hillary_step..Just got back from town..On the way home I was thinking about your thread..I wouldn`t want Audio Tune to correct some of the vocal artists who really don`t sing that well but write incredible tunes..Kris Kristofferson,Willie Nelson,Paul Williams,..ect...OUTLAW
Musical Dishonesty - What next?
by hillary_step 82 Replies latest social entertainment
-
-
tijkmo
You have noooo clue how rabid a Grobanite exwitless is
well i have nothing against josh per se....i loved him in ally mcbeal
just that no-one has made a good remake of america.cos it was rubbish in the first place.
(although i will concede that just because a song is rubbish to begin with doesn't of itself mean that a good version of it can't be done...sailing, no more i love yous, pretty much anything of leonard cohens redone by just about anyone etc etc)
-
hillary_step
Sixxxxy,
Disagreeing with you is not the same thing as missing the point. And I certainly do have a history of the previous.
Well, in actuality you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with the opinions of professionals in the field that I noted in my post. You offered no rebuttal in the form of evidence , just opinion.
Didn't this happen last time we 'spoke'? You recall, that I presented comments from Larry Coryell regarding an musical issue and your reaction - "Larry Corryell is a boring guitar player"...lol
Let me try to reiterate :
1) Professional musicians have threatened to sue people who accuse them publicly of using auto-tune, yet they use many of the other studio effects that you note without issue, recognizing that there is a difference. Why is this?
2) I am aquainted with studio engineers, professionals in the rock industry who refuse to use auto-tune. You have no answer as to why this is so other than to suggest that they, unlike your good self of course, are opinionated! Surely you must see how suspect your comment is.
3) The reason for the use of effects in a studio is not for correction of basic tuning, and this is the point of this thread. The intent of these effects is not to represent something that the musicians are incapable of doing. On the contrary, they are the creators of the sound from which the effects originate. This is not in the least comparable.
4) It matters not a jot that a thirteen year old kid has no interest in whether they are being decieved about a performers true abilities or not, but it matters to many, and a growing number of professionals in the industry. I have given examples above. The use of such deception is neither good for the art, or good for the industry in the long term, even a Spice Girl knows this....lol.
I understand that computers exist that can print copies of the masters, Renior and the such, art. Apparently the computer can mimic even the thickness of paint and produce a 'painting' that at first sight is indistinguishable from the original. I have no issue with this, as long as painting is not hung in a gallery and hailed as the original - that is fraud regardless of how much it is admired by onlookers.
I would be interested in the comments of professional musicians who offer a defense for the use of auto-tune? Do you have any to share with us?
HS
-
restrangled
The idea that that voices can now be artificially, in real time brought into perfect pitch is disturbing.
(It now makes sense to me that many complained Madonna only sings in the key of G)
I say lets bring back the late 60's and 70's. Bands like Cream, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull....just a few among many.
And how do the drummers out there feel about Ginger Baker?
r.
-
sixsixsixtynine
HS-
Well, in actuality you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with the opinions of professionals in the field that I noted in my post. You offered no rebuttal in the form of evidence , just opinion.
Are you refering to you statement: "I know studio engineers who refuse to work with auto-tune". This is supposed to mean something to me? That some anonymous 'professionals' you know won't use Auto-Tune? That's hardly proof of any kind of prevailing opinion in the industry. Do you have any better evidence to support your claims?
Professional musicians have threatened to sue people who accuse them publicly of using auto-tune
You gave one example (Spice Girls), but use the plural here. Who are the others you refer to?
I am aquainted with studio engineers, professionals in the rock industry who refuse to use auto-tune. You have no answer as to why this is so other than to suggest that they, unlike your good self of course, are opinionated! Surely you must see how suspect your comment is.
You didn't answer the question from my previous post. Would these 'professionals in the rock industry' also refuse to punch-in and fix vocal parts that were out of tune/time. Someone like yourself who is involved in the recording industry no doubt knows how much that is done. Sometimes to the point where nearly every word is recorded seperately. Isn't that just as dishonest'? The end result is something that singer couldn't do; sing the song from start to finish in perfect pitch and time.
The reason for the use of effects in a studio is not for correction of basic tuning, and this is the point of this thread. The intent of these effects is not to represent something that the musicians are incapable of doing. On the contrary, they are the creators of the sound from which the effects originate. This is not in the least comparable.
Again you completely ignore the subject of overdubs & punching-in. The end result of those techniques is something the musicians are incapable of doing. Namely, playing/singing their part from start to finish with zero mistakes.
