The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Acoustic Amplification

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #46  
Old 02-07-2013, 09:18 PM
slewis slewis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Seattle-ish, WA USA
Posts: 3,331
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodger View Post
...So, if a great recording uses Autotune, does it make it any less a great recording? Not for me to say.
First, I assume you're not discerning between recording and performance. And of course it's a less-great performance. It's not a performance at all, in fact. I'm actually blown away by some here that seem to not give a whit that a singer does or doesn't use a pitch-correction machine to help him or her get him/her from a degree of vocal performance that shows essentially no real talent at all to one that artificially creates/simulates that talent. Incredible. Talk about taking the integrity out of art. There's no better example that I can think of.

Absolutely amazing.
__________________
.[SIZE="2"]
- Sean

Debut album Time Will Tell now available on all the usual platforms
-- visit SeanLewisMusic
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-08-2013, 06:32 AM
mc1 mc1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: nova scotia
Posts: 14,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slewis View Post
Sorry, but that might be the weakest analogy I've ever heard in my life. Really?
yes, really. it doesn't seem reasonable to expect a singer to be to sing perfectly on pitch unaided but accept a guitarist to tune using a machine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slewis View Post
I guess you're OK, then, with whatever machine they eventually come up with that wires to your brain and makes your finger go to the right notes. Wow.
that sounds pretty cool actually. the music would still be in the brain, and so that works for me. in fact it bypasses a lot of the physical obstacles in playing. if you mean a player piano type thing, well, that would be different. i can't imagine anyone giving the person sitting in front of the player piano the credit for the music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slewis View Post
..., in fact. I'm actually blown away by some here that seem to not give a whit that a singer does or doesn't use a pitch-correction machine to help him or her get him/her from a degree of vocal performance that shows essentially no real talent at all to one that artificially creates/simulates that talent. Incredible. Talk about taking the integrity out of art. There's no better example that I can think of.

Absolutely amazing.
i appreciate and agree with your point to a great extent. but there is more to talent than just intonation. ask bob dylan. or ask any of the auto-tuned singers that are rather bland and uninteresting. the purest singers aren't necessarily the more artistic. and the most artistic aren't necessarily the most on pitch. of course, when this all comes together (*cough* ella *cough*), it's magical. but if we we use ella as a standard, then none of my family of friends would sing or play instruments.

and in my case, my sense of intonation has improved the more i play. here is another analogy: playing to a click track or drummer. here is another: make-up at a beauty pageant. the world is full of artificial ways of improving something natural. and yes, it can and generally does get out of hand, but it's ubiquitous nevertheless. i see no reason to single out auto-tuned singers as the best example of taking integrity out of art.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-08-2013, 06:46 AM
Rodger Rodger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 2,079
Default

My question was simply this... if there is a recording you REALLY like, then later find out the vocals were autotuned, do you like the recording less? I had no point or question about talent in my post. I guess I could ask the same question about attending a live performance. If you thoroughly enjoyed the music, but at the end of the night found out the singer used an auto-tune device... would your enjoyment now be lessened?
__________________
Rodger
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-08-2013, 07:58 AM
lschwart lschwart is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 2,796
Default

This is just sort of a aside, here, but can I just point out that Bob Dylan does not have pitch problems. Whatever you might feel about his timber and phrasing, the way he's blown out his voice in recent years, and the way he often follows, for effect, speech-like intonation contours rather than melodies, per se, he doesn't have problems singing on determined and appropriate pitches.

Just sayin'

Louis
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-08-2013, 08:06 AM
mc1 mc1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: nova scotia
Posts: 14,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lschwart View Post
This is just sort of a aside, here, but can I just point out that Bob Dylan does not have pitch problems. Whatever you might feel about his timber and phrasing, the way he's blown out his voice in recent years, and the way he often follows, for effect, speech-like intonation contours rather than melodies, per se, he doesn't have problems singing on determined and appropriate pitches.

Just sayin'

Louis
that's a good point, as his timbre is often the issue.

but when i listen to this, sounds a little pitchy to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IgMKFfiZxg

now, compare it to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLnci-65qrs

Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-08-2013, 08:29 AM
lschwart lschwart is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 2,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mc1 View Post
that's a good point, as his timbre is often the issue.

but when i listen to this, sounds a little pitchy to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IgMKFfiZxg

now, compare it to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLnci-65qrs

In calling the first performance (a live version of "Talkin' World War III Blues") "pitchy" you're making a mistake about genre style. This is actually a very good example--extended purposely through a whole song--of his use of speech contours, rather than fixed melody. This is how you perform a "talking blues," as the term suggests.

