Slashdot Mirror
Perfect Pitch for Those Without It
airrage writes "Sometimes technology is a good thing, and sometimes it ends up in a hardware device called an autotuner. Apparently, it allows real-time pitch correction. They are actually being used at concerts. I think we all realize that some singers sound different -- much different -- live than they do on CD's, but this just seems so, so, what's the word: fake?"
It really comes as no surprise that music during concerts is altered to some extent. Most musicians are marketed not for their true musical talent, but for their attractiveness, or whatever other marketable features the record companies can exploit.
I would prefer pitch correction done on the fly over some asshat lip-syncing to a recording any day. I'm not sure I'd favor it over a real performance, but I'd have to compare the two.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Cummon... almost everyone in the modern entertainment industry owes their life to silicon(e).
The government's moral compass is controlled by GPS.
In times of crises, they alter it to suit their needs.
don't The Simpsons have prior art on this one?
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
I can see using a tool like this to get the perfect studio recording -- especially after getting a great take with just a few bum notes.
Using it during a performance, however, is just cheesy. Learn to sing in tune, please.
A concert where the artist sounds great, or a concert where the artist sounds terrible? If I pay $50 per seat, I'd like to hear something I'll enjoy, whether it is slightly modified or not. Bad music isn't fun.
Apparently, it allows real-time pitch correction. They are actually being used at concerts.
Gee, Antares Auto-Tune has been out now for what, 6 years? I have a demo of it on my old OS9 Mac, and you can get a hardware version.
Usually it's used subtley to "clean-up" vocals but Cher really abused it on that "Believe" song. And also Madonna has used it recently on some song and Squarepusher (Red Hot Car). Like the article says it's used a LOT. So are a lot of other effects like reverb, compression, "aural exciters", etc.
It's just a tool like any other. The big-name recording industry completely abuses and sanitizes every track with endless re-takes, splices, effects, equalization, compression, etc., etc., this is just another way to make the tracks squeaky-clean, bland, and lifeless! If you like that "well-produced" sound this should be no problem.
I love this quote from a producer: "It's satanic.. Digital vocal tuning is contributing to the Milli Vanilli-fication of pop music. It's a shame that people just do it by rote.
Uhm, dude, the whole recording industry is satanic .. have you bought any
records lately? MilliVanilli-fication is the norm! I think if fans knew just
how awful most performers are without the technology, they'd wonder why the engineers name isn't on the front of the album!
PS: "Perfect pitch" to me means "being able to identify notes by ear without a reference" rather than "being able to sing on-key" (though I guess the two usually go together).
If you're going to an arena show to see a display of musicianship, expect to be disappointed.
If you just want to turn off your brain and have fun, then you will be right at home, because this is exactly what that kind of music is crafted for.
Yeah, but they had to rely on tape - which broke in the middle of one of their 'concerts' giving away their secret. This is a device that can make my dying cat sound like Celine Dion.
oh wait...
"A revolution without dancing is... a revolution not worth having"
should be to completely silence Britney Spears. I only wanna see her, not hear her!
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
Just thought I'd mention that my shower seems to have a similar effect and the cost is zero since I need an apartment anyway! Add the cost of water and I have a make-shift autotuner for about twenty-five cents an hour....
There's plenty of good music that comes from people who can't sing. I can imagine technology like this greatly improving the diversity of music because now people who can't sing well naturally can still make good music.
I'd much rather listen to someone using one of these with original, creative music than listen to someone with great singing talent, but singing crappy cookie-cutter music.
So let's start putting this in the hands of the creative people who can't sing.
if(!cool) exit(-1);
They have perfect pitch.. ALL of them... I believe it has something to do with how their language is spoken.
Anyone who thinks that notes can and should be limited to the 12 chromatic pitches of the equal-tempered music system is full of crap. Read a good book on the history of tuning systems. I can detect an autotune-processed track within seconds of hearing it, due to the utter piano-like lack of pitch sensitivity and expression.
The saddest of sad is when you hear autotune processing on the voice of an artist who understands how to use the many subtleties of pitch, yet bows to the record company execs by submitting to the autotuner.
