# Auto Tune - What the hell is it and who is using it?



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

So I am just reading up on this a bit and was not aware that some artists actually use this for live performances now? Seems to be a pro and anti thing going on as well within the music community.


----------



## bobb (Jan 4, 2007)

Ask and ye shall receive: Auto Tune according to Wikipedia


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Auto Tune - What the hell is it


One word .....Disgusting.. Could you imagine Mr Tamborine man on auto tune....


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

yeah imagine dylan or hendrix or tom waits worrying about bieng in tune?
some folks can sing out of tune and still sound good.
these days, all the big artists look perfect, so they have to sound perfect. even if their voices arent up to it.
just watch the country music channel on the tv. 
johnny cash never treated his voice with anything. but he didnt look like taylor swift.
got me?


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

It falls somewhere between singing and lip synching.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Exactly! it's your Justin Biebers, Taylor Swift's, Britanny's ect. i'm sure Madonna would use that now too, she can't really sing either.


----------



## xuthal (May 15, 2007)

Heres a quick vid of the software used.It's called many things depending on the program but it is still autotune
[video=youtube;q6LQCOja1zI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6LQCOja1zI[/video]


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...just about every heavy metal and country recording uses autotune these days, along with almost all mainstream pop, and commercial jingles.

its an autotune world, and it is sickening.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> i'm sure Madonna would use that now too, she can't really sing either.



...are you sure about that?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

So I guess for a hack like myself that was interested in recording some tunes at home it might be fun and helpfull to have it loaded onto a recording station. But on the other hand, for an act like Lady Gaga or something where the visuals are 3/4 of the show, the singing is just tuned so as to not totally destroy the rest of it? I suppose that if you pay money to go and see one of these acts you would rather listen to the vocals in tune than out of tune. But it is bending reality. So given this technology anyone that has the looks and can be "bottled" by a record company does not actually have to be able to sing anymore.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

I've always maintained there are artists and there are entertainers. There's room for both, just don't call them the same thing. I'm going to see the Harlem Globetrotters with my family in a couple of weeks. I've always wanted to see them since I was a kid. I know this isn't the same as going to see the Knicks, Celtics, or Bulls. If I went to see Bob Dylan and he was using Autu-tune, I would be saddened. If I took my daughter to see Hannah Montana I would expect to hear that shit all night. I personally hate it. It essentially says: We don't care about the true nature of the individual in question's talent, just his/her's *percieved *talent.

Shawn.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

I've seen her live, Great show, but for the songs she did sing, I would describe her voice as thin.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

I believe it's just the latest method that the music "industry" is using to package their commodity. I think of it as an in-bred cousin of music being made by musicians. The industry doesn't care about musical integrity as much as they care about a consumable product and the more consumable the better. It's easier to hype the flavour of the week than to nurture a band through musical growth. Auto-tune is just another way to water it all down to the lowest common denominator. The industry doesn't care if the kids/secretaries get sick of their latest project (I swear they're counting on it!) 'cause there's another one just like it in the wings. It's easier to keep costs down by not having to search out people who can really sing/play and support a career through highs and lows. Now all they need to do is find someone pretty and dump them as soon as the numbers drop in favour of the next big (manufactured) thing. Think "Muzak" for mass consumption.

There will always be great music performed by really talented people you just won't find them looking toward the hype machine of mass media. 
Someone on this forum (I think) mentioned a movie called "Before the Music Dies". If you haven't seen this one I'd highly recommend it. Very interesting doc. Also check out another doc called "Hype" which illustrates what the industry did during the "Grunge" years.


----------



## lbrown1 (Mar 22, 2007)

Starbuck said:


> Exactly! it's your Justin Biebers, Taylor Swift's, Britanny's ect. i'm sure Madonna would use that now too, she can't really sing either.


