Let's talk about pitch correction.

[leftybassman392]

42 minutes ago, Nail Soup said:

@leftybassman392 Thank you for a) the Tuba Skinny vid and b) the explanation of the difference between Autotune and Melodyne.

 

I have a question about Autotune ..... if used as "set and forget" how does it handle glissando? 

You're welcome.

As to Autotune, well it's been a few years since I've used it, but on the hardware version I had one of the controls you set alters the time lapse (in milliseconds IIRC) before the correction triggers. If you set it very short you get a very specific vocal effect of the kind originally made famous by Cher (I can't remember the title but you know the one I mean hopefully). If you set it longer the system eases in the correction more slowly. This allows it to let things like gliss and vibrato through before it steps in.

I haven't really looked at the software version, but AFAIK it still has that basic functionality plus a few bells & whistles that the original didn't have. Come to think of it I have it on Garageband on my Mac, so if you like I can have a look when I get a bit of time to play with it and report back. Alternatively there may be someone on the thread who can fill us both in...

[leftybassman392]

1 hour ago, neilp said:

I work in symphony orchestras, chamber music groups, rock bands, blues bands, soul bands and a folk trio. Out of tune is out of tune. Other technical considerations vary, I grant you, but tuning is not optional

It's a good point well made, but wouldn't you agree that:

1) Even very good singers are rarely absolutely bang on pitch all the time (as in 'accurate to the point that a pitch correction algorithm would have no effect on the received signal') - indeed very slight fluctuations in pitch can be viewed as part of that singer's vocal  'personality' (criticisms of Autotune being 'too perfect' are often cited as one of the reasons people don't like it);

2) What is tolerable varies as between musical styles;

3) in certain circumstances, what counts as perfect intonation can differ according to the style (I'm thinking in particular of early music, which uses older temperaments with differing tunings), and can also vary slightly according to what instrumentation is present?

Edited May 9, 2021 by leftybassman392

[paul_5]

Friend of mine once said “if steroids are illegal for athletes, why isn’t auto tune illegal for singers?”.

I thought it was the start of a joke, but he ended it there.

There’s a whole lot more to this argument than his glib rhetoric though.

[Dad3353]

2 hours ago, wateroftyne said:

So at the time of typing, you had heard of her..? 😄

Indeed, as of a few seconds beforehand, thanks to the superb work of my oculist and fine display screen. Beyond that, no. 

[MrCrane]

I'll just leave this one here.

 

[cheddatom]

Someone mentioned Michael Buble earlier. This is a great example of the sound I really don't like. I reckon the engineer doing this probably thinks "no-one will be able to tell" but it's so obvious. It's not done for effect, you can't hear any artefacts from snapping notes to the grid, however, the whole thing is so perfect it sounds "plastic" and really grates on my ears.

[tegs07]

The likes of Spotify and well before it Napster have long been touted as the death knell for music. They surely haven’t helped artists earning power but I think that the generic corporate culture did far more harm. Watching Glastonbury a couple of years back and Idles were one of the few bands that stood out as being exciting. I’m middle aged and the vast amount of stuff struck me as being unchallenging, unadventurous music for the masses. I rarely find any new music that really grabs me and when it does it’s rarely a British band.

Overproduction is one of many villains.

Edit: Before anyone says there are loads of great bands out there. I am sure there are but the challenge is to get promoted and signed followed by the challenge of not just reproducing whatever sound/formula is the latest cash cow.

Edited May 10, 2021 by tegs07

[uk_lefty]

1 hour ago, cheddatom said:

Someone mentioned Michael Buble earlier. This is a great example of the sound I really don't like. I reckon the engineer doing this probably thinks "no-one will be able to tell" but it's so obvious. It's not done for effect, you can't hear any artefacts from snapping notes to the grid, however, the whole thing is so perfect it sounds "plastic" and really grates on my ears.

Agree one billion percent!!! I've been saying this for years after hearing that "just haven't met you yet" bullshtit song, it's just so in your face how the note comes out then it's like it's hitting a ceiling and staying there, yet the adulation he gets is unreal! Am glad someone else hears it. I've said in this thread about having a "little tech help" being OK but this is absolute abuse of the tech! 