It matters not a jot that a thirteen year old kid has no interest in whether they are being decieved about a performers true abilities or not, but it matters to many, and a growing number of professionals in the industry. I have given examples above. The use of such deception is neither good for the art, or good for the industry in the long term, even a Spice Girl knows this....lol
If you chose to respond to this post, please specifically answer these questions:
Do you aknowledge that not all music is meant to be art, and not all perfomers are artists, some are just entertainers?
If so, then how is the use of Auto-Tune any different than an actor using a stunt double, or makeup to change their appearance? Do you regard that as 'dishonest' also?
-
Leolaia
I wonder if Auto-tune might have a legitimate use as a pedagogical instrument, to help young or inexperienced singers learn how to sing in tune by first recording themselves sing, correcting it with Auto-tune, and then play back the recording as a target to sing to. It's your own voice you're hearing, so I wonder if that might have an advantage in teaching what correct tune is supposed to sound like....for those who are basically bad singers. (I am definitely!)
-
sixsixsixtynine
HS-
Didn't this happen last time we 'spoke'? You recall, that I presented comments from Larry Coryell regarding an musical issue and your reaction - "Larry Corryell is a boring guitar player"...lol
No, that was almost two years ago, and my exact words were:
So, have I heard of Larry Coryell? Yes I have, and am familiar with his work. While I would never call him a "bad" player(as his technical ability is obvious), I find his music/playing very uninteresting. There's little in it that is surprising, original, or "fresh".
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/94991/1617961/post.ashx#1617961
-
hillary_step
Sixxxyy,
Are you refering to you statement: "I know studio engineers who refuse to work with auto-tune". This is supposed to mean something to me?
The only thing it is supposed to mean to you is that I know professional engineers who refuse to work with auto-tune. What else is it supposed to mean?
If you are looking for the names of these engineers, please let me know and I will contact you off-line. You need to accept that such people exist regardless of the fact that it punches holes in your concepts.
Yes, I did note one 'professional' who is suing a newspaper for suggesting she uses auto-tune. I have asked you to comment on this and you have side-stepped this issue. Why is that?
I am prepared to agree to disagree with a person about this issue, as many of my colleagues and friends do not feel that the use of auto-tune is an unacceptable compromise and I have had the benefit of both side of the arguments by those who know what they are doing. You however have side-stepped the evidence that I presented, which I will present to you yet again :
1) I am prepared to give you the names of professional sound engineers (yes - plural) who work with many big names who will not on the basis of integrity use auto-tune. Apart from your ridiculous assertion that they feel this way due to being 'opinionated' do you have any other suggestions as to why this might be?
2) Why are professional musicians (and if you do not understand the grammatical usage of the plurality here - go back to school!) prepared to sue the media for being accused of using auto-tune.
3) The studio effects that you note, and many of them are not ones that I would personally prescribe too, are not in any way similar to auto-tune, whose intent is pitch correction not only in the studio setting but more importantly in live performances to ensure that though a singer might not be able to sing at all, this techonology can fake their efforts and seem to be what it is not.
Many technological studio effects are as I have mentioned on other threads imho detrimental to the end produc and are always given away when played back through good audio equipment. Overwork an oil painting and the same thing happens. It is not a new thing for musicians and engineers to either paper over their musical inadequacies with technology, or overproduce their work due to lazy studio techniques, ego, or any other number of things, but imho auto-tune has introduced a very different beast into the studio - and I am not the only one who thinks so.
You may not believe this, but I am open to having my mind changed about this technology, you have just got nowhere near to it yet, though 'tijkmo' did make a valid point on the matter. If you deal with the evidence I posted and that which I am prepared to divulge privately, if you so wish, then we can talk on a level playing field.
For those who still wonder what this debate is all about :
"Short of that direct brain-to-music hookup, I imagine the next best thing would be if the composer could just sing a part. It would be nice if he didn't have to worry too much about whether he could sing perfectly in tune."
From the auto-tune testimonials page.
HS
-
Twitch
I say lets bring back the late 60's and 70's. Bands like Cream, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull....just a few among many.
And how do the drummers out there feel about Ginger Baker?
Yeah, some good stuff there. Ginger Baker is awesome.
-
hillary_step
Sixxxyy,
So, have I heard of Larry Coryell? Yes I have, and am familiar with his work. While I would never call him a "bad" player(as his technical ability is obvious), I find his music/playing very uninteresting. There's little in it that is surprising, original, or "fresh".
I am glad that despite hitting my mid-fifties I was able to remember the thrust of a two year old statement so clearly, though I will admit that the expression 'boring' and 'very uninteresting' are not identical, but are perhaps synonomous.
Thanks! - HS