Autotuners have been around and in use for a few years now. Aside from the obvious use of being able to correct pitch on a performance, they also have other uses.
For example, autotuners can be used to change pitch during performance in ways that vocalists simply cannot. A good example (well, most people will know it anyhow) of an autotuner and vocoder used in combination is in Cher's song "Believe"
Antares Autotune is probably the most popular autotuner, and is said to be what Cher's track actually used. It's available in DirectX, VST, and several other versions and has a free trial version for anyone who's interested.
It's because we're all downloading MP3's from P2P networks, the RIAA can't afford to pay for artists that can sign in tune!
---
Lousy rotten karmic retribution.
...Don't fake it.
I don't care if people want to "fix" their errors on an album, that doesn't bother me - I can accept an album as a "finished" work of art and enjoy its (presumeably enhanced) merits regardless of the unenhanced talents of the musician (or composer, where that differs from the performer).
However, I go to concerts to see the "raw" work, with no enhancements. If an artist lacks the talent to actually reproduce their work (within reason) in that environment, they should not tour. Simple as that. Selling me the same thing I could have on CD (minus the masses of sweating fans packed in like sardines, $3.50 pints of Aquafina, and idiots who consider a concert a good place for impromptu karaoke) for about $80 less (per pair) does not make me happy.
As an (almost) unrelated aside, another concert peeve of mine - Volume. I went to a concert this past weekend (Tori Amos in Boston) where the performer did well, the set list appealed to me, and the environment in general seemed just about perfect. However, even with earplugs (a must for anyone who actually goes to concerts to enjoy the music), they had the volume cranked so high that the bass completely distorted everything else (as in, I could audibly detect clipping of the vocals at every new bass note or percussive event). This does NOT make for satisfied (much less "happy") concert-goers.
perfect pitch is NOT the ability to sing in tune, it is the ability to know the pitch of a tone w/o a reference.
Fake Boobs?
.sigs are for post^Hers.
It would be interesting to take some of those really god-awful American Idol contestants and run their voices through one of these things, see what happens.
If I had one, I'd have to have one with little robot arms that it could throw up in disgust when I tried to sing.
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
Here's a related read. It's long, but very entertaining. Of special interest is the hilarious account of how the drum tracks for an entire album were edited at great expense, because the drummer couldn't play the drums to save his life.
It's overuse and misuse. I have a copy of Auto-Tune 3 (yes, a REAL bought and paid for copy) but you'd never know it from listening to the music I record.
Here's a real-life scenario: I'm recording a singer who is pretty good but there's one note that they can't quite hit today. We could scrap the session and do it again later - even good singers have trouble hitting all the notes all of the time - but that will cost the client hundreds of $$$. Alternatively I can fix the one note that's not quite there. I wouldn't try to correct every little shaky bit of intonation in the entire song, just the one that's really sour. What would you do?
Or how about this? Got a great bass player laying it down. Good tone, good part, one note played near the end of the neck is a bit off because the intonation of the instrument needs adjusting. Would you fix the note with Auto-Tune or scrap the session ($$$) and ask the bass player to get the intonation fixed? I'd do the expedient thing - fix the note AND ask the bass player to get some work done on the instrument before the next session.
What drives me crazy is the obvious warbling and perfectly pitched effect you hear on all of the modern pop and Nashville country CDs. Nobody can sing like that, it sounds like a machine. That's misuse of what can be a very subtle and powerful tool.
"Clean up the air and treat the animals fair" - Captain Beefheart
Except that you've just eliminated the need for musicianship in the vocalist. Now, basically, songwriting and backup bands are all that's important. (Hey.... Maybe this isn't such a bad thing after all. Freakin' prima-donna front men...)
The technology is already in use to create pop acts and has been used throughout the late 90s for this very purpose. The very pop acts that the other poster listed are known to use autotuners. Instead of finding good singers, all the recording industry has to do is find pretty people who can sing passably well enough to work with the autotuner. It's essentially the final nail in the coffin of actual talent in pop acts.
