Poor Old Autotune!!!!

[Immanuel]

Originally Posted by joerogers1970

What I don't want to hear is something that is completely manufactured using technology in a way that it was not meant.

Like when guitarists started to run their amplifiers into distortion for the effect it creates.

[joerogers1970]

A distortion pedal is a lot cheaper than razor blading your speakers.

If you think about it, Autotune type things have been around for quite a while: Anyone ever dump vocals to a two track, wrap a piece of tape around the capstan (or vari speed it if you were lucky enough to have that knob) to change the speed (therby changing the pitch) and fly them back into a track. Same shit. Autotune as a technology just made it a lot easier to do. So easy in fact that even a no talent fuck like me can probably sound in tune. Granted, the performance will still suck but at least it will "sound" in tune.

I fault no one in the control room for using the tools at their disposal to make the finished product that will make their bosses happy. We all have to eat. Sometimes, it tastes good, sometimes it doesn't.

I'd like to pose a question to Kenny (and any other pros that want to join in) -

You've worked in a couple of different capacities - 1.) As a hired gun where a label, producer or artist hired you to work on a specific project and 2.) As your own boss by signing an artist to your production company.

When you walk into the studio for each of these two types of gigs, how does your approach to recording, mixing and releasing the music change?

Do you do things in one scenario that you would never dream of doing in the other?

[kasta]

Originally Posted by paulie

Kastas post. Looks like we might have saved one!

That is true - in a retrospective kind of way. Months ago, I AT-ed a couple of lines of a lead vocal, which to me seemed otherwise perfect. I had no qualms about AT-ing it. It was the perfect tool for the job to save an otherwise lovely, emotive take. In another song, however, there were a few lines of vocal which were somewhat dodgy in pitch but I did NOT AT them, believing it did not matter. I remember a vague feeling of unease about using tools too unwisely or too readily because they were there.

A thread like this, as you can see, reaffirms my instinctive judgment on those days. Even as a weekend mixer (though a passionate one) it sure saves me from future idiocy at any rate, perhaps on days when 'instinct' doesn't work too well. It will save others too.

However, I'm finding this thread petering into a 'good vs bad' and 'cheating vs genuine'. That is certainly not fair to Kenny. If ALL use of Autotune were cheating, then where and who will draw the line on cheating? Using snare samples to enhance? Using EQ because it tampers? Using compression because it makes things punchier?

This thread much richer than that kind of oversimplification.

[Bob Olhsson]

Normal people tend to sing in tune. Somebody singing out of tune is often more a problem with what they are hearing than with their singing skills.

There's a hilarious example of this in the Grand Old Opry shows done here. The Opry has state of the art stage monitoring along with hardware autotune. Still lots of the older singers are embarrassingly out of tune every time they appear.

What's funny, not to mention sad, is that they also frequently appear on the Ernest Tubb Midnight Jamboree that comes on Saturday nights right after the Opry. This is staged in a typical early '70s auditorium with a very basic, unequalized PA system. Nine times out of ten the same singer who was way way out of tune a half hour earlier is singing dead on pitch using the more primitive sound system.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Music is drowning in technology today.

[kasta]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Normal people tend to sing in tune.

A huge salute to you Sir Bob... from a weekend mixer. It's fantastic when accomplished people talk common sense.

[joerogers1970]

I listened to a track that i recorded several years ago for a band that I just really liked. There was one very slow, soft tune that I didn't care for. It was the last song that we did and was thrown in for some filler material on the record.

We were doing vocals for what seemed like forever. It just wasn't working. We did like 8 takes. I put a comp together and then brought the band in to listen. They were happy with it but like with decobred's session, I told him that he had one more that would blow the comp away. We turned the lights down further, smoked a joint pushed the record button and holy shit!, the emotion that poured out of this guy was amazing. There wasn't a single jaw in the control room that wasn't on the floor. The basist in the band was actually crying as he had written the song and didn't ever think in his wildest dreams that it could sound like that.

