Let's talk about pitch correction.

[Phil_T]

41 minutes ago, wateroftyne said:

I could be mischievous and say in that case it was the ‘decent ear’ bit that didn’t meet the criteria, but I won’t 😄

 

 

no, you just did - look, it's up there on the screen for everyone to see🙄

[leftybassman392]

Another little factoid from me. It's to do with quantization (which several people have already indicated they don't like, so perhaps we can take that as a given...?).

Most folk around here probably think of quantization (if they think of it at all) as a musical phenomenon. In fact it's a mathematical term, and the meaning as it applies to the music business is derived from the parent meaning.

In simple terms, quantization is the mapping of a (normally) infinitely large set of data points onto a smaller (read as: finite) set of specific values. It is in common everday usage, and has applications in the fields of science and technology, audio and video processing and many others.

Common everyday uses would include things such as reading the temperature to the nearest degree, telling the time to the nearest minute, rounding decimal numbers to the nearest whole number... the list is very long.

In audio and video processing it's most common (but by no means only) use is to carry out analogue->digital conversion tasks (CD and DVD are the obvious example here).

In music production, the standard interpretation relates to the use of rhythm generation technologies. In this application, the continuous (read as: analogue) timestream is divided up into a series of discrete timing points, with the aim of fitting the percussive elements of a musical performance to those points. Example: in a bar of 4/4 time with a semiquaver rhythmic feel, there would be 16 discreet timing points (yes I know this is an oversimplification thanks for asking, but it makes the point in a way anybody can understand). What the quantization process does is to 'lock' all the rhythmic content to those points, thus ensuring pinpoint rhythmic accuracy. Whether this is a good thing is a matter for debate of course, but that's what it does. At it's most basic level it functions as a click track (with the caveat that the percussionist has the option to follow it or not).

What may not be quite as obvious is that a quantization process is at work on the melodic (read as: pitched) elements of the music as well. Musical scales are a textbook example of quantization of the audio spectrum. Pitch processing - at least in the traditional 'autotune' model - performs essentially the same function (i.e. mapping the audio continuum onto a range of specific, discrete points) on the melodic elements of the music as rhythmic quantization does on the percussive elements.

Again, whether (and to what extent) this is a good thing is a matter of debate (hence this thread of course), but that's what pitch correction does.

Self-styled purists (the term 'old school' has been used by several posters) tend to demur, while industry professionals tend to do what needs to be done to fulfil the customer's specifications. You pays yer money and all that...

 

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by leftybassman392

[BigRedX]

3 hours ago, wateroftyne said:

I could be mischievous and say in that case it was the ‘decent ear’ bit that didn’t meet the criteria, but I won’t 😄

Actually it was the change in arrangement and the juxtaposition of the vocal with a different synth sound that made a previously fine-sounding vocal performance appear to be a little dodgy in places. 

I've noticed previously that some synth sounds (particularly from digital synths or samples that have been pitch transposed) can contain weird harmonics that have the potential to make the other instruments (and vocals) sound out of tune even if they sound perfectly fine with the non-digital instruments.

Several times I've found that a particular musical part only works with a very specific synth sound, and that changing that sound makes the notes being played sound completely wrong.

In this case it was far simpler to make tiny tiny changes to the pitches of some of the vocal notes than try and track down the errant harmonic in the synth sound and correct them without changing the feel of the track.

IMO the end result is the most important thing not the process used to get there.

[Alien]

On 08/05/2021 at 07:49, nilebodgers said:

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.

On 'Believe' it was used to force a glissando note into two fixed notes.  I can't remember hearing it used in this way prior to that (on a vocal track at least - chances are it had happened on instrumental tracks)

You're right though - sounded cool first time out, total cliche now you hear it on every other song in the top 40.

The other big difference between Cher and most of the other hacks using autotune these days is this - Cher can hit those notes for real, without autotune.  How many of the faces in the top 40 can say the same these days?

A

 

[Sibob]

1 hour ago, Alien said:

How many of the faces in the top 40 can say the same these days

Probably quite a few I wager.
For those despairing, go look up T-pain’s NPR concert. Just because someone uses a production tool for commercial purposes, doesn’t mean they needed it to get to that point.

Si

[neilp]

7 hours ago, leftybassman392 said:

while industry professionals tend to do what needs to be done to fulfil the customer's specifications. You pays yer money and all that...

 

 

Who is the customer? The listener? Has anyone ever asked what the listener wants, or Has the fact that these tools are available meant that engineers use them , and distributors (I won't call them Record Companies, because they're not any more..) then come to expect the "polished", "perfect" sound on all recorded media?

I know what the answer is, by the way. The consumer was never given the choice.

