Let's talk about pitch correction.

[zbd1960]

There's an element of 'horses for courses' about this. My background is mostly classical and I have a lot of experience of choral singing, including a cappella. We're expected to be in tune and it's something that gets worked on in rehearsals. I also play cello which is 'fretless' and a lot of effort goes into being in tune. 

Tuning though isn't an absolute, and there are complications around temperaments which is an entirely different debate. Minor imperfections are what tells you music is life and gives it character. 

Where technology is being used as an effect, or to subtly assist/adjust I can see that having its use and place. I tend to balk when it's being used to fix and correct people who struggle to be in tune (I remember hearing a track about 20 years ago from a then well-known group and I was shocked how out-of-tune it was - it was not minor!).   

[BassTool]

Well, since you ask..

Cheating. Simple as.

As a semi-pro 'singer/bassist' (been called a lot less) of 43+ years I have absolutely zero tolerance of it. I'd rather see people up there doing it live, whatever that entails. Mistakes, bum notes, warbles, chokes, whatever..

That is what should be on show from any performer IMO, warts and all as we used to say..

However, I've heard very reliable tales of entire vocals on DAT back in the day - in particular a very famous girl 'band' - with live mics dropped in to talk to the crowd etc simply because they were too bloody awful to do it live.

I've heard from reliable sources that pitch correction/autotune is massive when playing to arena audiences paying big bucks to see perfection.

In the past few years some MAJOR big bands doing huge stadium gigs have relied on PC/autotune live that I've heard about from guys behind the scenes - using some very expensive processing gear - but a paying audience member would never know, as long as they walk away happy, it's job done.

On the local pub circuit (when it was running) I've seen solo artists with an acoustic  guitar using it - really? Can I suggest you try practising more? 🤨

Maybe as well as being older, I'm also old fashioned - but personally, I give Pitch correction/Autotune a big NO.

Perhaps I'm just a grumpy, older git 🙄

  

 

[Downunderwonder]

38 minutes ago, BassTool said:

Well, since you ask..

Cheating. Simple as.

As a semi-pro 'singer/bassist' (been called a lot less) of 43+ years I have absolutely zero tolerance of it. I'd rather see people up there doing it live, whatever that entails. Mistakes, bum notes, warbles, chokes, whatever..

That is what should be on show from any performer IMO, warts and all as we used to say..

However, I've heard very reliable tales of entire vocals on DAT back in the day - in particular a very famous girl 'band' - with live mics dropped in to talk to the crowd etc simply because they were too bloody awful to do it live.

I've heard from reliable sources that pitch correction/autotune is massive when playing to arena audiences paying big bucks to see perfection.

In the past few years some MAJOR big bands doing huge stadium gigs have relied on PC/autotune live that I've heard about from guys behind the scenes - using some very expensive processing gear - but a paying audience member would never know, as long as they walk away happy, it's job done.

On the local pub circuit (when it was running) I've seen solo artists with an acoustic  guitar using it - really? Can I suggest you try practising more? 🤨

Maybe as well as being older, I'm also old fashioned - but personally, I give Pitch correction/Autotune a big NO.

Perhaps I'm just a grumpy, older git 🙄

  

 

What's the difference between a stadium act selling their best performance and a fool on a stool doing the same?

[BassTool]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, Downunderwonder said:

What's the difference between a stadium act selling their best performance and a fool on a stool doing the same?

First off, I never said fool on a stool  Anyone who is prepared to get up in front of an audience and perform has always got my backing, but when it comes to masking ability with electronic gizmos it comes into question, again this is my opinion 😎

But, just so there's no ambiguity - there's no difference at all.

Both, IMO, are cheating.

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by BassTool
Double quote

[Downunderwonder]

5 minutes ago, BassTool said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off, I never said fool on a stool  Anyone who is prepared to get up in front of an audience and perform has always got my backing, but when it comes to masking ability with electronic gizmos it comes into question, again this is my opinion 😎

But, just so there's no ambiguity - there's no difference at all.

Both, IMO, are cheating.

 

The bit I quoted was accepting of big gigs using the tech but in the next breath pilloried the solo artist for needing to practice to make auto correct unnecessary.

[BassTool]

1 minute ago, Downunderwonder said:

The bit I quoted was accepting of big gigs using the tech but in the next breath pilloried the solo artist for needing to practice to make auto correct unnecessary.