This "levels the playing field" in an industry supposedly based on bringing the best of the best to the national stage. Standards in the recording industry have been slipping for years. One reason for this is that truly talented and popular acts are hard to keep control of contractually. They have enough creativity and talent to jump ship to other labels or create their own labels and survive for years. This is pretty much the opposite of what the recording industry wants. This technology will allow them to take more talentless nobodies and propel them to the national stage with the implicit understanding that without the company that sponsored them, they are nothing. More talented yet more difficult to control musicians can be left more and more to the wayside. In essence, it allows a talent-based industry to get away with selling products without true talent, thus cutting long-term expenses for them.
This technology's a gift from the heavens in karaoke bars, but it'll be just another step in purging all vitality and talent from popular music.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Still, with a plan, you only get the best you can imagine. I'd always hoped for something better than that. -CP
From Antares' site:
Female singer before
and after processing.
Lots more at the product info page.
From Discover magazine, a biology study indicates the tonal orientation of their languge gives a large number of them perfect pitch. It also indicates that perfect pitch can be learned given the appropriate environment. So while the parent post may look like a troll, the moderator didn't do their research.
ehintz
There's two ways to view things like this. Either as a tool to enhance something (if you can't sing, for example), which is the intended use... Or to be used as an instrument in its own right.
The latter gets my vote a lot more. Before you get upset and hope it never takes off, just think: Mellotrons haven't replaced orchestras, drum machines haven't replaced drummers, and samplers haven't replaced every other instrument in the history of time. They all sound good in their own right, not as clones of other things.
But then again, this isn't anything new in the music world; people have been altering pitch in the studio for years, even before "autotune".
This is true. The version of the Beatles "Strawberry Fields Forever" that everybody knows is actually a splice of two different takes. One of the take's tempo was faster than the other, so they had to slow one down and then adjust the pitch to make the two takes line up. This has nothing to do with Lennon's vocal performance, but it just goes to show that pitch adjustment has been happening since at least the 60s.
Apparently, it allows real-time pitch correction. They are actually being used at concerts.
Wonderful! About time they came up with something to make pop music marginally more tolerable.
Now if they could just integrate this technology in consumer karaoke machines, I'd be truly grateful.
When you're singing or playing in an ensemble that's out of absolute tune but in tune with itself, you have the unpleasant choice of staying in absolute tune and going out of tune with the group or adjusting and hearing things out of tune, which is jarring.
For a simpler example, imagine trying to improvize in C on a clarinet and hearing the music in Bb. Now that's jarring.
Unbelievably good relative pitch is required for "absolute mastery" of music. Perfect pitch is just a party trick.
You tell me how "whilst" differs from "while," and I'll stop calling you a pretentious jackass.
I'd be embarrassed to use this sort of thing. If you can't sing/play on key, on command, you don't belong on the stage. Being a real musician is hard work, and that means you perform when you are supposed to. And you do a damn good job at it, every time. And if you aren't in the mood, or you're upset, or whatever, you do it anyway. If you're going to use a safety net like this, you may as well lip-sync to the studio track.
I know this sounds like a harsh approach, but that's the world of the professional musician. I have to question the work ethic of a musician who would need something like this. If you were the leader a band (especially one wth 12+ members), would you want the singer to have a special little box "just in case" he/she made a mistake? I'd rather get a singer who is confident he/she won't make those mistakes. There are more musicians than gigs, so to make it, you have to be there whenever they ask, and don't fuck up.
Pop stars are obviously a different matter, thought. They are much more glamorous, and typically less talented and don't work as hard as the pro musician. They are tossed into a studio to record the next "hit" written by a room full of boring-looking writers, quickly whisked away to a dance studio where the star is yelled at for hours until he/she can dance like a rock star, then a bus takes the soon-to-be-one-hit-wonder around the country while Clearchannel plays the hell out of the new song. This is the kind of person who needs a safety net like that. This is not the kind of person who spent years writing and practicing, accepting any gig that came along, playing to sometimes empty clubs, sometimes double-booking rather than turning down a gig, and driving for five hours to play a four-hour gig. While that may sound like hell to the non-musicians out there, it is exactly the kind of experience that most real musicians go through, and if it weren't for the genuine love of music, nobody would do it. But through that process, the musician learns a lot of discipline, and is ready to sight-read through forty charts with a band full of strangers. Ask the musician if he/she needs a device like this.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
The only ones who would truly benefit from one of these machines in a live setting are those who are truly bad singers
So basically what you're saying is that the RIAA has already started distributing them to their artists?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
Ok, first off, I saw Shania Twain perform at the superbowl last year on TV and I can say she absolutely, positively, was NOT using an auto-tuner. I mean, why use an auto tuner when you're lip synching?
