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.

Comments

Authentic is the wrong word

[Anonymous Coward]

People are still making the music, sure it might not be coming from the vibrations of strings and vocal chords but its still authentic music.

Re:Authentic is the wrong word

[LingNoi]

Is there much of a difference between a robot pretending to sing at a live performance and a human doing it?

The Chinese Olympics comes to mind..

Re:Authentic is the wrong word

[geekmux]

People are still making the music, sure it might not be coming from the vibrations of strings and vocal chords but its still authentic music.

Ah, correction, writers are still making music. The "artists" or "singers" on the other hand, are finding more and more ways to artificially make themselves sound better than they really are. Therefore, the ONLY thing that is left to being authentic is whatever is left after the "they stole my song!" lawsuit dust settles, and the general masses acknowledge a song as one persons work.

For the rest of the tripe being "manufacturered" today, it's as fake as half the "natural" breasts in Hollywood. Give me a break, a hardcore rapper being nominated for album of the year? Like half those beats aren't stolen from the last 37 rap albums.

Music is dead. Say hello to Marketing. And if you have a hard time believing that statement, then I have two words for you. Hanna Montana. Still not convinced? Here's two more. American Idol.

Re:Authentic is the wrong word

[catmistake]

Authentic crap.
After triggerred drums and mpeg compression, auto-tune is the next scourge of the music industry... its everywhere, and it sounds like ass.

Re:Authentic is the wrong word

[Chyeld]

Pardon me sir, I did'nt notice I was on your lawn there. I appologize.

Do you realize that there has always been, and always will be, a glut of pig swill crap being passed off by those willing to hustle folk as hit music? You do realize, that if you only sample from this trough the two things you will ever be guareenteed to get are crap and swill?

And that's ignoring your swipe at the idea that the only actual artists are the ones who perform vocally 'au natural'.

There are plenty of quality artist out there, some of them even make it mainsteam. But most either don't bother or don't fit the 'marketer's dream' well enough.

Re:Authentic is the wrong word

[badasscat]

Ah, correction, writers are still making music. The "artists" or "singers" on the other hand, are finding more and more ways to artificially make themselves sound better than they really are.

Eh, and this is nothing new either.

What would you define as an ideal setup that allows, say, a rock musician to "sound as good as they really are"? Everything rock musicians have ever used have made them sound better than they are, right down to the amps they use to amplify their guitars, the effects they use (even amps from the 50's and 60's had reverb and could be overdriven), the pickups in the guitars themselves, the strings they choose to use, etc. A singer will sound better or worse based on the microphone they use, the equalization settings, etc.

This idea that there's ever been *any* unaltered recorded music out there is rubbish. There never has been. Even just a guy playing by himself with an acoustic and singing into a microphone is having his sound altered by various things during the recording, mixing and mastering.

I'm not arguing in favor of auto-tune, all I'm saying is that there are no absolutes and the line across which you do not (to quote Walter Sobchak) is different for everybody. And this is a generational thing; in the 1960's, people railed against rock music for exactly this same reason, citing some of the things I said above as making the music "fake". Today we consider those same things as being responsible for what we call "authentic" rock music. And now a new generation has new tools to make themselves sound the way they want, and we rail against it the same way our parents and grandparents did 30 or 40 or 50 years ago.

Re:Authentic is the wrong word

[jo42]

That's called "character". If everyone sounded the same, we'd end up with, oh, Hip Hop for example.

Authenticity

[Angst Badger]

Yes, because everything that isn't done manually is inauthentic. And it's been getting worse almost every day since the end of the Bronze Age.

Re:Authenticity

[DavidR1991]

It is however a downer for smaller groups or actual singers with decent voices, because they have to compete with an altered (potentially 'perfect-sounding') voice.

We'll end up with the same thing as what has happened with photoshopped magazine images - people expect unreasonable perfection, and the people without an army of machines behind them get made to look inferior. We'll end up losing touch with reality at this rate... What's a human singing voice sound like again...?