I think Taylor Swift forgot hers when she showed up at the Grammy's to sing with Stevie Nicks


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...very well said. mainstream taste is an oxymoron. the mainstream does what they are told to do. the movies they attend, the television shows they watch, the books and magazines they read, the food they eat, the cars they buy and the music they listen to are all the result of obeying their corporate masters.
-dh




Hamstrung said:


> I believe it's just the latest method that the music "industry" is using to package their commodity. I think of it as an in-bred cousin of music being made by musicians. The industry doesn't care about musical integrity as much as they care about a consumable product and the more consumable the better. It's easier to hype the flavour of the week than to nurture a band through musical growth. Auto-tune is just another way to water it all down to the lowest common denominator. The industry doesn't care if the kids/secretaries get sick of their latest project (I swear they're counting on it!) 'cause there's another one just like it in the wings. It's easier to keep costs down by not having to search out people who can really sing/play and support a career through highs and lows. Now all they need to do is find someone pretty and dump them as soon as the numbers drop in favour of the next big (manufactured) thing. Think "Muzak" for mass consumption.
> 
> There will always be great music performed by really talented people you just won't find them looking toward the hype machine of mass media.
> Someone on this forum (I think) mentioned a movie called "Before the Music Dies". If you haven't seen this one I'd highly recommend it. Very interesting doc. Also check out another doc called "Hype" which illustrates what the industry did during the "Grunge" years.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> I've seen her live, Great show, but for the songs she did sing, I would describe her voice as thin.


...you're referring to madonna?


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

I like auto-tune, but only when applied to MY vocals, which are admittedly shakey. Until I can find a singer (or learn to sing myself), I'm stuck recording vocals for my tracks and they usually benefit from some tuning. Not always, though. 

Also, it's kinda cool when used to completely ruin the human voice and turn it into a different instrument, like T-Pain uses it. Not that I dig T-Pain, but still, it's an interesting take.

However, for pro acts that are touring, it's absolutely reprehensible for them to even consider using something like auto-tune to enhance their vocals. If you consider yourself a pro act that is good enough to tour, you actually *should* be good enough to tour, and that includes the ability to perform vocals. There is only one possible case to be made in my mind, and that's if the singer is ill and having a tough time with their voice. In that case, maybe a little bit of auto-tune can be forgiven, but even then, I'd rather see the act postpone the gig.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

I have no problem with auto tune. From my perspective as a home recording guy I do not have the strongest vocals, so I would definitely use it. Why not?

Humans aren't perfect. Great vocalists are not perfect all the time. Auto Tune in LIVE performance functions only when when pitch is off by a few cents. It will not make you a great live vocalist by any means so don't think that these pop artist relying on Autotune for live performances. Melodyne does not work in real time.

TC Helicon has an Autotune product that coaches you to be in tune. How it work is, in your monitor you will here a flanging type effect if your pitch is out. As you correct yourself, the flanging effect disappears. I think that is a useful tool.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Hamstrung said:


> I believe it's just the latest method that the music "industry" is using to package their commodity. I think of it as an in-bred cousin of music being made by musicians. The industry doesn't care about musical integrity as much as they care about a consumable product and the more consumable the better. It's easier to hype the flavour of the week than to nurture a band through musical growth. Auto-tune is just another way to water it all down to the lowest common denominator. *The industry doesn't care if the kids/secretaries get sick of their latest project (I swear they're counting on it!) 'cause there's another one just like it in the wings. It's easier to keep costs down by not having to search out people who can really sing/play and support a career through highs and lows. Now all they need to do is find someone pretty and dump them as soon as the numbers drop in favour of the next big (manufactured) thing. *Think "Muzak" for mass consumption.
> 
> There will always be great music performed by really talented people you just won't find them looking toward the hype machine of mass media.
> Someone on this forum (I think) mentioned a movie called "Before the Music Dies". If you haven't seen this one I'd highly recommend it. Very interesting doc. Also check out another doc called "Hype" which illustrates what the industry did during the "Grunge" years.


That's certainly very true. There isn't a single act out there today that I imagine will be putting out new music and touring in ten years. Maybe the "old guard" like U2, Foo Fighters, Pearl Jam, etc. but I can't imagine all these jonny-come-lately, dime-a-dozen groups that have been slapped together and given 12 songs to record managing to stick around for more than 2 or 3 albums, tops. It's sad that music has become a disposable commodity.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...to clarify, i don't have a huge problem with autotune, either. my problem is with the overuse. as i mentioned, country, heavy metal, pop/commercial/mainstream and commercial jingles use it extensively on the entire vocal track. it really can get quite sickening.

i do intend to use it on my next cd. on one track. on one note, at the very end of an otherwise acceptable vocal track. and never, ever, on stage.

because i perceive my own audience to be far too discerning to accept dishonesty or fakery.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

hollowbody said:


> It's sad that music has become a disposable commodity.