The other example is funny, but the effect of the very hard autotuning on the vocal for "Tangled Up in Blue" is, again, not an indication that he's got pitch problems. It actually indicates a few very interesting things about his artfulness as a singer. The main thing is to note how confused the autotune often is about which pitches to push the vocal toward. This is because Dylan is improvising with the relationship between speech pitches and the pitches of the song's loose melody (the song doesn't really have a fixed melody). The performance would have much less power if he couldn't land on and hold particular pitches when he needs to (even the ones that are deliberately dissonant). These are effects created by a singer in control of pitch; they're not accidents. No singer without control could ever create so many expressive accidents.

I'm not going to argue that Dylan has always been consistent, and he has been struggling to express himself with a much deteriorated instrument in recent years (often with striking success), but I think there's a big difference between what Dylan does and what a singer with real pitch problems fails to do.

Louis
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-08-2013, 08:35 AM
mchalebk mchalebk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,628
Default

"it doesn't seem reasonable to expect a singer to be to sing perfectly on pitch unaided but accept a guitarist to tune using a machine."

I don't see how this is a valid analogy. Singing in tune is part of the performance. Tuning a guitar is not; it's something you do before performing.
__________________
Brian
http://www.youtube.com/mchalebk
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-08-2013, 08:37 AM
Woodstock School Of Music Woodstock School Of Music is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Woodstock Illinois
Posts: 1,229
Default

I'm a recording engineer with no love for autotune, been there done that and it has done nothing but lower the bar. It's a shame because there original intent of Autotune was to use it only if needed to help a great performance. Some day the Autotune sound is going to sound as dated as an 80's gated reverb and I can't wait

I couldn't imagine CSN&Y being auto tuned, It was the imperfections of their harmonies blending together to a chorusy effect that made the harmonies so thick and lush
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-08-2013, 08:40 AM
mc1 mc1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: nova scotia
Posts: 14,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lschwart View Post
In calling the first performance (a live version of "Talkin' World War III Blues") "pitchy" you're making a mistake about genre style. This is actually a very good example--extended purposely through a whole song--of his use of speech contours, rather than fixed melody. This is how you perform a "talking blues," as the term suggests.
very interesting. i have to listen to it again later. it just sounds like he needs to slide into all of his notes to find them. my feeling is he couldn't sing it 'straight' if he wanted to, but that's just a feeling. i appreciate your remarks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lschwart View Post

The other example is funny, but the effect of the very hard autotuning on the vocal for "Tangled Up in Blue" is, again, not an indication that he's got pitch problems. It actually indicates a few very interesting things about his artfulness as a singer. The main thing is to note how confused the autotune often is about which pitches to push the vocal toward. This is because Dylan is improvising with the relationship between speech pitches and the pitches of the song's loose melody (the song doesn't really have a fixed melody). The performance would have much less power if he couldn't land on and hold particular pitches when he needs to (even the ones that are deliberately dissonant). These are effects created by a singer in control of pitch; they're not accidents. No singer without control could ever create so many expressive accidents.
i threw this in as a joke, but your thoughtful analysis has got me thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lschwart View Post


I'm not going to argue that Dylan has always been consistent, and he has been struggling to express himself with a much deteriorated instrument in recent years (often with striking success), but I think there's a big difference between what Dylan does and what a singer with real pitch problems fails to do.

Louis
and to be clear, i wasn't referring to his older voice. i've always felt bob was a second rate singer, with numerous bad habits and a so-so sense of pitch (reasonable, but not great). you've given me pause for thought. i'll relisten when i have a fresh mind.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-08-2013, 08:47 AM
mc1 mc1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: nova scotia
Posts: 14,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mchalebk View Post
"it doesn't seem reasonable to expect a singer to be to sing perfectly on pitch unaided but accept a guitarist to tune using a machine."

