Hearing Is Believing??

We all have our favourites in terms of bands and solo singers right!! If you found out that your particular favourites were not all they seemed at the time, would you be annoyed/frustrated??

I watch a lot from 'Wings Of Pegasus' Youtube channel. the guy that runs it 'Fil' responds to peoples requests to review videos of performances! One hot topic, is the use of autotune/pitch correction - in particular - to alter historical performances. One glaring example being Randy Meisner - just after his death - to 'pitch correct' his 'Lyin Eyes' vocal! Also Celine Dion can you believe it!!

Which do you think most important?
1 Doesn't matter??
2 Ban One/Both outright
3 Legal requirement to place Notification on CD etc about Use and reason
4 Other (details)

This type of trickery has gone on for years, it seems a bit late to come clean on what's gone on in the past & hard to prove.
I don't like the idea of being cheated, I can admire the rawness & imperfections of a vocal, as much as I can a pitch-perfect performance.
In a recording setting a vocal is no different to any other instrument, which can be tricked-up. I'd be more concerned if I found out that a live performance had been mimed. Part of the attraction of a live gig is the occasional bum note or forgotten lyric. The best artists can elevate themselves beyond anything a sanitized recording studio can deliver, that is the true measure of a performer.

(15-01-2024 19:40 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  This type of trickery has gone on for years, it seems a bit late to come clean on what's gone on in the past & hard to prove.
I don't like the idea of being cheated, I can admire the rawness & imperfections of a vocal, as much as I can a pitch-perfect performance.
In a recording setting a vocal is no different to any other instrument, which can be tricked-up. I'd be more concerned if I found out that a live performance had been mimed. Part of the attraction of a live gig is the occasional bum note or forgotten lyric. The best artists can elevate themselves beyond anything a sanitized recording studio can deliver, that is the true measure of a performer.

Really not that hard to prove Booms! The guy I referred to in my opening post can shed light (and does) on the absolute fact of both autotune and pitch correction, and their use! Even Michael Buble (not a fan but respect his quality) has been autotuned while singing in a live performance, and many more!

I also think it does matter, as it is false selling to the consumer if an artist (remember they may not even know it has been done) has their songs released without the purchaser being aware of the use of these artificial software programmes. I am more familiar with it now, so can - to a certain extent - 'hear it' if it is there, but what if you can't?? Is ignorance bliss?? No I say, because not only would I have wasted money on something that is not as claimed, but the 'artist' will have illegitimately (my term) gained fame/fortune through artificial means and not by showcasing real talent - not to mention, unfairly perhaps, taking a higher place in the pecking order from another who has really been producing true vocal skills. It also insults those who came through the 'hard way' before these options were available, as they worked their tails off to be the best they could be without any 'crutch' to assist them!

I don't understand why producers do this?? Maybe it is because of the 'pressure' of trying to push artists in a crowded market (more reason to ban the two pieces of technology) based on how good original artists pre - 1997 sounded! At least then, you could hear and determine the good from the bad and know it was as it appeared!

NB The Randy Meisner track I referred to was 'Take it to the limit' - not - 'Lyin eyes'

I should also have said that lip synching to which you refer, is far more prevalent than people realise!

I suspect it's the search for perfection at any cost. Not all technology is an improvement, we got conned into believing that the cd format was superior, when in fact it's vinyl counterpart is much crisper.

Providing there's a transparency with autotune & pitch correction then it is up to the customer to decide the ethics of it. That will never happen, artists & producers will not admit to using it, but good luck with making it illegal or at least notifying the consumer of it's use.

This is as bad if not worse than some athletes using performance enhancing drugs when others are clean.

(15-01-2024 22:31 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  I suspect it's the search for perfection at any cost. Not all technology is an improvement, we got conned into believing that the cd format was superior, when in fact it's vinyl counterpart is much crisper.