...not really. just mainstream music, which has always been a disposable commodity.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

david henman said:


> ...to clarify, i don't have a huge problem with autotune, either. my problem is with the overuse. as i mentioned, country, heavy metal, pop/commercial/mainstream and commercial jingles use it extensively on the entire vocal track. it really can get quite sickening.
> 
> i do intend to use it on my next cd. on one track. on one note, at the very end of an otherwise acceptable vocal track. and never, ever, on stage.
> 
> because i perceive my own audience to be far too discerning to accept dishonesty or fakery.


Which is fine, because you're planning on using it as a *tool*, not as an *instrument*.



david henman said:


> ...not really. just mainstream music, which has always been a disposable commodity.


True, but the music that makes the $$$ and keeps the industry afloat is the disposable variety, which is why the industry is a shambles.


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

its the same with rock though too...if you listen to and of nickelbacks new songs, or theory of a deadman (they are different bands right??) and compare them to there first albums...you can hear how they use to sound, and how they normally sound...and then when the right song comes on, you can hear how their voice has been altered...there is one Theory song, one of the newer ones, that gets me every time...just can't think of it now...you can CLEARLY hear his voice being altered...


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

So to try and understand this a bit more. This contraption is not going to make Stockard Channing sound like Mariah Carey? It will only make slight corrections to pitch that is only slightly off? There are about 6-7 different levels of this system available starting at around $200 but I am not sure what the base one gets you nor what version a basement hack would use.

Buy Antares Auto-Tune Evo Pitch Correcting Plug-In Software | Effects Plugins | Musician's Friend


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> So to try and understand this a bit more. This contraption is not going to make Stockard Channing sound like Mariah Carey? It will only make slight corrections to pitch that is only slightly off? There are about 6-7 different levels of this system available starting at around $200 but I am not sure what the base one gets you nor what version a basement hack would use.
> 
> Buy Antares Auto-Tune Evo Pitch Correcting Plug-In Software | Effects Plugins | Musician's Friend


I'm not familiar with the Antares product line, though I hear it's _the_ autotune to get. I use Gsnap, which is a free VST. But in my experience with autotune, the more work it needs to do to correct your pitch, the more artificial it sounds. Some artists intentionally set it to dramatically alter their voices to get a cool robot-like tone, but the idea is to try your best to nail the vox and then use the autotune to shift you into tune here and there as necessary.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

I haven't used it yet. I know it's yet another learning curve.... time better spent on getting the vocals in the right place?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

hollowbody said:


> I'm not familiar with the Antares product line, though I hear it's _the_ autotune to get. I use Gsnap, which is a free VST. But in my experience with autotune, the more work it needs to do to correct your pitch, the more artificial it sounds. Some artists intentionally set it to dramatically alter their voices to get a cool robot-like tone, but the idea is to try your best to nail the vox and then use the autotune to shift you into tune here and there as necessary.


So it is purely (at least the less expensive versions) an editing tool and not a auto (live) correction tool.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

The music I listen to is about 10% vocals at most, so this is almost a non-issue for me.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> So to try and understand this a bit more. This contraption is not going to make Stockard Channing sound like Mariah Carey? It will only make slight corrections to pitch that is only slightly off? There are about 6-7 different levels of this system available starting at around $200 but I am not sure what the base one gets you nor what version a basement hack would use.
> 
> Buy Antares Auto-Tune Evo Pitch Correcting Plug-In Software | Effects Plugins | Musician's Friend


My Boss BR600 has this, only it's called pitch correction, I have never used it though now I'm curious.


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

ezcomes said:


> if you listen to and of nickelbacks new songs, or theory of a deadman (they are different bands right??)


Technically, they are different bands, but all components of the "Theory of a Nickelcreed" genre are 100% interchangeable. It's a key element of their design, to ensure redundancy, provide backup in case one component should fail, and provide the market with the consistency it demands. It's just smart engineering, that's all.

