Would you be disappointed to learn that your favorite singer relies heavily on Auto-Tune?
As an effect, it can be fine in the proper context.
As a “cheat” for insufficient singing talent, yes I would be very disappointed.
If it was Adele or any singer known for being technically excellent as vocalists, and it is being used to compensate for them, not for simple clean-up on a production, then maybe.
What most folks don’t like is when it is used as a vocal effect. ::shudder::
You would think a person would know whether his favorite singer used auto tune.
I’d say it’s all about expectations… For a time, I liked The Spice Girls (don’t judge me!) but certainly understood that they weren’t exactly powerhouse vocal talents. But if it were someone who pretends to be an amazing singer, like current day Mariah Carey, it’s a little disappointing to know that they can’t actually sing that well unassisted.
Whenever I hear it, I switch the source, can’t stand the sound of it. Don’t listen to much music that uses it obv
and GTF off my lawn.
I would be shocked- SHOCKED- that my favorite singer used AutoTune. Freddie Mercury died before it became commonplace. He didn’t need it. Okay, he hit some clams on some live recordings, but still…
I hate AutoTune. Learn to sing, dammit! Get some lessons, practice! Be a musician, not just a singer!
I don’t like it as an effect, either. All these kids on my lawn are dating their music badly. Thirty years from now it will be as awful as the bass drum/ hi hat pattern of bad disco is now. It screams, “Disposable Music!” Aural junk food.
A skilled engineer can make it “invisible.”
I’d bet that the vast majority of top 40 songs in the past decade or two has some use of auto tune on it. So, no, I wouldn’t be in the least surprised.
Isn’t is just another technological “improvement/ enhancement” like double-tracking, vocoder, artificial echo effects and innumerable other tricks that have been employed since the dawn of recorded music?
In a vocal competition? Unforgivable
In cleaning up a final product for entertainment purposes (album, concert, etc)? No different than CGI in movies.
Wait? Is there something wrong with four-to-the-floor and “peasoup” hi-hats? Makes me wanna dance!
And a tin ear cannot hear it. I like music, but when I’ve listened to “extreme examples” I can’t hear it.
If it’s used that way, with that intent, then sure. It’s when it is used as its own effect that it’s unforgivable. Or when I hear somene sing live and they come across like they must be propped up on the studio when they don’t present themselves that way.
I am against using Autotune to make a voice more accurate than what the singer can really do.
I don’t like it to cover a lack of skill. It’s not that I *like *it as a vocal effect, but at least that’s an honest use of it.
All those things are effects that add color and are supposed to sound like effects. When echo is applied to Jimi Hendrix they aren’t trying to fool anyone into thinking he is playing two guitars at once, or playing in a canyon. It’s just a cool effect. Autotune is there to fool us into thinking someone is doing something that they are not really doing. It’s not any better ethically than when Milli Vanilli got caught lip synching.
The thing is, this kind of stuff gets done with instruments, as well. Not just tuning, but pushing beats here and there as need be (if someone comes in a hair too early, it’s pretty easy to just push the attack of the instrument over a bit in post just so everything lines up right), or splicing many different takes together so, while technically it’s the instrumentalist playing it, it’s not one performance.
For me? I don’t care. All that I care about is the final result. I like musicianship, and, personally, I like slop in music, so I’d leave a lot of that stuff in, but if someone want to create a “perfect” recording using all their tricks at their disposal, because that’s the vision of their music, that’s fine by me.
More like shocked beyond belief. The thought of Tom Waits before Auto-Tune is… staggering.
Live music can be disappointing if one has expectations of studio-sounding just like the recording musicianship. Out of tune instruments, and sometimes it’s impossible to sing and play difficult guitar work at the same time, so they dumb it down quite a bit. Studio recording gives them a chance for laying down extra instruments and editing.
In the 50s they used a LOT of reverb on vocals, especially on country music recordings. Certain eras have certain signature sounds that make them sound a little dated. 60s psychedelia, 70s “bow chicka wow wow” 80s big hair synthesizer… The auto-tune thing is a fad, maybe pioneered by that Cher song. That too will mercifully pass.
Well, when I was a young tad I heard Three Dog Night in concert. Their recordings sounded heavily produced but they nailed it live. Also Yes sounded amazing in concert. I could go on but IAAOF and you don’t want to hear it. But much pop music today is about the overall entertainment factor rather than music as art, thus such things like Britney Spears lip synching in a “live” performance, ability to swing on a trapeze while singing, etc.
The vast majority of vocalists have their sound cleaned up, tweaked etc in the production/mixing process, regardless of their abilities. Some more than others, obviously.
It’s the same with instruments. Parts are recorded in sections, and then spliced together… unless the producer/band is going for a ‘live’ feel to the track, but this is quite rare.
It happens to vocals on live DVD’s etc too. Basically, anything that’s officially released and available to buy has been tweaked to sound as good as possible.