Secondly, they're not the black magic that the article makes them out to be. I've used one many times in a recording setting and they can't make a bad singer into a good singer. They can make a slightly out of tune singer sound in-tune and that's about it. Plus they're hard to use. If you set the tuning speed to fast, they'll flatten out your vibrato. If you set it too slow, bad notes will get through. They have limited usefulness.
The talent portion and 'soul' behind the music is gone...that's what I think is killing music today. I'd much rather in the day, seen the Stones get up and play...they sounded hardly like their albums, but, when on stage..you could 'feel' the energy...Keith and Mick Taylor/Ronnie Wood crunching out chords..Jagger jumping all around...they made an audience part of the experience. I'd rather see Jimmy Page of Zeppelin get up and try to blister out a million notes per/sec on the guitar...hell, he flubbed tons of them...but, there was soul and feeling behind the music. Who cared if Robt's voice broke on occasion...the whole live show was an experience...
Unfortunately....groups today..in many cases don't have that feeling to their music. The pre-fabbed groups don't pay their dues in bars...concert after concert grinding it out and perfecting into show bands as did the bands of old.
I miss the days where the albums were just something to get you excited to go SEE the group in person...'cause they had showmanship and would play the songs as they felt it that night. You didn't expect it to be 'just like the record'...in fact, I was disappointed if there wasn't some improv. in each song. Dancing and choreography isn't bad, but, should take 2nd place to the performance.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Every musician who cares about their art needs to come to terms with the fact that 99% of their craft is practiced in the service of an entertainment industry that doesn't give a crap about artistic greatness. It's all about getting money out of the hands of listeners, and into the hands of promoters/patrons/labels/etc. Always has been. If Handel and Beethoven had to deal with this kind of shit in their day, what makes you so special?
If you want to be an "artist", the best thing you can do is just keep working at mastering your craft and not worry about the millions of dollars it seems that an army of inferior musicians are making. They are doing something which doesn't really resemble what you are doing... something which pays better. So either put on a miniskirt and join them *cough*Jewel*cough* or just be happy doing what you are doing. Either way, don't whine about it. Nobody else cares, and you can't make them.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Most singers have imperfect pitch. I'd go so far as to say *every* singer does. Your brain corrects pitch generally to a Pythagorean scale (perfect intervals at fifths and octaves, with the third exactly one-half way between the fundamental and fifth). If you listen to an accappella choir, they will nearly always gravitate toward this scale. The unfortunate side effect of a Pythagorean scale is that if the tune changes to another key, it sounds simply awful. Choirs can get away with this because they adjust their tuning on-the-fly to still sound good with one another when doing key changes.
Pianos, guitars, and many other instruments have a great deal of trouble with this. You'd have to rearrange the fretboard on a guitar to avoid (nearly) even-temperament, and the piano requires a skilled tuner at least 10 minutes or so to adjust. Thus most people are accustomed to hearing something as "in-tune" only when it is performed to an even-tempered scale.
This fights the vocalists natural ability to judge tune based on harmonic interaction with the rest of the song.
As a recording artist, I make regular use of pitch correction. You'll find that virtually every major artist commercial artist does, as well. The "effect" you refer to is often called the "Cher Effect" from the song, "Life After Love", where they intentionally used pitch correction to the extreme. Most uses are quite subtle, and are most often used to smooth out the rough edges in a once-in-a-lifetime recording.