As for autotune, this might be only slightly related, but maybe more experienced folks here can offer their opinions. Last year I was peripherally involved in a project with a small, independent, up-and-coming pop/rock band. My involvement was not musical in any sense. But in talking with the band, they told me that they use a backing track when they perform live. I was surprised, but they said that EVERYONE who plays live does that. The backing track might consist of drum beats, or some guitar, or other effects that they don't want to play live. I thought this was cheating, but who am I? I figured I was just naive to the behind-the-scenes trickery of a live show.

Is this true? Do most bands use some kind of backing track when they play live?

--- D


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Duster said:


> Is this true? Do most bands use some kind of backing track when they play live?--- D


Rush Does, it. Peart talks about it in Roadshow. But to their credit whatever it is that's being triggered _must_ be done by one of them.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

Starbuck said:


> Rush Does, it. Peart talks about it in Roadshow. But to their credit whatever it is that's being triggered _must_ be done by one of them.


Not to mention any one of those guys has more musical talent in their pinky finger than an entire "Cub Rock" band. (Cub Rock, is a term I use to describe music for cougars and their tween daughters)


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

Starbuck said:


> Rush Does, it. Peart talks about it in Roadshow. But to their credit whatever it is that's being triggered _must_ be done by one of them.


Interesting. They might want to consider getting an autotune for Geddy.

I kid, I kid.

--- D


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Duster said:


> Technically, they are different bands, but all components of the "Theory of a Nickelcreed" genre are 100% interchangeable. It's a key element of their design, to ensure redundancy, provide backup in case one component should fail, and provide the market with the consistency it demands. It's just smart engineering, that's all.
> 
> As for autotune, this might be only slightly related, but maybe more experienced folks here can offer their opinions. Last year I was peripherally involved in a project with a small, independent, up-and-coming pop/rock band. My involvement was not musical in any sense. But in talking with the band, they told me that they use a backing track when they perform live. I was surprised, but they said that EVERYONE who plays live does that. The backing track might consist of drum beats, or some guitar, or other effects that they don't want to play live. I thought this was cheating, but who am I? I figured I was just naive to the behind-the-scenes trickery of a live show.
> 
> ...


Depends on the band, I guess. Muse does this a lot, but they have a distinctly eletronic aspect to their sound and many songs contain samples that might not be the hook, but would leave a gaping hole if no present. Also, Matt plays piano and guitar, and sometimes there are overlapping parts. Most of the time, he'll pick one part or the other to play on whichever instrument, but occasionally there's a pre-recorded backing piece, or more recently since they have more $$$ they've hired a touring keys player.

In the case of a 4 or 5-piece rock band, unless we're talking specific samples inherent to the song, I can't see the justification for a backing track. Percussion maybe, if the drummer is too busy to hit triangles or chimes at the same time, or maybe female backing vocals in an all-male band. Even in a 3-piece, I'd rather see them hire a touring guitarist than have a backing rhythm track to solo over.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Did someone say autotune?

YouTube - T Pain Obama Auto-Tune


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Budda said:


> Did someone say autotune?
> 
> YouTube - T Pain Obama Auto-Tune


that's what i love about this site...give me a good belly laugh at least once a day! thanks!!!


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Glad I could help!


----------



## faracaster (Mar 9, 2006)

Auto tune, click tracks and Pro tools tracks are all part of a modern pop show........well not just pop, it can be country, jazz, heavy rock whatever.
The last few years on the Junos, EVERY band uses a click, some use Pro Tools backing tracks and some use Autotune. While it does fly in the face of musicianship, and somehow feels like cheating, in reality, it makes for a more perfect and controlled show. 
In general people pay a lot of money for a ticket to a show, and they want the slickest, most professional show they can get. It is expected of the band/artist to deliver as such. In my opinion, it certainly does not diminish the level of musicianship, far to the contrary. For those who have never attempted to play with a click track from beginning to end of a song, try it. It's something you have to be a good musician to execute.......not murder. On the other hand it can take the spontaneity out of music. but many of the biggest stars are there to play songs like the record, not to improvise. In those cases, these are very useful tools.
Now of course there are forms of music and artists that have no need for these trappings of convention and they don't use them (mostly the type of music I listen to) and that's all good too.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

It just feels like cheating.

It has its uses, sure.
It is a tool.
Use it to fix a note or two , sure.

But if it's used for most of a song, it just seems like cheating.

