Let's talk about pitch correction.

[leftybassman392]

2 minutes ago, oldslapper said:

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

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited March 14, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[leftybassman392]

3 hours 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.

Probably worth saying that it's surprisingly rare for singers to be pitch-perfect for any length of time. Singing 'in tune' is in truth a bit of a loose way to describe it (no offence intended of course). It's common for a singer to be very slightly off-pitch, but most of the time it's not really an issue. Modern acapella groups commonly use pitch control technologies to ensure accurate pitching of multipart harmonies, especially when there are lots of parts and extensive layering. Here's an example of what I'm talking about (note: the 2 singers at work here are properly trained professional singers who are good at what they do):

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by leftybassman392

[Doddy]

I think now it's very rare to hear any recorded vocal without some form of pitch correction. I guess it's cheaper and easier to use auto tune now,  than to do it the old school way and just get a session singer in to ghost the part.

[Munurmunuh]

5 minutes ago, leftybassman392 said:

Modern acapella groups commonly use pitch control technologies to ensure accurate pitching of multipart harmonies, especially when there are lots of parts and extensive layering

Which is why it sounds as fake as everything else laboratory manufactured by people who never look into the eyes of an audience. Free world, people can make whatever noises and listen to whatever noises they like, but to imagine that^^^ sounds anything like, say,

would be [REDACTED]

[leftybassman392]

16 minutes ago, Ricky Rioli said:

Which is why it sounds as fake as everything else laboratory manufactured by people who never look into the eyes of an audience. Free world, people can make whatever noises and listen to whatever noises they like, but to imagine that^^^ sounds anything like, say,

would be [REDACTED]

Not asking you to like it (and as I said up top, it's clear that a lot of people don't - which is absolutely fine of course). I just posted it as an example of a fairly common modern studio technique.

Also as I said up top, I think it's important to understand what pitch correction can't do, as well as what it can. And while I'm here, the bass singer (Tim Faust) has toured extensively with an acapella group, and is well used to looking into the eyes of an audience. Just so I've said it...

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by leftybassman392

[oldslapper]

I love listening to Russian choirs. They’re Oktavists are amazing. Bb clear and loud. 
No pitch correction going on.

I understand why artists/studios use pitch correction, it kind of fits in with the use of quantisation and compression to achieve some perception of what is deemed “perfection”.

But I’m very old, and I prefer a bit of wobble in my ear missus...

[Munurmunuh]

13 minutes ago, leftybassman392 said:

I just posted it as an example of a fairly common modern studio technique

When you phrase it like that, you make it sound as if the two different journeys are reaching the same destination. If you want something that sounds confected, then you have to get confecting. If you want something natural, you have to get the real deal. A professional singer being able to deliver in both environments does nothing to make the two environments any closer to each other.

[uk_lefty]

3 hours 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.

I was joking. 

[leftybassman392]

8 minutes ago, Ricky Rioli said:

When you phrase it like that, you make it sound as if the two different journeys are reaching the same destination. If you want something that sounds confected, then you have to get confecting. If you want something natural, you have to get the real deal. A professional singer being able to deliver in both environments does nothing to make the two environments any closer to each other.

At the risk of repeating myself, I don't recall claiming that it did. However I do recall agreeing with another poster who made essentially this same point some time ago.

And again while I'm here, I do sometimes wish folk wouldn't speculate about what I might have meant, and pay more attention to what I actually said.

ETA: my bad; it was you who made the point I agreed with. And now you've made it a second time.

Edited May 8, 2021 by leftybassman392

[BigRedX]

Let's face it any studio recording that has not been performed and mixed live in a single take direct to a mono or stereo recorder has some degree of artifice.

That doesn't make it bad, it's just when the same performance is going to replayed many times, I would suspect that most performers would like there to be no glaringly obvious errors to it. I know I would. And there are many ways to get there all of them perfectly valid.

Even those that were recorded completely live in a continuous take. How many performances were required to get a recording that all the performers were happy enough with for it to be for public consumption?

And if you are going to fix things in the studio what is acceptable and what is not? And how do you justify drawing the line at the point you have chosen?

I think anyone apart from the one take live purists would be OK with a musician redoing their part again on a multi-track recording, but what about a drop-in to fix a verse/chorus/middle 8? What about a one-bar drop-in? A single note? 

I see digital manipulation techniques as being no different to these and in many ways much better for the overall performance as on the whole they only affect those parts of the performance that the musician/engineer/producer want to affect. I certainly don't miss the nerve-wracking days of the analogue tape drop-in where no only did you have commit to being able to do a better performance than the one you were over-recording but you also had to rely on the engineer getting the punch-in/punch-out points spot on, so as not to ruin the performance before and after the drop-in.