In listening to the track today, there are at least several large parts that are noticeably out of tune. Would I have messed with it had the technology been around at the time? I don't know. I probably would've at least tried it both ways and then let some smarter folks decide which one was better or at least, which one should be used to sell more records. As it was, the technology wasn't there and regardless of the pitch problems, everyone was thrilled with the take and that's the one that we ended up using.

Do what needs to be done to get the sounds that you need to turn out the product that your customer wants.

No matter what you do, you will never please everyone that could potentially by a record. Either the style of music isn't their cup of tea or if it's a pop tune and everything isn't dead on balls acurate, people will bitch and complain or if it's a classical record and it wasn't recorded with two $50,000 microphones direct to vinyl than the audiophiles won't buy it or whatever. Do what you need to do o turn out what is in your mind a great product.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by joerogers1970

... I told him that he had one more that would blow the comp away..

"Beat the comp." may be one of the most powerful single production techniques there is. Putting a comp. together can get all of the intellectual baggage out of the way for a singer leaving them free to simply communicate what's in the song from their heart.

[kgderrick]

Originally Posted by joerogers1970

You guys have a vast toolbox and will use the tool that you feel is most appropriate to the task.

Vision without technique is blind...that's why they are successful because they have both the vision and various techniques to achieve it (beat the comp, psychology, smoke a joint , patience, etc.).

This certainly has become a very interesting thread over the last day or so.

k

[paulie]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

The Opry has state of the art stage monitoring along with hardware autotune.

This really happens at the Opry? That really is a revelation.

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Nine times out of ten the same singer who was way way out of tune a half hour earlier is singing dead on pitch using the more primitive sound system.

This doesn't surprise me. In my experience, most singers sing better in the control room rather than using headphones. In my live days, I used to find great monitoring systems seemed disconnected somehow from what was happening onstage. Can't really explain why. Always preferred the monitors with beer stains on.

[Mixerman]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

"Beat the comp." may be one of the most powerful single production techniques there is. Putting a comp. together can get all of the intellectual baggage out of the way for a singer leaving them free to simply communicate what's in the song from their heart.

Exactly. All the pressure is gone. They've got something good in the bag, now they don't have to think about anything other than performing.

Enjoy,

Mixerman

[vocalnick]

Originally Posted by paulie

I used to find great monitoring systems seemed disconnected somehow from what was happening onstage. Can't really explain why. Always preferred the monitors with beer stains on.

That gels with my experience as well. The majority of my gigging has been of the "weekend warrior" variety, and I've sung through some god-awful systems. Recently I've been trying to get used to IEMs at gigs, but I currently find I can pitch better with NO foldback and a couple of earplugs in. I know if I fiddle with my mix enough I'll be able to fix that and get comfortable, but why am I spending $hundreds and complicating my night if the net result is - at best - a return to my pre-IEM performance level?

Things that make you go hmm.....

[Pimp-X]

Here's one for you guys to try.

If you are recording a vocalist that is experiencing some consistent pitch issues, give them half a dozen dB's more bass.

In 100% of times I have done this, the vocalist has found themselves able to pitch much more easily. This seems especially effective on rock numbers with blown out gats.

[Immanuel]

Originally Posted by Pimp-X

If you are recording a vocalist that is experiencing some consistent pitch issues, give them half a dozen dB's more bass.

In 100% of times I have done this, the vocalist has found themselves able to pitch much more easily. This seems especially effective on rock numbers with blown out gats.

I once found some speakers with faulty x-overs, so there was a noticeable cut in the 500-1000Hz area helpful.

[otek]

Originally Posted by Pimp-X

If you are recording a vocalist that is experiencing some consistent pitch issues, give them half a dozen dB's more bass.

Essential stuff.


otek

[Cosmic Pig]

The question of when to tune can be a tough one, and I agree with Mixerman and Bob the tech is dropping the bar in more ways than just allowing the hacks in.

Would you guys have tuned this tune?

I might have shoulda. I told the guy it's out of his range but he wanted it there... funny how the talented ones always agree with me and the less fortunate don't.