Suggest you re-read my original post @Downunderwonder maybe I didn't make it clear, but regardless of either big band in an Arena or solo pub player, I think the same of both. I'd rather hear how they really sing, and think it's a shame an audience has to be fooled by tech these days.

As I've intimated, I'm old school, plug in, play, let's hear what you've got.

Without pitch correction  

[Downunderwonder]

10 minutes ago, BassTool said:

maybe I didn't make it clear,

Certainly. Your concluding paragraph on stadium gigs endorsed correction as a means of giving the paying audience better value.

[Crawford13]

1 hour ago, BassTool said:

Well, since you ask..

Cheating. Simple as.

As a semi-pro 'singer/bassist' (been called a lot less) of 43+ years I have absolutely zero tolerance of it. I'd rather see people up there doing it live, whatever that entails. Mistakes, bum notes, warbles, chokes, whatever..

That is what should be on show from any performer IMO, warts and all as we used to say..

However, I've heard very reliable tales of entire vocals on DAT back in the day - in particular a very famous girl 'band' - with live mics dropped in to talk to the crowd etc simply because they were too bloody awful to do it live.

I've heard from reliable sources that pitch correction/autotune is massive when playing to arena audiences paying big bucks to see perfection.

In the past few years some MAJOR big bands doing huge stadium gigs have relied on PC/autotune live that I've heard about from guys behind the scenes - using some very expensive processing gear - but a paying audience member would never know, as long as they walk away happy, it's job done.

On the local pub circuit (when it was running) I've seen solo artists with an acoustic  guitar using it - really? Can I suggest you try practising more? 🤨

Maybe as well as being older, I'm also old fashioned - but personally, I give Pitch correction/Autotune a big NO.

Perhaps I'm just a grumpy, older git 🙄

  

 

Each to their own. 

Has to be said I'm sure the person who came up with the cart for horses was not happy about the invention of the car. 

[BassTool]

3 minutes ago, Downunderwonder said:

Certainly. Your concluding paragraph on stadium gigs endorsed correction as a means of giving the paying audience better value.

Certainly did not intend that as an endorsement, that was not my intention at all.

I honestly thought I could have not have been clearer.

Pitch correction in any form, any performer, from Arena to pub. No.

 

IMO  

 

[leftybassman392]

It occurs to me that I need to talk a bit about the differences between some of the various studio technologies.

From what numerous posters have said, it seems the difference between the major technologies needs to be spun out a little. Although they do a similar job, the way they work is very different. Please bear with me because this is important.

The two standard products are Antares Autotune and Celemony Melodyne. I have a sense that many of the critics are conflating the two. This is a mistake.

Autotune is an automated 'set and forget' technology (in truth there is a bit more to it than that, but that's the bit folks are familiar with). This automated functionality makes it easy to spot for people who know what to listen for, and gives rise to the perceived anodyne quality of the processed product. Words like 'bland', 'robotic' and 'soulless' have been used in this and other threads.

Melodyne is a note-by-note manual analyser, allowing the user to decide which notes need changing and by how much. Again, there's a bit more to it than this, and it also does some clever stuff with chords, tempos and timings, but you get the general idea. This means that an experienced and skilful engineer can fine tune individual notes without affecting the rest of the recorded material. It's much more time-consuming than Autotune, and requires considerably more skill and musical know-how, but the results are very natural - so much so that without knowing the audio has been processed it's extremely difficult to spot, as the the usual 'too perfect' criticism doesn't really apply. In fact I'd go so far as to say that we've probably all listened to music processed with Melodyne at one time or another without realising it.

NOTE: I'm not taking sides here (and neither am I trying to change anybody's mind), but most if not all of the criticism levelled at pitch correction seems to be assuming an Autotune model. If people are as keen to dismiss pitch correction as some posters appear to be, then surely they should at least know what it is they're dismissing.

It's been labelled 'cheating' and summarily dismissed accordingly, but what if you didn't know that what you're listening to is a cheat? Given the virtual blanket coverage of pitch manipulation technologies in everything from pro studios to bedroom oiks with laptops, there's a good chance it's happened to you.

 

TL:DR Autotune isn't the only way to do pitch manipulation.

 

ETA: In the light of recent discussions, I should make clear that because of the way Melodyne works it's not really optimised for live performance, meaning criticisms made in relation to live performance don't really apply.

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by leftybassman392

[wateroftyne]

Just sing it right in the first place. Lazy buggers.

[WinterMute]

1 hour ago, BassTool said:

Certainly did not intend that as an endorsement, that was not my intention at all.

