fVC4EQ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Art Garfunkels very first "Over" on "over troubled water" kind of gives
>> it away.
>> Plus there is no man on earth, particularly that old, who could be that
>> pitch perfect on a live gig, it all sounds horribly synthetic to me.


I think that's some sort of gated reverb on the vocals that sounds really
false.

geoff

[gareth magennis]

"geoff" wrote in message
...


"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/3/2013 12:02 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Paul" wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> Some people think so, but wouldn't the bleed from the
>> piano into the vocal mics ruin the auto-tune?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVDg8fVC4EQ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Art Garfunkels very first "Over" on "over troubled water" kind of gives
>> it away.
>> Plus there is no man on earth, particularly that old, who could be that
>> pitch perfect on a live gig, it all sounds horribly synthetic to me.


I think that's some sort of gated reverb on the vocals that sounds really
false.

geoff





At 1.02 there does seem to be a gate on both vocal and reverb.

But this is nothing to do with the alleged Autotune shennanigans.


Gareth.

[Scott Dorsey]

Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>
>At 1.02 there does seem to be a gate on both vocal and reverb.
>
>But this is nothing to do with the alleged Autotune shennanigans.

If Autotune is done in a careful and controlled way, one note at a time,
it will be impossible to actually notice. The same thing can be said of
cutting notes from one word or one verse and pasting them onto another, or
of going back and punching notes in, or of studio redubbing all the vocals
in the track. All of these techniques are very common for live recordings.
--scott

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Paul wrote:
>
> Some people think so, but wouldn't the bleed from the
> piano into the vocal mics ruin the auto-tune?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVDg8fVC4EQ


Sounds more like bad reverb to me. There's so
much flanging from the U-Tewb audio I can't
really tell.


--
Les Cargill

[Paul[_13_]]

On 9/3/2013 3:13 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>>
>> At 1.02 there does seem to be a gate on both vocal and reverb.
>>
>> But this is nothing to do with the alleged Autotune shennanigans.
>
> If Autotune is done in a careful and controlled way, one note at a time,
> it will be impossible to actually notice. The same thing can be said of
> cutting notes from one word or one verse and pasting them onto another, or
> of going back and punching notes in, or of studio redubbing all the vocals
> in the track. All of these techniques are very common for live recordings.
> --scott
>

Well, my first reaction to seeing this video was:

"Damn, Art Garfunkel can STILL sing like that??!!??"

Then the comments reminded me about autotune, and
now I'm skeptical, as the dude IS 71 years old! But
after listening carefully, I cannot hear artifacts.

I've heard you can use Autotune live.....true?

[Nil]

On 03 Sep 2013, Paul > wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> Some people think so, but wouldn't the bleed from the
> piano into the vocal mics ruin the auto-tune?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVDg8fVC4EQ

I'm skeptical that Art can still sing like that... or that he ever
could, really. Yes, he does or did have an excellent instrument, but I
believe most of his studio performances were quite well massaged and
comped. I've heard plenty of live recordings where he's a little pitchy
and his vibrato was a little much. Not in a bad way, but quite human.
Here he sounds almost supernaturally perfect - pretty weird for someone
his age. And I've heard that he's been having a lot of trouble with his
voice in recent years, though I see that this clip is at least 4 years
old.

I suspect that there has been some pitch correction used, albeit subtly
and avoiding the most obvious side-effects. Still, his recorded sound
is a little "phasey", and his vibrato seems suppressed. I think it was
a very good live performance that was helped a little in post-
production. I said "suspect" because I don't hear any of the obvious
signs of Autotune. If it was used, it was by someone who has some taste
and knows how to work it.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Paul > wrote:
> Then the comments reminded me about autotune, and
>now I'm skeptical, as the dude IS 71 years old! But
>after listening carefully, I cannot hear artifacts.

I hear so many YouTube compression artifacts that it's hard to tell anything
else.

> I've heard you can use Autotune live.....true?

You can use it as an effect, and lots of people do. But it's very hard to
control and very far from transparent. For the most part, if you turn it
on and just run it on everything it's a deliberate effect and not a repair tool.

It was originally intended as a subtle repair tool, not as a grotesque and
exaggerated effect, but lots of people seem to be using it as an effect and
if that's what they like, that's their decision.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[gareth magennis]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>
>At 1.02 there does seem to be a gate on both vocal and reverb.
>
>But this is nothing to do with the alleged Autotune shennanigans.

If Autotune is done in a careful and controlled way, one note at a time,
it will be impossible to actually notice. The same thing can be said of
cutting notes from one word or one verse and pasting them onto another, or
of going back and punching notes in, or of studio redubbing all the vocals
in the track. All of these techniques are very common for live recordings.
--scott

--



I still think I can hear an artifact at 1.14, but no others - its done well,
but well overdone IMHO.


Gareth.

[geoff]

"Nil" > wrote in message
...
> I said "suspect" because I don't hear any of the obvious
> signs of Autotune. If it was used, it was by someone who has some taste
> and knows how to work it.