A similar discussion was had many years ago when I was at the Royal College of Music. A world renowned pianist and conductor voiced the opinion that recorded music was not in fact music at all, because music (sound) does not persist in the real world, so recorded music is at best a facsimile, and if lots of tools are used to "correct" and "polish" the facsimile, it very rapidly loses all similarity to an actual performance. I'm approaching all this from the point of view of a musician, not an engineer, mathematician or studio rat. Discuss...

[Dad3353]

11 minutes ago, neilp said:

... music (sound) does not persist in the real world...

The rot set in when the first log-thumpers and hollow-bone blowers started to 'improve' upon 'natural' sound creation, tuning their bones to make more 'agreeable' notes and adding resonance to the percussions.  Once one accepts that violins do not grow on trees, the article creating the sound (music...) becomes irrelevant, from a 'natural' point of view. That the vibrating air is excited by throbbing gut or by a paper cone matters not a jot; the ear has the same perception, and the brain fills in any gaps a lack of technicality may create. The 'world renowned pianist and conductor' was possibly quite content to have the money in the bank from sales of his facsimiles, I suspect. I'm all for 'live' music, and poetry recitals, but records and printed books are fine, too. Embrace it all; it's all good. 

[leftybassman392]

It may also be worth making the point that many who might want to be present at the esteemed pianist's performances will, for any of a wide variety of reasons, not be able to do so. That being the case, should media producers always and only reproduce performances warts 'n' all?

And what about live streaming? I'd be willing to bet that very few livestreamed broadcasts are completely faithful to the original performance, and I know for a fact that the BBC (for example) have been 'enhancing' live performances for public broadcast for decades.

Arguments can be made on all sides, but the simple fact is that we are where we are. For want of a better cliché, the genie's out of the bottle.

[Dad3353]

So where are we, exactly..? Editors have been editing manuscripts presented to them for centuries, most, if not all word processors have typo correction, grammar correction and even whole phrase correction as standard, to say nothing of predictive text, whereby it's the machine creating the text before it's even been thought of by the author. How is any of this different to pitch, and any other treatment..? What's the big deal..? No cars with power steering, or assisted brakes..? No lifts; take the stairs..? To fly, just flap your arms..? The subject is a non-subject, I'd say. There are no dinosaurs left, get over it. 

[drTStingray]

I like it (or whatever electronic gizmo it is) on this song by Rita Ora - comes in after about a minute - in that section her voice fluctuates between normal and basso profundo electronically - nice synth bass in that bit as well - doesn’t seem to want to embed unfortunately 

https://youtu.be/ksdAs4LBRq8 

 

[12stringbassist]

My take on vocal pitch correction is that you can either do it or you can't.

I'd rather see a colostomy bag attached to a singer than a computer that makes their singing acceptable.

[4000]

21 hours ago, BigRedX said:

.

IMO the end result is the most important thing not the process used to get there.

This, always. 

[diskwave]

14 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

 Embrace it all; it's all good. 

Really? R4 playing some young artist right now. For the life of me I can't discern any instruments just sounds like a wall of grey mush....maybe some vibes...ok got that bit...and of course the obligatory vocal pitch warbling thing making the poor youngun sound like a demented robot.

TV ads are full of session played hits from the 70's, have been for years....Wonder if this processed drone I'm listening to this morning will be flogging soap in years to come?...doubt it. 

[Dad3353]

43 minutes ago, greavesbass said:

Really? R4 playing some young artist right now. For the life of me I can't discern any instruments just sounds like a wall of grey mush....maybe some vibes...ok got that bit...and of course the obligatory vocal pitch warbling thing making the poor youngun sound like a demented robot.

TV ads are full of session played hits from the 70's, have been for years....Wonder if this processed drone I'm listening to this morning will be flogging soap in years to come?...doubt it. 

Getting old, maybe..? Folks used to have this same reaction to Eddy Cochran and Co; in fact every 'new' movement has been derided by the previous generation (Liszt..? Paganini..? Post-Gregorian chants..?). No, I don't like the 'new-fangled racket' either, but our grand-children will love it, then complain about whatever comes after... 'Tis the Way of the World.

[Woodinblack]

52 minutes ago, greavesbass said:

Really? R4 playing some young artist right now. For the life of me I can't discern any instruments just sounds like a wall of grey mush....maybe some vibes...ok got that bit...and of course the obligatory vocal pitch warbling thing making the poor youngun sound like a demented robot.

