Let's talk about pitch correction.

[leftybassman392]

This topic has come up a number of times in various threads that I've been involved in recently.

Perhaps we should have a proper argument conversation about it.

For the benefit of anybody who has recently arrived here from Mars, pitch correction is a studio effect that functions to massage vocals slightly to ensure correct pitching of notes.

It's best known as a way of correcting slightly off-pitch vocals, but it can and regularly does work with all manner of pitched notes from pretty much any tuned instrument. Additionally, current versions are capable of numerous other functions - and uses - but we may or may not get round to talking about them here.

Correcting pitch is what it does; it cannot compensate for dull or lifeless singing. Even within it's stated brief, there are limits to what it can deal with and still produce something of musical value; despite what I suspect many believe, it cannot be used as a get-out-of-jail-free card for any old tosh that's fed into it. There's more to being a good singer than (near) pitch-perfect note production.

Many in and around the music industry have a very negative view of it's use, and it's not hard to find such commentary from a variety of industry sources. I don't doubt we'll see some links from time to time.

Be that as it may, pitch correction has for many years been a ubiquitous studio technique that is in very widespread use: in truth you'll struggle to find many professional studios that don't use it on a regular basis. It's even available as a plugin on freebie DAW apps such as Garageband for Macs.

At this point I'll refrain from putting my view up in any sort of detail, but suffice it to say that I don't look at it as heralding the death of 'real' music (whatever that may be) that some around here might.

One caveat: I'm not here to defend pitch correction's honour. That said, I am aware that many people just don't like it. All opinions are valid in this thread, and even if I could (which of course I can't) I would make no attempt to censor opinions I don't agree with. Good arguments will speak for themselves.

 

 

Over to the Basscht collective...

Edited May 8, 2021 by leftybassman392
Minor tidying up

[Downunderwonder]

I only dislike it when I hear it being used for effect. The rest of the time I am probably not hearing it at all.

They were talking about it on National Radio the other day. The recording studio guy said it is used a lot.

[Nail Soup]

I enjoy the vocals of Mark E Smith and Bob Dylan - the imperfections are part of the charm. 
I do like the singing of Aretha Franklin say, but she doesn’t need correction.

So for my ears it doesn’t have any application.

But if it can help someone with good ideas and character to iron out a few glitches then I’m happy too.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Nail Soup

[skankdelvar]

I'd be lost without it. Thank you, pitch correction!

[Downunderwonder]

20 minutes ago, Nail Soup said:

Bob Dylan - the imperfections are part of the charm. 

Must be something in that because if everyone heard it like me he would have sold one record to his Momma.

[uk_lefty]

It's one of those things that's working best when you don't notice it. Like a rhythm guitarist. 

[Guest]

When pitch correction came in, the average singer in the top 20 was suddenly a lot better looking. 

[nilebodgers]

I’m old-school in my opinions. If a singer requires pitch correction then they should keep their mouth shut and seek other employment. I’ve got no problem with odd/quirky singing voices, but being in tune is non-negotiable.

[tegs07]

Is this the same as auto-tune as in Cher “Believe”? 
I really don’t like the way the effect has become almost obligatory alongside a bit of rapping in a lot of commercial music.

Apart from that I can see the benefits but agree with @Nail Soup I would prefer character and imperfections any day. Nick Cave, Tom Waits, Leonard Cohen, Michael Stipe even Neil Young sounds like a muppet and he is phenomenal.

[nilebodgers]

3 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

Is this the same as auto-tune as in Cher “Believe”? 
I really don’t like the way the effect has become almost obligatory alongside a bit of rapping in a lot of commercial music.

Apart from that I can see the benefits but agree with @Nail Soup I would prefer character and imperfections any day. Nick Cave, Tom Waits, Leonard Cohen, Michael Stipe even Neil Young sounds like a muppet and he is phenomenal.

That’s the exaggerated version of the process used as an effect. I thought it sounded like a cool effect on Cher when I first heard that song.

It sounds like a hack cliche now.

[tegs07]

I think the most annoying trend in vocals is the X-Factor style of singing where every note is inappropriately dragged out and stretched out of all proportion. This is meant to show what a great singer they are.

No one would think a car was great if it accelerated or swerved at random and pointless sections of its journey just to show that it could.

[keving]

I find it odd that there is such a strong reaction to pitch correction but not to quantising.  One is to correct imperfections in pitch and the other to correct imperfections in timing.  Arguably, fixing the timing has a much bigger impact on the groove and feel of a song so could be considered the bigger sin.

By the same token, we use dozen of effects on guitar and bass, so why shouldn't vocalists?  Sure, it's a matter of taste and some consider that it gets overused, so why isn't distortion/overdrive considered overused when it is far more prevalent?

I'm not entirely sure of my own feelings on the matter, so I am just trying to keep an open mind.  

[Leonard Smalls]

32 minutes ago, nilebodgers said:

I’m old-school in my opinions. If a singer requires pitch correction then they should keep their mouth shut and seek other employment. I’ve got no problem with odd/quirky singing voices, but being in tune is non-negotiable.

This is similar to the argument we used to have with the old-school sound boys in BBC Studios. In Post Production Sound, where I worked, we were of the opinion that our function was to make the audio sound as good as possible - FX or not. Old Studio Boys thought they were there purely to reproduce what they recorded, with virtually no eq, no reverb, no delay, no compression. This was OK if the recorded artist was absolutely perfect, the room was perfect, the recording was perfect; but there was a time when they decided that ToTP should all be live. Some may remember the horrific sounds some bands produced, simply because they would normally play live with their own sound mixer using any fx he/she felt were needed...