It's possible to pitch-correct large variations in performance (bringing, say, a C to a G) but they sound increasingly unnatural the further you move the note from reality. The human ear is very closely attuned to variations from normal speech and singing patterns. That's why a sped-up playback of a tenor doesn't sound like a soprano -- it sounds like a sped-up tenor.
Anyway, get used to pitch correction. It's been in common use for over fifteen years on commercial recordings, but only recently has the technology become cheap enough that it's accessible to live performance and lower-end home recording artists. It's no more "BS" than a motion picture studio rigging cameras up for "bullet time", trapeze artists using a net, or stuntmen playing body doubles for stars in a motion picture. It's the ultimate quality of the performance that matters, and whatever you can do to bring the quality up a notch is probably a good thing.
Some artists thrive due to their "natural" sound. That's great for them. The rest of us enjoy technology's ability to make our lives more fun, interesting, and better-sounding.
Matthew P. Barnson
I learn what I think when I read what I write
Actually, as a musician of 25 years, I'd have to disagree that the only ones to benefit from this are bad singers. I have the software version of Antares autotune and have putzed around with it a little (I haven't actually recorded anything yet, I'm just playing around with all this stuff), and it doesn't work miracles.
The singer would have to be decent to begin with - it can make them sound a little better, but a flat-out bad singer is still going to sound bad. An autotuned bad singer just sounds so artificial, it's almost creepy sounding, and I'm not talking about the infamous "Cher / Believe" effect either.
Good intonation is an important part of a good performance, for sure, but so are the nuances, the inflections, the timbre of the voice, and probably most of all, the emotion put into it. Good singers know how to breath when singing, how to control their volume, when to step back from the mic, etc. Autotune won't help any there either, although a compressor would some, obviously. Antares version does offer a graphical edit mode (obviously not for use in real time) that be used to tweak things like vibrato, to an extent, as well as some control even in the default mode (kind of like a threshold setting), but again, 90% of the performance still depends on the singer.
Like any tool, too much of anything usually defeats it's own purpose. Used judiciously in a recording studio, as mentioned in the article, to fix a wrong note under time or money constraints was acceptable even to the critics. In a live setting, I could see applying it to the backup singers, whose vocals tend to take on a more "generic" (for lack of a better term) tonality.
After all, really strict critics could contend that compression and delay are cheating, if taken to the extreme, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone take that position.
But to have it on constantly, on a lead vocal track, yeah, I'd have to say that's the equivlalent of musical perjury. It reminds of guitar players, who, just because they have a stompbox, like a chorus, think they have to have it on 100% of the time. It usually makes their guitar sound thin and buzzy, like some kind of deranged mosquito.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
A key change sounds awful when using a pythagorean scale because the intervals between the notes will not be the correct intervals. This is why we use an equally tempered scale. Every twelve semitones the frequency doubles, and each semitone is larger than the last by an unchanging ratio. Each semitone the same size. This means that we can start at any point in this sequence on semitones, and the scale we play will be reasonably in tune. It is equally in tune no matter what key you play in, but it's also equally out of tune. The scale is called 12 tone equal temperament, or 12TET
The pythagorean scale does not have equally spaced notes. As I recall, the notes will be slightly sharp after you go up an octave. The farther you go, the sharper you get, making the scale play out of tune over large intervals.
A choir sings in tune because each singer adjusts their pitch slightly to make the current chord in tune.
Pianos and guitars have a hell of a time playing in tune, because they can't make minor pitch adjustments like a singer can. A piano tuner tunes the low strings slightly flat and the high strings slightly sharp (that may be backwards) to compensate for the imperfect intervals inherent in 12TET. A guitarist can't adjust, since that would require different fret spacings for each string and rule out frets that go straight across. It would be hard to play, and bends would be out of the question.
He's probably heard it called the "Cher effect", otherwise, why would he have said it. Maybe you just haven't heard it called that.
Ahhh.... Now on to musical differences. I do agree that pich correction is a lazy cheat. It's a way to avoid the mountains of practice required to obtain skill. Those years are important, because in them, you learn much more than how to sing the right pitch. You get a lot more out of them than mere technical skill.