Yeh, modern music is all boom boom boom, not like proper music like I had in my day.. grr.. bloody kids <shakes fist and wanders off humming agadoo>

[PaulWarning]

4 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

Getting old, maybe..? Folks used to have this same reaction to Eddy Cochran and Co; in fact every 'new' movement has been derided by the previous generation (Liszt..? Paganini..? Post-Gregorian chants..?). No, I don't like the 'new-fangled racket' either, but our grand-children will love it, then complain about whatever comes after... 'Tis the Way of the World.

bit off topic, but true, today's mailonline, an example of how us old farts are supposed to be outraged about modern music, remember the fuss about Elvis, then the Sex Pistols, makes you wonder what it will take to outrage todays youngsters

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9585461/Soundtrack-murder-time-gangland-drill-track-Number-One.html

 

[WinterMute]

15 hours ago, neilp said:

Who is the customer? The listener? Has anyone ever asked what the listener wants, or Has the fact that these tools are available meant that engineers use them , and distributors (I won't call them Record Companies, because they're not any more..) then come to expect the "polished", "perfect" sound on all recorded media?

I know what the answer is, by the way. The consumer was never given the choice.

A similar discussion was had many years ago when I was at the Royal College of Music. A world renowned pianist and conductor voiced the opinion that recorded music was not in fact music at all, because music (sound) does not persist in the real world, so recorded music is at best a facsimile, and if lots of tools are used to "correct" and "polish" the facsimile, it very rapidly loses all similarity to an actual performance. I'm approaching all this from the point of view of a musician, not an engineer, mathematician or studio rat. Discuss...

They are entirely correct that recorded music is a poorer version of the original performances, as it relies on mics, speakers and psychoacoustics to recreate the original in an inferior manner, however, I can't actually fit a symphony orchestra or Rush in my living room or car, much less have them play for me on a packed tube train, so what are you gonna do?

Purists gonna pure.

Speaking as a veteran audio engineer, the worst possible start to a session is some musician saying "can you make it sound exactly like it does live" the answer to which is invariably "no". We can certainly approach that vibe, but even binaural recordings of performances are artificial recreations of a moment in time. The moment a microphone is involved the music becomes a different animal. We accept the conventions of recording as a necessary evil so that we can enjoy the music we want to listen to, when we want to listen to it.

Even the mighty Deusche Gramafon record to Protools and edit bar by bar these days.

[BigRedX]

21 minutes ago, WinterMute said:

Speaking as a veteran audio engineer, the worst possible start to a session is some musician saying "can you make it sound exactly like it does live" the answer to which is invariably "no".

IME unless the musicians in question are incredibly technically accomplished and have spent a long time working on their arrangements, you wouldn't want to capture the live sound because generally it's not going to be good enough to withstand repeated listening. And while they are at it would they like to include the less palatable aspects of the typical live performance like inaudible vocals, unwanted feedback and additional compression to mimic how your ears are behaving at gig volumes?

I've mostly been in bands that were firstly studio bands and secondly live acts and our problem was the opposite - how to recreate what we had done in the studio at a gig, and tending to fail just as badly doing that as the band that wants to capture the "live vibe" on a recording.

I've finally come to accept that the recording and the gig are two different things and although they have large areas of overlap should be approached differently. There's no need to include every aspect of the recorded version in the live one, you can make up for those missing things by being excitingly loud and giving the audience something interesting to watch while you perform. Conversely you need to make the recording aurally "interesting" to compensate for lack of gig-level volume and the fact that here the music has to stand on it's own. 

Edited May 17, 2021 by BigRedX

[JapanAxe]

19 minutes ago, PaulWarning said:

bit off topic, but true, today's mailonline, an example of how us old farts are supposed to be outraged about modern music, remember the fuss about Elvis, then the Sex Pistols, makes you wonder what it will take to outrage todays youngsters

...

 

Music stands on stage?

[leftybassman392]

30 minutes ago, WinterMute said:

They are entirely correct that recorded music is a poorer version of the original performances, as it relies on mics, speakers and psychoacoustics to recreate the original in an inferior manner, however, I can't actually fit a symphony orchestra or Rush in my living room or car, much less have them play for me on a packed tube train, so what are you gonna do?

Purists gonna pure.

Speaking as a veteran audio engineer, the worst possible start to a session is some musician saying "can you make it sound exactly like it does live" the answer to which is invariably "no". We can certainly approach that vibe, but even binaural recordings of performances are artificial recreations of a moment in time. The moment a microphone is involved the music becomes a different animal. We accept the conventions of recording as a necessary evil so that we can enjoy the music we want to listen to, when we want to listen to it.

Even the mighty Deusche Gramafon record to Protools and edit bar by bar these days.

 

10 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

IME unless the musicians in question are incredibly technically accomplished and have spent a long time working on their arrangements, you wouldn't want to capture the live sound because generally it's not going to be good enough to withstand repeated listening. And while they are at it would they like to include the less palatable aspects of the typical live performance like inaudible vocals, unwanted feedback and additional compression to mimic how your ears are behaving at gig volumes?

I've mostly been in bands that were firstly studio bands and secondly live acts and our problem was the opposite - how to recreate what we had done in the studio at a gig, and tending to fail just as badly doing that as the band that wants to capture the "live vibe" on a recording.