And nowadays, if a band with limited budget goes into the studio, it's a lot easier and cheaper to quantise that occasional drum beat or bass note that's out of time or to autotune that errant high note, than it is to re-record the whole lot!

[nilebodgers]

1 minute ago, keving said:

I find it odd that there is such a strong reaction to pitch correction but not to quantising.  One is to correct imperfections in pitch and the other to correct imperfections in timing.  Arguably, fixing the timing has a much bigger impact on the groove and feel of a song so could be considered the bigger sin.

By the same token, we use dozen of effects on guitar and bass, so why shouldn't vocalists?  Sure, it's a matter of taste and some consider that it gets overused, so why isn't distortion/overdrive considered overused when it is far more prevalent?

I'm not entirely sure of my own feelings on the matter, so I am just trying to keep an open mind.  

Over-quantising is annoying too when it squashes all the human element out of the music. The Rick Beato YouTube video on that topic is illuminating where he shows how it is done in protools.

Having said that, I don’t mind a bit of really thumping dance music when I am in the mood and that is as artificial as it comes.

[Downunderwonder]

57 minutes ago, uk_lefty said:

It's one of those things that's working best when you don't notice it. Like a rhythm guitarist. 

Maybe you never played with a really hot pure rhythm guitarist. I have only played with one and he was VERY noticeable while just another member of the rhythm section. It's spoiled me for life as I may never find another like him.

[nilebodgers]

6 minutes ago, Leonard Smalls said:

This is similar to the argument we used to have with the old-school sound boys in BBC Studios. In Post Production Sound, where I worked, we were of the opinion that our function was to make the audio sound as good as possible - FX or not. Old Studio Boys thought they were there purely to reproduce what they recorded, with virtually no eq, no reverb, no delay, no compression. This was OK if the recorded artist was absolutely perfect, the room was perfect, the recording was perfect; but there was a time when they decided that ToTP should all be live. Some may remember the horrific sounds some bands produced, simply because they would normally play live with their own sound mixer using any fx he/she felt were needed...

And nowadays, if a band with limited budget goes into the studio, it's a lot easier and cheaper to quantise that occasional drum beat or bass note that's out of time or to autotune that errant high note, than it is to re-record the whole lot!

I’ve got no problem with a certain amount of studio artifice, that’s part of the creative process IMO. No problem either with the fix ups, makes sense economically and this has always been done anyway. It’s a lot easier now with digital workstations than having to do manual dropins to fix a duff note or timing.

 

[musicbassman]

If it can prevent nightmares like this stinker at 0.29, I'm all in favour  🙂

 

[tegs07]

I can see why this technology is useful to save time and money butI don’t like the tendency  to overproduce and make music so formulaic.

There are plenty of artists out there that I know if I saw live with just a decent acoustic guitarist would be really great but I can’t stand to hear on CD/Radio/Spotify.

[akabane]

The only issue I personally see with it (and talking about 'normal' pitch correction, not heavy autotune), is that it means that between the singer and the band, nobody even HEARD the singer not being in tune; if that were the case, surely they'd just make the singer practice that parts more.

[Guest]

The good thing for performers about recorded music being so artificial these days, is that it for the audience it accentuates the difference between recordings and the live experience. Encountering music that is being made live is thrilling different to the music that wallpapers daily life. The more blandly perfect recordings become, the more exciting live performers seem. Even the boring ones.

[Barking Spiders]

49 minutes ago, Downunderwonder said:

Maybe you never played with a really hot pure rhythm guitarist. I have only played with one and he was VERY noticeable while just another member of the rhythm section. It's spoiled me for life as I may never find another like him.

Yup, not sure what music he listens to as rhythm guitar is very noticeable in funk, disco, metal, soul, certain types of jazz e.g. gypsy and reggae. In fact, in a band context, most of the guitar playing is rhythm with lead usually limited to 20-40 seconds.

I've not beef with auto-tune. After all, find me an electric guitarist who only plays clean with no effects. That would be the equivalent of a singer without any studio help

Edited May 8, 2021 by Barking Spiders

[Japhet]

7 hours ago, skankdelvar said:

I'd be lost without it. Thank you, pitch correction!

I think you're confusing pitch shift with sat nav old chap. Easily done.

[leftybassman392]

19 minutes ago, Ricky Rioli said:

The good thing for performers about recorded music being so artificial these days, is that it for the audience it accentuates the difference between recordings and the live experience.

It's a good point. IMHO there's a place for both, but I agree that live performance at it's best has a certain something that no amount of studio tinkering can recreate.

One thing about this that might be worth comment is that when a band records a live performance for future release, it's very common to take the recording into the studio so they can 'fix' the bits they don't like or messed up. I'd be interested to hear whether people think that's a good thing or not.

Edited May 8, 2021 by leftybassman392

[cheddatom]

I use it loads in the studio. I'd rather get a powerful performance and tweak a couple of notes afterwards than try and drop in a word or two, as that always sounds unnatural to me

It's a bit frustrating when people want that "perfect" modern vocal sound. If you've heard any country song made in the last 5 years you'll know what I mean. I have one guy who comes to me, a truly incredible singer, he's never out of tune, but he wants that sound. I have to go through straightening out any natural wobbles or unintended vibrato and it really sucks the life out of the performance. 

When it's used for effect it can be pretty cool, although that does seem a bit overdone in some of the recent rap tracks I've heard

[oldslapper]

Stamford Bridge had a terrible pitch until the 90’s. It’s like a billiard table now.
I think it’s a good thing.