Re:Authenticity

[clifyt]

AMEN to this.

What the fuck is authentic these days? I'm sick of the notion that creative output needs to have an olympic mentality to it. It is like the guys that can play 64th note riffs on guitars and then act as if anyone that cannot approach their technical ability has no business playing.

In my case, I was a professional musician for a number of years. Toured nationally with a Grammy winning group. Had to get out of it because I developed severe arthritis that impacted my ability to play (it is an autoimmune disease as opposed to just bad technique...put me in a wheel chair for a year bad). I *STILL* compose and play somewhat, and went on to work with the same artist on the next album...some of my work ended up on it as I had left it as opposed to being replaced by other artists. Since I used a sequencer and samples, some would say this is inauthentic. So, if someone is robbed of technical ability (or never had any), their creative output means NOTHING?

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.

Re:Authenticity

[timeOday]

And for every trend there is a counter-trend. For "authenticity" buffs there are the indie bands whose voices warble to detuned thrift-shop guitars recorded on audiocasette in a tool shed.

Re:Authenticity

[gEvil (beta)]

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.

Re:Authenticity

[pressman]

There will always be a Tom Waits, Neil Young, Les Claypool, etc. People with less than perfect voices, but write amazing music. Pop music is a business. Period. The suits are going to find the faces that will sell albums and worry about talent and ability to sing after the fact.

Though these technologies will primarily be used for the sake of making hacks sound passable to the mass audience, there will always be artists out there who will also put it to creative use. Bands like the Residents, Fantomas, Devo, Mr. Bungle, John Zorn, etc. will be drawn to the new toys and use them in unexpected ways.

People need to stop bitching about the quality of pop music. It's been crap since the 70's and only gets worse. There will always be great music if you bother to look for it.

Re:Authenticity

[Fungii]

I actually agree with what you're saying, but I think you're off the mark in this case - you talk about true creativity falling outside the lines occasionally, but in pop music autotuners are used to turn every vocalist into a robotic, pitch perfect singer. What T-Pain is doing is creative, he's going for an original sound but for the most part autotuners are the antithesis of creativity.

Re:Authenticity

[Austerity Empowers]

It does seem that music and art, as with so many other things, the vision is what we're there for. Execution has to be good or we get distracted, but it's not what we turn the radio on for. Anything that conveys the full vision more completely, is a good thing.

Does anyone believe Britney has any actual talent outside of shaking her ass? Have you listened to her speak, do you think she's actually capable of stringing sentences together much less composing the lyrics to her songs? Come on. Someone writes her songs for her, composes and performs the music, modifies her voice... whatever. It doesn't change the fact that if you like her music, you actually like the team that creates it.

Re:Authenticity

[fastest fascist]

Keep in mind we're talking about mainstream pop music here. It's not like it was creative before Auto-tune. Big-money pop-music is about identifying trends as quickly as possible and milking them dry before moving on to the next big thing, any creativity is accidental.

Re:Authenticity

[philicorda]

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.

Authenticity

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What does authenticity have to do with music? If you like the sound, listen to it. It's that simple.

The sting in the tail

[Alioth]

But whenever the artist is live, they end up falling flat on their face. I saw Lily Allen on Johnathon Ross the other night, and she sounds *terrible* live, I've heard schoolgirls singing along to their MP3 player better than that.

Re:The sting in the tail

[david.given]

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...

Overused & Abused

[eldavojohn]

I never figured anyone in their right mind would want to do that

And who ever discovered analogue distortion by maxing the signal probably thought no one in their right mind would use that either. They were wrong. However, whoever discovered digital distortion by clipping probably thought no one in their right mind would want to use that ... and they have been for the most part correct.