I've finally come to accept that the recording and the gig are two different things and although they have large areas of overlap should be approached differently. There's no need to include every aspect of the recorded version in the live one, you can make up for those missing things by being excitingly loud and giving the audience something interesting to watch while you perform. Conversely you need to make the recording aurally "interesting" to compensate for lack of gig-level volume and the fact that here the music has to stand on it's own. 

Excellent posts both if I may say so.

[WinterMute]

27 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

I've finally come to accept that the recording and the gig are two different things and although they have large areas of overlap should be approached differently. There's no need to include every aspect of the recorded version in the live one, you can make up for those missing things by being excitingly loud and giving the audience something interesting to watch while you perform. Conversely you need to make the recording aurally "interesting" to compensate for lack of gig-level volume and the fact that here the music has to stand on it's own. 

This is where it's at generally, the choice lies in how far you want to recreate your live sound in the studio or vice versa. Some bands go to extraordinary lengths to reproduce their studio sound live, Rush did for many years, same arrangements etc, others don't, Counting Crows songs are sometimes almost unrecognisable live, Alan Holdsworth used to play a couple of bars of a song to remind people what is was then go off on flights of improvisation. 

You want to jam it live in the studio like the Chillies or Foos do? Fine, but you'd better be well rehearsed. You want build it piece by piece, bar by bar like Steely Dan or Trevor Horn? No problem, but you'd better have the character and identity of your songs well developed. Recorded music is music, it's just recorded.

[diskwave]

1 hour ago, Dad3353 said:

Getting old, maybe..? Folks used to have this same reaction to Eddy Cochran and Co; in fact every 'new' movement has been derided by the previous generation (Liszt..? Paganini..? Post-Gregorian chants..?). No, I don't like the 'new-fangled racket' either, but our grand-children will love it, then complain about whatever comes after... 'Tis the Way of the World.

I dont think that argument works anymore. My dear old mum hated pop music and thght that Glenn Miller was the biz....but she was never part of the "pop" generation...she was pre-war, completely different cultural makeup.

I on the other hand grew up with 70's pop, heavy metal, reggae , The Damned and Johnny Rotten..... So I am of the stuff it in there faces pop generation......but what Im hearing now?.....do me a favour?.....its so acceptable and lame I reckon my dear old mum would actually like it....and that sadly is saying something.

[neilp]

5 hours ago, WinterMute said:

They are entirely correct that recorded music is a poorer version of the original performances, as it relies on mics, speakers and psychoacoustics to recreate the original in an inferior manner, however, I can't actually fit a symphony orchestra or Rush in my living room or car, much less have them play for me on a packed tube train, so what are you gonna do?

Purists gonna pure.

Speaking as a veteran audio engineer, the worst possible start to a session is some musician saying "can you make it sound exactly like it does live" the answer to which is invariably "no". We can certainly approach that vibe, but even binaural recordings of performances are artificial recreations of a moment in time. The moment a microphone is involved the music becomes a different animal. We accept the conventions of recording as a necessary evil so that we can enjoy the music we want to listen to, when we want to listen to it.

Even the mighty Deusche Gramafon record to Protools and edit bar by bar these days.

That's the point. It's not even a poorer version, it's just an imitation of a performance. The performance will never be the same twice. Nothing to do with mics or speaker or plug-ins.

[4000]

3 hours ago, greavesbass said:

I dont think that argument works anymore. My dear old mum hated pop music and thght that Glenn Miller was the biz....but she was never part of the "pop" generation...she was pre-war, completely different cultural makeup.

I on the other hand grew up with 70's pop, heavy metal, reggae , The Damned and Johnny Rotten..... So I am of the stuff it in there faces pop generation......but what Im hearing now?.....do me a favour?.....its so acceptable and lame I reckon my dear old mum would actually like it....and that sadly is saying something.

I think the argument still works. I grew up listening almost exclusively to my dad’s jazz (bar the stuff on the radio, mid/late ‘60s), discovered the Beatles via my cousins, then to ABBA, and then through pretty much everything the ‘70s and onwards threw at us. But I still hear stuff I like and probably always will. Of course I hear stuff I don’t like too, but that was also always the case. There’s plenty of stuff out there that is anything but “so acceptable and lame”, whether you like it or not. 

[neilp]

I think the point I'm trying to make is that when I listen to music (and I totally accept that this may not be true for you guys, or indeed anyone else, possibly!), the thing I am most interested in hearing is the individual character of what the people involved are doing. If there are mistakes, that's fine, all musicians make mistakes. If there are so many as to detract from the music, it means the musicians are not good enough. That's true whether live or recorded. Once you autotune and grid the whole thing, you remove a lot of the humanity from it, and I personally lose interest. You may not. Each to his own I guess