I did beat detect it tho. At first the singer/guitar player did his own drums, but had a weak foot. So we got a ringer in, but he didn't do the parts quite right, so the bd'd singer's drums sounded better. I wish I knew how to write charts.

Buuut anyways, the point is AT etc. is part of the gig down here in The Room Of Pain. Something I notice is my concepts of recording are exactly in line with Mixerman and Bob's, but I don't get many opportunities to put them into practice because my studio has image issues.

The studio you record in is another stick for the bloated pinata ego. The quest for good music is mostly bullshit and perception.

Cos.

[Immanuel]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Pig

Would you guys have tuned this tune?

I wouldn't ... but then ... I may have a ... lets say high tolerance towards pitch

Well the bend around 2:15 is actually above my threshold of distracting. The rest does not distract me, though I guess I can spot which areas you might have the most in mind.

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by Mixerman

I like all music. I just don't like bullshit that resembles music. I get to define what that is to me. And you get to define what that is to you.

OK. Now we're getting somewhere.

Originally Posted by Mixerman

I'm not arguing absolutes here. I'm providing guidance for people to make their own determinations of where the line is. I'm providing a differentiation between the roles of what I feel is the difference between making money and making music. I may provide that guidance with the heavy-hand of a passionate music-maker, but when it comes down to it, I'm expressing my opinions. I mean, if you think that you're making music, then who am I to say you're not?

So, how can I criticize you if I'm not even familiar with what your currently working on? I already know you're great at what you do. Has that changed?

Much clearer. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Mixerman

The thing is, in the eighties, with drum machines and midi, there was a big hit to music (as opposed to something resembling music). In fact, that was clearly the very early stages of the "something resembling music" era we're in now. But despite the lame drum machines, and the synthesized production beds, the singer still had to deliver the goods (no one mention Madonna, you'll blow my whole argument here). Now we've come to a point where even THAT'S not necessary. Is that really a good thing for music? I'm not blaming anyone, I'm not blaming any particular technology, I suppose I'm blaming humanity. OH, the HUMANITY!

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Mixerman

As someone pointed out in this thread, at the end of the day, I don't have to listen to a record I don't like. BUT, I DO have to compete with records that are in perfect pitch, and it becomes problematic when I find myself trying to prevent talented musicians from perfecting themselves, to the point of destroying what makes them great. It's kind of like when a woman with enormous character, feels the need to get plastic surgery so that her face can have a structure that resembles every Hollywood bimbo on the strip. That beauty was in her uniqueness, and now that she is no longer unique, she's nothing special.

Ahh. The crux of the matter. You feel pressured to use it when you really shouldn't. Again, I agree. If you think the performance sounds great without AT, you would be wrong to use it.

Thanks for the clarification.

[kasta]

OK. It's all fine, folks. Everybody go home now.

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by Mixerman

Personally, I don’t see the difference between hiring a ghost singer that can actually sing in tune and using software to redraw the waveforms of notes, thereby putting a lousy singer in tune.

Again. We differ. Tuning is just a part of making a performance better.

I know. I use it on myself and am still embarrassed by the results.

__________________________________________________ ______

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by weedywet

AND no one is BUYING it anymore either. So bear that in mind when you say the audience 'demands' this or that. The only thing the audience is clearly demanding is 'something else'; and The Beatles.

I don't buy it. I've been hearing for years that the sales are down because of the talent level. There are plenty of great artists that still exist. Plenty of great new ones too. And plenty of Producers like you or MM who devote your life to working on those records. So why aren't those records outselling the fluff?

Originally Posted by weedywet

The great singers, and really most real artistes, are the first ones to say "...and don't fucking autotune me"
in fact I find it is rarely the artistes who ASK to be all 'fixed' up; they're more often a bit sceptical. It's the producers and engineers who just LOVE being able to make it all about what happens in the computer.

That depends. I've experienced both.

Originally Posted by weedywet

It takes some patience as well as some psychology to get the performance out of a singer or musician sometimes... It's much EASIER to say "that's good enough, I can fix it..."
but that doesn't make ultimately for the better record.

I agree. But Autotune is not only used because of laziness.