Even if a performance is not perfect (like Macca at tteh Lymprics), I think
I would still rather hear 'the truth', in a live performance at least.

Art's performance there does sound almost too good to be true. Or maybe not
?!? Would be nice to know ....

geoff

[Paul[_13_]]

On 9/4/2013 4:04 PM, geoff wrote:
>
> "Nil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I said "suspect" because I don't hear any of the obvious
>> signs of Autotune. If it was used, it was by someone who has some taste
>> and knows how to work it.
>
> Even if a performance is not perfect (like Macca at tteh Lymprics), I think
> I would still rather hear 'the truth', in a live performance at least.
>
> Art's performance there does sound almost too good to be true. Or maybe not
> ?!? Would be nice to know ....
>
> geoff
>

Yes, it's a bit unfortunate that studio tricks can mask the
truth.

Everyone here knows how easy it is to make a "perfect"
song in the digital world....

I suspect that whatever the case may be, that Art still sings
damn well, especially for his age....

[gareth magennis]

Yes, it's a bit unfortunate that studio tricks can mask the
truth.

Everyone here knows how easy it is to make a "perfect"
song in the digital world....

I suspect that whatever the case may be, that Art still sings
damn well, especially for his age....






I seriously doubt that, or that "recording" would not have been so processed
as to render it impossibly pitch perfect.
(Paul Simons vocal wasn't perfect, but didn't warrant any such treatment)

Check out carefully the lyric "Small" at 0.37.
There is some kind of unnatural warbling there which I think is a pitch
correction of a dodgy vibrato.
There are many more examples of this.

And funny how there is no vibrato whatsoever in the whole take.


Gareth.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 9/5/2013 3:06 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:

>
> I seriously doubt that, or that "recording" would not have been so
> processed as to render it impossibly pitch perfect.
> (Paul Simons vocal wasn't perfect, but didn't warrant any such treatment)
>

Jesus, you sound really jealous of Art's singing career! Probably
because you never really had one yourself.

The crowd still appeared to enjoy his performance, so I'll
bet he's still a decent singer, especially for his age.


> Check out carefully the lyric "Small" at 0.37.
> There is some kind of unnatural warbling there which I think is a pitch
> correction of a dodgy vibrato.
> There are many more examples of this.
>
> And funny how there is no vibrato whatsoever in the whole take.
>

That would be a good indicator of the autotune, I would imagine...

[hank alrich]

Paul > wrote:

> On 9/5/2013 3:06 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
> >
> > I seriously doubt that, or that "recording" would not have been so
> > processed as to render it impossibly pitch perfect.
> > (Paul Simons vocal wasn't perfect, but didn't warrant any such treatment)
> >
>
> Jesus, you sound really jealous of Art's singing career! Probably
> because you never really had one yourself.

Gareth is addressing _what he hears_, and he is not beholden to pop
stars. Grovel if you must, but he isn't going to do that.

How's your own singing career coming along?

> The crowd still appeared to enjoy his performance, so I'll
> bet he's still a decent singer, especially for his age.

Audiences will enjoy all kinds of stuff. In general they come prepared
to suspend belief or disbelief. They just want to forget about their
problems for a couple of hours and have fun. They're mostly not hanging
out trying to pinpoint incidences of autotuning.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Paul[_13_]]

On 9/6/2013 9:15 AM, hank alrich wrote:
> Paul > wrote:
>
>> On 9/5/2013 3:06 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I seriously doubt that, or that "recording" would not have been so
>>> processed as to render it impossibly pitch perfect.
>>> (Paul Simons vocal wasn't perfect, but didn't warrant any such treatment)
>>>
>>
>> Jesus, you sound really jealous of Art's singing career! Probably
>> because you never really had one yourself.
>
> Gareth is addressing _what he hears_, and he is not beholden to pop
> stars. Grovel if you must, but he isn't going to do that.
>

I ain't groveling, just appreciating the man's talent, which
he certainly still has to some degree.


> How's your own singing career coming along?

Very well, how about yours?


>
>> The crowd still appeared to enjoy his performance, so I'll
>> bet he's still a decent singer, especially for his age.
>
> Audiences will enjoy all kinds of stuff. In general they come prepared
> to suspend belief or disbelief. They just want to forget about their
> problems for a couple of hours and have fun. They're mostly not hanging
> out trying to pinpoint incidences of autotuning.
>

People generally don't applaud if your performance really sucks,
even if you're a big star.

The point is, even if we assume auto-tune was applied to this
performance, we can't really tell TO WHAT DEGREE it was used, because we
don't have the raw audio files. I suspect I might find the
original raw performance to be pretty good for a 67 year old singer
(he's 71 now, and this was about 4 years ago).

The tonal quality (not pitch) of Art's voice is still apparent.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 13:22:02 -0700, Paul > wrote:

>
> People generally don't applaud if your performance really sucks,
>even if you're a big star.

Huh? Stupid audiences applaud themselves just for recognizing the song
that's being played.

d