"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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

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

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

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

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

"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"?

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

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

"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

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

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

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

"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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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!

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