[casapete]

2 hours ago, cheddatom said:

Someone mentioned Michael Buble earlier. This is a great example of the sound I really don't like. I reckon the engineer doing this probably thinks "no-one will be able to tell" but it's so obvious. It's not done for effect, you can't hear any artefacts from snapping notes to the grid, however, the whole thing is so perfect it sounds "plastic" and really grates on my ears.

Think it was me mentioning Buble, and comparing him to Sinatra who he most probably idolises.

What I don't get with Buble is that he's an okay singer , (nothing great but can do it IMHO) so why make records that so obviously feature 'that' sound? Most of the music he plays seems to reference older swing styles so at what point did anyone think they should change this to being more contemporary by relying on vocal effects? Then again, with record sales of 30 million worldwide what do I know......🤔

[diskwave]

Can u imagine if theyd used PCor on Boy George?.....Its his off key tone that makes him so darn unique and brilliant.

[WinterMute]

1 hour ago, greavesbass said:

Can u imagine if theyd used PCor on Boy George?.....Its his off key tone that makes him so darn unique and brilliant.

Percy Plant was well known for singing flat, didn't slow them down much.

However, Waterman was bang on the money with his comments about Kylie Minogue, PWL really began the whole business of the face selling the music. Speaking as someone whose engineered my fair share of pop and boy/girl band titles, I can honestly say the the general rule is that the prettier the face, the more work I had to do to make them sound like they could sing.

Obvious exceptions apply, but they are generally very rare.

[tegs07]

8 minutes ago, WinterMute said:

Percy Plant was well known for singing flat, didn't slow them down much.

However, Waterman was bang on the money with his comments about Kylie Minogue, PWL really began the whole business of the face selling the music. Speaking as someone whose engineered my fair share of pop and boy/girl band titles, I can honestly say the the general rule is that the prettier the face, the more work I had to do to make them sound like they could sing.

Obvious exceptions apply, but they are generally very rare.

I would argue that Kylie has some talent. I don’t think you can survive a couple of decades in the music business just by being a pretty face.

[WinterMute]

She definitely had talent, but the lack of autotune on her early recordings is covered by the layers of unison multi tracking to cover her tuning and timing variations.

No doubt she learned to sing and became a great artist, as any others have, Seal couldn't sing when he started, look what Trevor Horn managed with Kiss from a Rose, Simon LeBon was abysmal at the beginning of his career and became a very passable singer.

Edited May 10, 2021 by WinterMute

[tegs07]

Just now, WinterMute said:

She definitely had talent, but the lack of autotune on her early recordings is covered by the layers of unison multi tracking to cover her picking and timing issues.

No doubt she learned to sing and became a great artist, as any others have, Seal couldn't sing when he started, look what Trevor Horn managed with Kiss from a Rose, Simon LeBon was abysmal at the beginning of his career and became a very passable singer.

I would agree with all that. Apart from possibly Simon LeBon. Never did get the appeal of Duran Duran.

[casapete]

Just now, tegs07 said:

I would agree with all that. Apart from possibly Simon LeBon. Never did get the appeal of Duran Duran.

Me neither - wasn't keen on Duran Duran (especially with SLB's flat vocals) or Spandau Ballet either, but at least Spandau had a decent singer who could carry a tune.

[paul_5]

Is that the same, better, or worse than Morrissey wailing slightly sharp?

[diskwave]

30 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

I would argue that Kylie has some talent. I don’t think you can survive a couple of decades in the music business just by being a pretty face.

But does she really dance live on stage without a ton of vocal backup...thats what Waterman was eluding too....that she cannot possible act on stage and sing in tune....so her live shows are wait for it synched.....

[WinterMute]

3 hours ago, tegs07 said:

I would agree with all that. Apart from possibly Simon LeBon. Never did get the appeal of Duran Duran.

Me neither, but he learned to sing in tune.