I'm going to make a prediction that this is going to turn out to be a lot like synth drums in the 80s. They were invented for fast beats that no human drummer could play. Except everyone started using them. On every song--with utter disregard for whether or not a regular drummer could play that. And what we have is a lot of hot fast songs from the 80s with synth drums and a whole bunch of hilariously cheesy disgusting synthesized drum songs. Synth drums are still used today but tastefully and when needed and--most importantly--in moderation.

I predict that we will look back at this vocal manipulation and see it the same way. It will have its place in a studio's toolbox where people want to modulate their voice unnaturally fast for a single song and can experiment with it. But these albums where every song has this applied to it are probably going to look like we resurrected & worshipped Max Headroom to future generations.

One more important thing: you don't know who is doing this. Is it Britney Spears? Does she really have control over her music? Are the fans actually demanding it? If this package is only $600 then why don't we see more bands (even independent) using this stuff? That's within any studio's price range.

I'm going to guess that it's safer for the corporate guys who run Spears & Co to bet on a machine to make perfect pitch. The fans are just told what to listen to by the radio anyway. I still get a kick out of listening to people defend Britney Spears as a talented musician when I'm pretty sure she's just a world class entertainer. Someone else shows her what to sing and how to dance--she's the piece of meat that keeps sales coming. Sad really.

Kudos to Hildebrand for making such a large jump between two completely different fields for the same technology. That stuff is getting more and more rare these days. Unfortunately it's for two of my least favorite industries :)

Re:Overused & Abused

[gEvil (beta)]

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.

AudioSlave

[bhsx]

Chris Cornell uses this for the end of "I Am The Highway" (i think that's the name). That's what their talking about when referring to using it in unusual, unanticipated ways.

Re:Inauthentic?

[tompaulco]

Is hip-hop and R&B the only form of music?
Is hip-hop and R&B EVEN a form of music?
Actually, I kind of like R&B, but I refuse to recognize Hip-Hop as music. I mean sure, it's got a beat and you can kill cops to it, but it's still lacking something.

It's an instrument.

[Geoffrey.landis]

The article is about people using this technology to produce effects, so the word "deliberate deception" no longer seems to apply. In this case it's an instrument, like synthesizer or even a lute.

Scene: 9,000 BC:
Hey, that guy has some gut strings on a hollow log that he makes vibrate, and they're tuned in harmony! He plucks them as he sings, so he can sing in tune all the time! That's deliberate deception!

Re:It's an instrument.

[Quiet_Desperation]

Scene addendum: "It's deceptive *and* anachronistic! The eight note scale isn't supposed to be invented for thousands of years yet! Quick! Hit him with a femur!"

Re:It's an instrument.

[FiloEleven]

Though admittedly the image of mercilessly beating a bard with a lemur is rather entertaining, and if he uses an auto tuner then he deserves it!

Re:Inauthentic?

[tuba_dude]

...but I refuse to recognize Hip-Hop as music. I mean sure, it's got a beat and you can kill cops to it, but it's still lacking something.

It's poetry with a beat behind it! And guns! They're like beatniks with automatic weapons.

Re:Real-time Auto-Tune

[Prefader]

It's already here, and it sucks. Give a listen to Billy Joel's singing of the national anthem at the super bowl.

That performance would have undoubtedly been better without auto-tune.

Music is already VERY artificial

[obarthelemy]

it already mainly comes
- not live, but from a piece of plastic
- not "natural", but from artificial instruments/synthetizers
- not as played, but from a careful, non real-time, mix of several tracks recorded separately
- from a performer different than the creator

All of these would have been anathema to snobs at some earlier time. There is stil music I like, and there will still be for a long time.

So, next to get the "improve" treatment is the vocal part. How is that different from the rest ? WHo cares ?

Autotune? Old School! MELODYNE'S THE POOP!!!

[Ralph Spoilsport]

I make electronic music. A lot of it - and for me, we are in a golden age...

That said, autotune is the oldschool. Melodyne is the Real Deal and it kicks ass. Direct note Access is freakin' nuts.

RS