Providing there's a transparency with autotune & pitch correction then it is up to the customer to decide the ethics of it. That will never happen, artists & producers will not admit to using it, but good luck with making it illegal or at least notifying the consumer of it's use.

This is as bad if not worse than some athletes using performance enhancing drugs when others are clean.

^ Really good analogy!!! I would be gutted if at least two of my Faves who I have raved about (Sohyang, Faouzia who are light years ahead vocally) were to be found to have used either option. Thankfully both have passed the 'lie detector test' in the form of having their vocals run through the pitch correction software! It is Pitch Correction which is the bigger 'sin' in my book. In addition, at least I know for certain that my all time faves - Anastacia, Alannis Morissette and Toni Braxton are clean (at least originally) as they came before AT and PC were a thing!

(15-01-2024 22:31 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  I suspect it's the search for perfection at any cost. Not all technology is an improvement, we got conned into believing that the cd format was superior, when in fact it's vinyl counterpart is much crisper.

Providing there's a transparency with autotune & pitch correction then it is up to the customer to decide the ethics of it. That will never happen, artists & producers will not admit to using it, but good luck with making it illegal or at least notifying the consumer of it's use.

This is as bad if not worse than some athletes using performance enhancing drugs when others are clean.

Define 'perfection'. Sounding like a robotic lab experiment, or having character and expression.

(15-01-2024 23:24 )hornball Wrote:  

(15-01-2024 22:31 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  I suspect it's the search for perfection at any cost. Not all technology is an improvement, we got conned into believing that the cd format was superior, when in fact it's vinyl counterpart is much crisper.

Providing there's a transparency with autotune & pitch correction then it is up to the customer to decide the ethics of it. That will never happen, artists & producers will not admit to using it, but good luck with making it illegal or at least notifying the consumer of it's use.

This is as bad if not worse than some athletes using performance enhancing drugs when others are clean.

Define 'perfection'. Sounding like a robotic lab experiment, or having character and expression.

Well or me you can be perfectly flawed. Is this a case of some producers & artists that are using these methods, trying to give us something that we don't actually want or need.
Give me a vocalist who is less than perfect, but has feeling & emotion in their voice every time.

It's pretty standard practice these days to autotune the occasional vocal phrase, and/or even slightly straighten a held vibrato note. The trick is not to overuse it, unless of course you're using it as an effect as in Cher's Believe. If overused and you make every note bang on pitch, it sounds completely unatural and the human ear instinctively senses that something is wrong.

A simiilar practice is the tightening up of a rhythm section, where the kick and snare drums are roughly aligned to a grid running at the same bpm as the original "click track".
The bass is then aligned with this, even sometimes shortening the occasional note here and there to really lock it in and get a good groove going. Again, the trick is not to quantize rhythm elements too rigidly to the grid/bpm, or you completely lose the human feel and it'll just feel "wrong"

These techniques (tuning and/or timing) are also used on guitars, pianos, synths etc on a regular basis, and have been since the dawn of Pro Tools and other digital audio workstations many moons ago.

And even way before that, engineers and producers were known to do multiple takes of a vocal / drum track / whatever, and actually cut and splice the tape together to get the optimum performance, eg Peter Gabriel's So and Metallica's Black Album... just a couple that spring to mind.

I don't really see it as cheating really, but as more of a standard practice for today's mixing engineers, whose job is to make the track sound as good as possible for the artist.

And then there's the multitude of sonic enhancement techniques and processing used on 99% of every song you've ever heard, but that's enough waffle from me for now

By the way, great post Hornball.
And I totally agree with Boomer... give me slightly flawed, but with emotion and feeling over sterile perfection any day.

Great post fatboy77, I guess it's all about degrees of how much you try to interfere in the interest of improvement. I'm reasonably comfortable with what is done with all instruments providing it doesn't impact too heavily on a players talent, but the human voice is better when left alone, it seems taboo to mess with it at all.
What you don't want is less talented artists sounding as good as those who are far superior, if that's possible.