I don't see how this is a valid analogy. Singing in tune is part of the performance. Tuning a guitar is not; it's something you do before performing.
fair enough. the analogy wasn't really about performing, but rather about whether musicans could rely on mechanical devices such as autotune or tuners rather than their ears and still be considered legit.

but my analogies seem to be failing, so i must be off on a tangent (like a water buffalo in the desert, unable to know there is an oasis just over the next dune, instead trapped in a mirage of confusion - er, so to speak - no need to comment on that last analogy).
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-08-2013, 08:53 AM
Woodstock School Of Music Woodstock School Of Music is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Woodstock Illinois
Posts: 1,229
Default

What's funny is I've had some young singers in the studio who grew up on Autotuned music and have adopted the autoune sound into their native singing technique
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-08-2013, 09:21 AM
lschwart lschwart is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 2,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mc1 View Post
very interesting. i have to listen to it again later. it just sounds like he needs to slide into all of his notes to find them. my feeling is he couldn't sing it 'straight' if he wanted to, but that's just a feeling. i appreciate your remarks.
Thanks. The thing about a song like that is that there really aren't any particular notes to find, just certain conventions for the use of rising and falling speech contours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mc1 View Post
i threw this in as a joke, but your thoughtful analysis has got me thinking.

and to be clear, i wasn't referring to his older voice. i've always felt bob was a second rate singer, with numerous bad habits and a so-so sense of pitch (reasonable, but not great). you've given me pause for thought. i'll relisten when i have a fresh mind.
Glad I gave you some food for thought. Taste is, of course, always an uncertain and subjective thing (nobody has to like Dylan's singing), but there are objective grounds for recognizing the artfulness of what Dylan did and does (and from there on to it's greatness, maybe). There are some bad habits in there, for sure, but they have to do with the way he produces his sound, especially with his timber. He never learned or cared to learn ways of doing what he does without causing damage, and this is in part why his voice has deteriorated over the years (you can hear the decline in his range and the fullness of the sound beginning as early as 1978). But pitch is a different matter.

Louis
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-08-2013, 09:57 AM
Hotspur Hotspur is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slewis View Post
First, I assume you're not discerning between recording and performance. And of course it's a less-great performance. It's not a performance at all, in fact. I'm actually blown away by some here that seem to not give a whit that a singer does or doesn't use a pitch-correction machine to help him or her get him/her from a degree of vocal performance that shows essentially no real talent at all to one that artificially creates/simulates that talent. Incredible. Talk about taking the integrity out of art. There's no better example that I can think of.
Well, there are a couple of different ways to think about "talent" here.

Leaving aside stuff like Imogen Heap's "Hide and Seek" (which was clearly heavily autotuned by design to get the unusual timbre, and is a very powerful song), there are a couple of different things:

First, a lot of people listen to music for the sake of an emotional reaction. And if you can have a powerful emotional reaction to Bob Dylan (which many people clearly can ... although some struggle with it because of his poor singing) then there's no reason you can't have a powerful emotional reaction to something that's been touched up with autotune.

Second, talent takes many forms, and there is more to singing that just hitting your pitches correctly. In fact, the problem I have with autotune is primarily NOT that it lets someone whose pitch isn't perfect hit notes - it's that it tends to blur out so much of the other stuff that, to me, makes a performance worthwhile. I often feel like autotune is a wall between the performer and audience. To say that an autotuned performance shows "no talent at all" is suggesting that the only reason we listen to music is to hear people hit pitches, and that's clearly not the case - otherwise we'd all only listen to conservatory grads sing scales.

I generally feel that if I can notice the pitch-correction, there's a problem. (Again, examples like Imogen Heap's aside). But the interesting thing about that is that it suggests that, to me, integrity is irrelevant. What I'm complaining about is not the lack of integrity, but that the illusion isn't good enough. That is to say, only lie to me if you're good enough to get away with it.

But I don't really care about the "talent" of the singer in abstract, divorced from their ability to evoke an emotional reaction in me. Probably my favorite live music experience involved Lizz Wright, and man, that lady can sing. On the other hand, I've had a lot of very powerful emotional experiences listening to Michael Stipe, and, really, he's nothing special as a vocalist. Peter Gabriel? No-one's idea of a great singer from a technical standpoint. He's not bad, of course, but clearly he demonstrates how there's more to talent than vocal chops.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-08-2013, 06:57 PM
slewis slewis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Seattle-ish, WA USA
Posts: 3,331
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mc1 View Post
i see no reason to single out auto-tuned singers as the best example of taking integrity out of art.
Well we'll disagree; it's one of the best examples I've ever heard of.
__________________
.[SIZE="2"]
- Sean

Debut album Time Will Tell now available on all the usual platforms
-- visit SeanLewisMusic
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-08-2013, 08:13 PM
jensenjeff jensenjeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Port St Lucie, Florida
Posts: 203
Default

use vs. abuse, just like drugs or any other vice
__________________
Martin J-40
Yairi JYM 86
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Acoustic Amplification

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=