I honestly thought I could have not have been clearer.

Pitch correction in any form, any performer, from Arena to pub. No.

 

IMO  

 

Seems like an arbitrary place to draw a line on electronics and technology in music, no pitch correction, but yes to EQ, compression, distortion, amp modelling, reverb, delay, stereo mixing of mono signals, amplification, samplers, synthesisers, sequencers, DJ decks...?

Remember the stick Dylan got for picking up an electric guitar?

Its a tool like any other, you chose which tools to employ.

 

 

[Jean-Luc Pickguard]

Pitch correction has its place. I have been known to use it on my recordings, but the key is to make it subtle.

It makes me sound like I can almost carry a tune in a bucket.

I'm really not a fan of the sound where it is very obvious, as heard on the rap/grime/whatever tracks my 18 year old son listens to at high volume in his car, but I'm not the target market for that stuff and he seems to enjoy it.

[leftybassman392]

One last thought before I go bedside:

What (if any) is the real-world difference between manipulating the pitch of a note that's slightly off digitally, and dropping in a better example to replace the bad one (the old way)?

Edited May 10, 2021 by leftybassman392

[Downunderwonder]

3 minutes ago, leftybassman392 said:

One last thought before I go bedside:

What (if any) is the real-world difference between manipulating the pitch of a note that's slightly off digitally, and copying and pasting in a better example to replace the bad one (the old way)?

Lack of incentive to get it right in the first place.

[BassTool]

Just to clarify (and I've just come off watching a live 1985 Paul Young gig from Rockenplast, complete with Pino - absolutely awesome playing, plus 3 fabulous backing vocalists and PY at his showman level best, no auto tune or whatever to make the vox in tune required) my previous rant related to the inability these days of performers to sing live without any enhancement to improve tuning - whatever the particular kind of technology that may entail these days. I'm really not interested - because I prefer anyone singing live to be genuinely just that, without anything electronic pulling them in tune - I'm not really sure how I can possibly emphasise that point any more than I already have. What happened to talent?

Call me old school, call me old fashioned, call me old, I really don't mind 😁

Over the years I've spent hours and hours with fellow band members working on harmony vocals till it totally cheesed everybody in the band off, and on the gig nights when it all comes together down the Dog and Duck (remember those days?) it all seems worth it for that nanosecond or longer - because of all the work and effort put in - not just for the band members, but the audience too.

Younger BCr's may argue modern gizmos - to enhance dodgy live vocals - are to be embraced, and will call it progress. 

That's fine, we are moving on all the time.

But for me personally, I disagree.

Again, IMO - it's simply cheating  

 

 

Anyone want to see a great vocalist, three fabulous backing singers, and a half decent bassist (   ) plus a kicking band, check this gig out... no pitch correction required back then 😎

Call it old school if you like   

 

 

 

[wateroftyne]

3 hours ago, leftybassman392 said:

…and copying and pasting in a better example to replace the bad one (the old way)?

No, the old way was to sing it right in the first place (or drop in… but still sing it right.)

[Cato]

6 hours ago, Jean-Luc Pickguard said:

I'm really not a fan of the sound where it is very obvious, as heard on the rap/grime/whatever tracks my 18 year old son listens to at high volume in his car, but I'm not the target market for that stuff and he seems to enjoy it.

That's very much the fashion, not just in hip hop but in just about every genre of chart music at the moment.

If you listen to Radio 1 for any length of time at the moment you'll probably hear more songs with deliberately unnatural, highly processed sounding vocals than not.

For many performers such as Drake and Billy Eilish it's a key component of their 'sound' and ,presumably, their appeal.

Eventually the pendulum will almost certainly swing the other way and there will be a fashion for more raw, natural sounding performances, although pitch correction has become so ubiquitous in modern pop music that even then I suspect there will be a fair bit of much more subtle tweaking going on.

Edited May 9, 2021 by Cato

[uk_lefty]

Amplification is cheating. Lazy so and so's should practice to sing and play louder. 

[wateroftyne]

35 minutes ago, uk_lefty said:

Amplification is cheating. Lazy so and so's should practice to sing and play louder. 

If that was a response to one of my earlier comments, it’s not a very good one 😄

[Munurmunuh]

38 minutes ago, uk_lefty said:

Amplification is cheating. Lazy so and so's should practice to sing and play louder. 

