Slashdot Mirror
The Deceptive Perfection of Auto-Tune
theodp writes "For a medium in which mediocre singing has never been a bar to entry, a lot of pop vocals suddenly sound better than great — they're note- and pitch-perfect. It's all thanks to Auto-Tune, the brainchild of Andy Hildebrand, who realized that the wonders of autocorrelation — which he once used to map drilling sites for the oil industry — could also be used to bestow perfect pitch upon the Britney Spears of the world. While Auto-Tune was intended to be used unnoticed, musicians are growing fond of adjusting the program's retune speed to eliminate the natural transition between notes, which yield jumpy and automated-sounding vocals. 'I never figured anyone in their right mind would want to do that,' says Hildebrand."
As these techniques improve and become more popular, it makes me wonder what music produced twenty or fifty years from now will sound like, and how much authenticity will be left.
So what? Stop competing, make music and sing because you like it, get the music for the same reason, if you can make money from it to, good for you.
If I made music I would want it to sound whatever way I liked, if that was cheating or not what others wanted I wouldn't give much care for that.
You got a point regarding looks though, I know what I expect in peoples look :D
Mod parent up! The post is spot-on. In another 10-20 years, we'll be able to look back/listen to today's pop hits and say "There's that mid/late-oughts synthesized vocal sound." And yes, in the future it will be used to add a nostalgic element to music. The same as with the synth drums example in the previous post. The same as with the Phil Specter wall-of-sound reverb effect. It's a style that's part of the production toolbox. Just that at the moment it's the tool that's being overused.
And the parent is also absolutely correct re: "artistic input" of the modern-day pop idol. For a brief while I worked as a PA to a guy who wrote/produced songs for hit machines like Britney. When he and his partner would write a new song, I'd be the one sending it out to various talent managers to shop it around. Some wouldn't be interested, others would. It's not unlike actors vying for a leading role in a movie. Several audition to get the song, and one gets it. They're just the presentation face. To use the movie analogy again, do you think the actors write the lines that they say? They have a little input, but for the most part, they're just the hired help that's being told what to do.
This guy's the limit!
Of course, quite a few musicians trade the autotune 'perfect' output as an alternative to creativity...so long as everything hits on the right notes, it will sell. I don't believe in that either. Creativity involves falling outside of the lines occasionally. And sometimes it involves being right on the line. Personally, I don't get the folks that think perfect technique has anything to do with musicality...some of my favorite works come from non-musicians with absolutely no training or technique but had something to say and used ANY possibility they could to get it up there. Far more authentic than most of the instrumental / technique bands I could ever hear...those guys are as coldly robotic as any autotune could be.
Ding! And that's exactly where true musicianship enters into it. Technical excellence is only one part of the equation. But having the sense and ability to hold notes for just the right amount of time, or to add that slight staccato element to a phrase is where someone with real musical ability shines. And these aren't the things that will ever be notated on a score. It's where interpretation and understanding of the piece comes into play.
Think about someone reading a paragraph from a book. Sure, all the periods and commas are there. Being able to say the words with the right pauses and stops is the technical aspect. But knowing when to put emphasis on certain words or phrases, or to add a slight pause even where there isn't a comma--that takes skill. It's why some people are better orators than others.
This guy's the limit!
You're spot on. You can easily tell which artists heavily rely on post-production techniques based on their live performances. Some shine, and for those that fail miserably(Jessica Simpson, Nelly Furtado, here's looking at you) it is easy to tell why.
Absolutely right. I once saw a chat show where Sting was a guest. Half-way through he pulled out a guitar and sang something, and it was great. (I think it was Fields of Gold, which is a superb piece of music.) Despite the silly name, he's a real musician.
Interestingly, though, I once saw much the same thing happen with, of all people, the Backstreet Boys: one of the original glossy boy bands. Now, it was obviously carefully prepared, as four guys singing in close harmony doesn't happen spontaneously, so they could have sneaked in some postproduction, but the overall environment and production values makes me suspect they didn't. So it's possible that at least some of these people can actually perform.
Personally, I blame to songwriters --- a large proportion of the modern pap pop artists are just performers who sing whatever they're told to. One day I'd like to see a collection of music charts sorted by author rather than by performer and see if there are any interesting patterns...
That said, autotune is the oldschool. Melodyne is the Real Deal and it kicks ass. Direct note Access is freakin' nuts.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
What has this got to do with creativity?
Before autotune, we'd drop in on the same bit of vocal for hours if need be.
Now, if the spirit of the take is good, but there are a couple of pitch problems, you can fix them without endless retakes taking away the vibe.
I'd say it does the opposite to removing creativity. It liberates artists to let go a little when singing and go for feel over perfection.
Dead on. Berklee College of Music churns out class after class of fire-without-heat players, people with fantastic technique, most of whom go on to do absolutely nothing worthwhile musically. This despite the fact that they can outplay most of the musicians that create music that people actually want to listen to.
It's an easy trap to get into, and it happens in programming, too - who amongst us has not had to work with some technically brilliant programmer that wrote fast, concise, and "impressive" code that despite working for its purpose ended up being so incomprehensible to everyone else that it was unmaintainable? People that start down the path of technical skill and forget to stop and smell the roses are far too likely to forget that technical facility is only a means to an end, and they start evaluating both themselves and others on the technicalities of what they do, not the results.
To me, stuff like auto-tune is the equivalent of using a decent IDE, or programming in a language that is well suited to your task rather than one that makes you do everything yourself. Yes, it probably takes a better programmer to code CGI stuff in C than in PHP, and plenty of poor programmers rely on all the built in functionality of PHP to cover the fact that they can't code; that doesn't mean that the good programmers should always stick with straight C when PHP could cut out a lot of the work, though.
If a musician uses auto-tune to turn a 20 take marathon into a couple of takes that can be cleaned up after the fact (and end up with similar results), that's fine, they still may be an excellent musician, they're just working smart. If they're using it to cover the fact that they really can't sing, that's another issue altogether, but even then, if they have something worth singing and can't pull it off technically, why not fix it up with technology? If it enables a good product that otherwise couldn't have been created, then maybe they have excellent songwriting skills but poor vocal ones, and why should they not do whatever they can to put it out?