I know I would much prefer to manipulate a selection of dodgy notes/phrases or replace them with examples copied from elsewhere in the performance. I also don't have to worry about the potential for ruining the parts that are already correct. Everybody wins.

The thing to remember is that studio and live performances are completely different things. If I make a mistake live, it's gone in the next second, and unless it was glaringly obvious to the audience no-one will remember that I've made it. On a recording where my mistake will be heard over and over again if it's not corrected, I want to correct it. How it gets corrected is irrelevant to me so long as when the recording is finished I like the end result. That all that is important.

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by BigRedX

[leftybassman392]

2 hours ago, Jus Lukin said:

Is that from the Dave Allen "Did you fart?" sketch?

No. That would be this:

 

[Dad3353]

A very high percentage of whatever I record is virtual instruments, which are, by definition, artificial. Any and all treatment only adds to the artifice; there is no 'original'. It's fastidious to correct any blunders, and I don't always go to any lengths in that respect; in fact, much pleasure can be had in discovering 'blunders' that are better than the original intention..! Any treatment that improves things is Good, as far as I'm concerned. I detest hearing modern stuff with ring-modulator, Vocoder auto-tune Fx, but, then again, I detest much modern stuff without those Fx, so... 

[BigRedX]

2 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

A very high percentage of whatever I record is virtual instruments, which are, by definition, artificial. Any and all treatment only adds to the artifice; there is no 'original'. It's fastidious to correct any blunders, and I don't always go to any lengths in that respect; in fact, much pleasure can be had in discovering 'blunders' that are better than the original intention..! Any treatment that improves things is Good, as far as I'm concerned. I detest hearing modern stuff with ring-modulator, Vocoder auto-tune Fx, but, then again, I detest much modern stuff without those Fx, so... 

Agreed, there's a difference between a mistake that is simply something other than what you intended to play but still works in a musical context and something that is plain wrong.

However, some of these "modern" effects are anything but. Sparky's Magic Piano which uses a primitive version the vocoder effect was recorded in 1947. The ring modulator was patented in 1935. Both ring modulators and the all-electronic vocoder have their roots in telephony electronics.

[Dad3353]

1 minute ago, BigRedX said:

...However, some of these "modern" effects are anything but....

Indeed (I was raised on 'Sparky' and 'Listen with Mother'...); it's the modern 'stuff' I don't get on with, with or without modern, vintage or no Fx. 

[casapete]

Whilst reading this, Radio 2 have just played Frank Sinatra singing 'My Way'. Some of his notes are just a bit flat in a few places, but it doesn't stop it being a great performance IMHO.

Contrast with Michael Buble, who's more recent output appears (to me at least) to be quite obviously auto-tuned. I know which I prefer. ☺️

 

 P.S. - Forgot to add, Sinatra walked in and did the song in one take too.

Edited May 8, 2021 by casapete

[Crawford13]

I have absolutely no issue with it at all.  It's just another tool to be used.  Many have said it already on this thread but if it is used to clean up a great vocal performance its a great tool.

It's a little like distortion for guitar - didn't quite bend the note to where it should be, a little distortion will save the day.

Same with chorus on a fretless, a little out on your intonation? Some chorus will save the day.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Crawford13

[uk_lefty]

Maybe using pitch correction for vocals is like using a P bass instead of an upright? Surely those metal bits telling you where to put your fingers are artificial and to use them is cheating...? 

[gjones]

Used in a subtle way it's fine.

Such as when a vocal performance has a better feel to it, than other takes of the same vocal part, but has a few pitch imperfections.

On the other hand there's Katie Price.

 

[wateroftyne]

Hate it, unless it’s used for effect.

[WinterMute]

Chances are, if you're hearing it, it's there for an effect, most pitch correction, as opposed to auto-tuning, is entirely inaudible if used properly. Auto tuning ruins recordings and live performances for me as it's so obvious.

I use Melodyn extensively in the studio, tuning errant vocals, sorting my dodgy intonation on the fretless aligning BV's to lead vocals, creating harmony parts as guides for singers, re-arranging performances, it's an incredible and slightly scary bit of technology.

[leftybassman392]

49 minutes ago, gjones said:

 

 

That's actually painful!

[itu]

I think there was hidden meaning in the thread. OP has bought a fretless and wants to get some acceptance to the processing of "slightly inaccurate" playing...

[WinterMute]

3 hours ago, itu said:

I think there was hidden meaning in the thread. OP has bought a fretless and wants to get some acceptance to the processing of "slightly inaccurate" playing...

I fix my fretless playing with Melodyn, I don't see a problem with it, I love playing fretless but I don't practise it enough to be perfect.

I also change the parts around once the tracks are complete to make a better overall song, sometimes changing a note here or there makes al the difference.

[Marvin]

Can't abide it. It's a complete anathema to what music is, or should be.