[Munurmunuh]

23 minutes ago, WinterMute said:

Me neither, but he learned to sing in tune.

Many years ago I chanced on the Making Of Band Aid documentary on the telly. The footage of Simon Le Bon singing his lines (11'00" to 11'30" here) really drove home to me the point that in performance every single note needs to be packed with intention. Genuinely an epiphanic moment for me.

 

[WinterMute]

13 minutes ago, Ricky Rioli said:

Many years ago I chanced on the Making Of Band Aid documentary on the telly. The footage of Simon Le Bon singing his lines (11'00" to 11'30" here) really drove home to me the point that in performance every single note needs to be packed with intention. Genuinely an epiphanic moment for me.

 

Aye, listen to Tori Amos first couple of albums, particularly tracks like Pretty Good year and Cornflake Girl, the consideration of the nuance of every note is staggering, some singers just blast through their work, Bono for instance, others craft and graft to make it work.

[cheddatom]

6 hours ago, casapete said:

Think it was me mentioning Buble, and comparing him to Sinatra who he most probably idolises.

What I don't get with Buble is that he's an okay singer , (nothing great but can do it IMHO) so why make records that so obviously feature 'that' sound? Most of the music he plays seems to reference older swing styles so at what point did anyone think they should change this to being more contemporary by relying on vocal effects? Then again, with record sales of 30 million worldwide what do I know......🤔

Yeh, obviously it works for him and loads of others, I just really dislike it

[zbd1960]

7 hours ago, uk_lefty said:

Agree one billion percent!!! I've been saying this for years after hearing that "just haven't met you yet" bullshtit song, it's just so in your face how the note comes out then it's like it's hitting a ceiling and staying there, yet the adulation he gets is unreal! Am glad someone else hears it. I've said in this thread about having a "little tech help" being OK but this is absolute abuse of the tech! 

One of the issues here is that so few people are used to hearing live musicians, especially ones who sing without any sort of assistance live, that they lack the critical skills to  know what a 'good' sound is. I started singing lessons (classical) 30 years ago in my early 30s and I have sung a huge amount since then (not as soloist though). I never ceased to be amazed how some 'pop' singers make it as they clearly lack even basic skills in many cases.

[uk_lefty]

8 hours ago, zbd1960 said:

One of the issues here is that so few people are used to hearing live musicians, especially ones who sing without any sort of assistance live, that they lack the critical skills to  know what a 'good' sound is. I started singing lessons (classical) 30 years ago in my early 30s and I have sung a huge amount since then (not as soloist though). I never ceased to be amazed how some 'pop' singers make it as they clearly lack even basic skills in many cases.

Reading your post reminded me of watching musical theatre and how absolutely in awe I am of some of the performers. Proper live singing, and playing, while dancing about and changing the sets. I'd be offended to hear auto tune there, but if I was watching a pop band if I could hear some auto tune as long as it wasn't being overused or abused then I'd brush it off. Is it so widely used in pop that a lot of us just accept it? 

[cheddatom]

11 hours ago, zbd1960 said:

One of the issues here is that so few people are used to hearing live musicians, especially ones who sing without any sort of assistance live, that they lack the critical skills to  know what a 'good' sound is. I started singing lessons (classical) 30 years ago in my early 30s and I have sung a huge amount since then (not as soloist though). I never ceased to be amazed how some 'pop' singers make it as they clearly lack even basic skills in many cases.

what baffles me is that it's possible to use pitch correction and retain a "good sound", and a lot of these singers are actually very good, but this "plastic" sound is used anyway

[Woodinblack]

8 minutes ago, cheddatom said:

what baffles me is that it's possible to use pitch correction and retain a "good sound", and a lot of these singers are actually very good, but this "plastic" sound is used anyway

I think the problem is that people are still confusing the use of auto-tune as it was intended, to correct pitch with the use of auto-tune as an effect. I hate autotune as an effect, its like your mobile is out of range, and just as annoying, but auto-tune as a correction well, I can't hear that.

I seriously doubt there has been many albums made without autotune used in some way this century