Some large opera houses, wanting to cast box office names in roles they werent suitable for, have given singers acoustical enhancement, and yes everyone who learnt about it thought it was cheating. iirc it was Sir John Tomlinson who made the biggest fuss about it.

[uk_lefty]

10 minutes ago, wateroftyne said:

If that was a response to one of my earlier comments, it’s not a very good one 😄

I know! It's a tongue in cheek comment too, I just think a little bit of tech to help us all out is OK. We don't really seem to criticise bassists using electronic tuners, guitarists using harmonizer pedals, keyboardists who use all manner of tech, drummers and indeed whole bands who may be listening to a click to help their timing along, yet for singers it seems a complete No to use a bit of pitch correction. I understand and respect the point of view, I just find it seems singing is held to higher expectations than the rest of the band. Maybe because they never help set up the PA....? (please nobody tell me every singer you know always sets up the PA and the drum kit.... Again, I'm joking) 

[wateroftyne]

28 minutes ago, uk_lefty said:

I know! It's a tongue in cheek comment too, I just think a little bit of tech to help us all out is OK. We don't really seem to criticise bassists using electronic tuners, guitarists using harmonizer pedals, keyboardists who use all manner of tech, drummers and indeed whole bands who may be listening to a click to help their timing along, yet for singers it seems a complete No to use a bit of pitch correction. I understand and respect the point of view, I just find it seems singing is held to higher expectations than the rest of the band. Maybe because they never help set up the PA....? (please nobody tell me every singer you know always sets up the PA and the drum kit.... Again, I'm joking) 

Understood.

From my perspective it's not limited to singers.

Clicks, for example. I get that drummers might need to use one for practical purposes, to sync a production, to enable tracking, or just because that's the feel that's required. But there's kind of an assumption there that the dummer can keep time in the first place.

Guitarist using a harmoniser? Same as a above. It's a colour. And, believe me, as a non-guitarist, it wouldn't help if I played it.

I'm man enough to admit I'm now in the Tommy Saxondale 'dinosaur' category. I was brought up in an environment where people would get together to sing and play, and the joy would come from the human element of it, and everyone being responsible for their own input. Those moments seem less and less important these days, but time marches on (perfectly on the beat).

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by wateroftyne

[uk_lefty]

13 minutes ago, wateroftyne said:

I'm man enough to admit I'm now in the Tommy Saxondale 'dinosaur' category. I was brought up in an environment where people would get together to sing and play, and the joy would come from the human element of it, and everyone being responsible for their own input. Those moments seem less and less important these days, but time marches on (perfectly on the beat

I get it. Believe me I've stood against a LOT of stuff for my covers bands where someone wants to programme loads of stuff in to some machine and trigger samples for horn parts I stead of finding a way to capture the essence of it using what we've got to hand (E.g I've had a drummer go "BADA! BADA!" into a mic for the horn part on dude looks like a lady and it is sufficient for a covers band audience!). I enjoy the human element too, the fact it could all fall apart any second is part of what I enjoy. But I'm not against a little tech help for the odd thing. Just a little help though, not a complete cover up. 

[BigRedX]

Some harsh truths:

The vast majority of commercial recordings made in the past 20 years will have had some degree of pitch correction applied to at least one of the parts. Some will be completely unnoticeable, some will be done as a definite effect and others somewhere in between. Just because you can't hear it doesn't mean it's not there.

I wouldn't be so sure that that there's no post-processing applied to "live" broadcast performances. They're all recorded to multitrack and unless the concert was aired in real time who knows what has been done to the audio between the performance and its broadcast. Remember all those "live" albums of the 70s that were tickled up in the studio before being released to the public.

Why is a drop in acceptable and timing or pitch correction of a previously played part not? I can can play pretty much anything one bar at a time, but I might not be able to string all those bars together no matter how much I practice. But for some people comp'ing it together from a multitude of takes is somehow OK while correcting the pitch and timing of errant notes from a single take is not? For me there's no difference. Use whichever gives the best audible end result.

I think one of the reasons why there's a lot more processing of live vocals is because these days you can actually hear them at gigs. Certainly most of the gigs I went to in the 70s and 80s often the best you could hope for regarding the vocals is that you could hear there were some. Being able to tell if they were in tune or if the singer had remembered the words was anyone guess. IMO for a long time so long as they could cobble together a decent performance in the studio, it didn't matter live because most people couldn't tell in the gig mix. That however doesn't cut it with todays much better PA systems, so is it not surprising that musicians are opting for various effects now that they can be properly heard?