Another voice that could be added to Dylan or Waits is Neil Young.
Sometimes he actually sings quite nicely, other times I think he sings out of tune on purpose.

Sometimes it fits the song, and makes it more human.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

"Slick" is a word I can freely interchange with "suck" more and more these days.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

If you don't like it, don't listen to it . I don't listen to pop-metal-breakdown music with autotuned vocals, big synth sections, decent breakdowns and boring rhythms/riffs, so I don't really mind whatever those bands are doing. I saw a band that does all those things (abandon all ships), and the set was entertaining, my one friend who likes them enjoyed herself, and I wasn't totally aurally assaulted. It was worth it, because I got to watch protest the hero play "Fortress" from start to finish, + a couple songs off the previous album.

If I'm going to see music as entertainment, yes perfection would be better. If I'm going to see music as expression and art, then I won't mind if there's a random solo that's not usually played in a song or three. That said, when a singer doesn't sing in tune I don't like it. That's a perk of screaming and growling I guess, haha


----------



## xuthal (May 15, 2007)

I know I'll sound like a hypocrite for saying this but i will use auto tune one of these days.When i record now since i sold my boss recorder it's on a meager budget.If auto tune can help me get a professional grade demo to help sell my songs on the cheap then i will use it.However,i don't think anyone with a record label should be using auto tune,the record company gives them alot of money to record,they can afford to do as many takes as they need to to get the vocals right.If they made it that far from live shows it shouldn't take that long to get a decent vocal track.If they are only there for their looks and haven't put the time into getting good and touring their asses off their not true musicians,let them perish.


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

faracaster said:


> In general people pay a lot of money for a ticket to a show, and they want the slickest, most professional show they can get. It is expected of the band/artist to deliver as such. In my opinion, it certainly does not diminish the level of musicianship, far to the contrary. For those who have never attempted to play with a click track from beginning to end of a song, try it. It's something you have to be a good musician to execute.......not murder. On the other hand it can take the spontaneity out of music. but many of the biggest stars are there to play songs like the record, not to improvise. In those cases, these are very useful tools.
> Now of course there are forms of music and artists that have no need for these trappings of convention and they don't use them (mostly the type of music I listen to) and that's all good too.


I remember when I was younger and first started going to live shows (back in the 80s), how my friends would say they didn't like a particular concert because "those guys sound horrible live!" or "that didn't sound anything like the record!"

I didn't really get what they were saying - it seemed to me to be an irrelevant standard of comparison. Even at that age, not knowing anything, I assumed that a live song wouldn't sound like a recorded song. I didn't expect it to. I expected a recording of a song to be like a movie, while a live performance of a song should be more like a play. A movie is all perfectly edited, they do re-takes when things aren't perfect. In a play, there are no re-takes, the performers just go with what happens, and every performance is going to be a little different. It didn't seem fair to me to hold a live performance to the same standard as a recorded one.

I think as recorded music becomes the more dominant form of musical enjoyment (many kids today NEVER hear live music), this will become more important, and performers will be under more pressure to make their live show EXACTLY like the recorded performance. It kind of makes you wonder, what's the point of a live show? Why not just lip-synch and play the damn song the way everyone wants to hear it?

It's a strange time in music, that we live in.

--- D


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Duster said:


> Why not just lip-synch and play the damn song the way everyone wants to hear it?
> 
> --- D


Funny, I thought that's exactly what some pop artists do? *shrugs*


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Duster said:


> I remember when I was younger and first started going to live shows (back in the 80s), how my friends would say they didn't like a particular concert because "those guys sound horrible live!" or "that didn't sound anything like the record!"
> 
> I didn't really get what they were saying - it seemed to me to be an irrelevant standard of comparison. Even at that age, not knowing anything, I assumed that a live song wouldn't sound like a recorded song. I didn't expect it to. I expected a recording of a song to be like a movie, while a live performance of a song should be more like a play. A movie is all perfectly edited, they do re-takes when things aren't perfect. In a play, there are no re-takes, the performers just go with what happens, and every performance is going to be a little different. It didn't seem fair to me to hold a live performance to the same standard as a recorded one.
> 
> ...


There are varying degrees to this and also I think it depends on the act you are seeing. For example, when we are talking about things like The New Kids On The Block or Britney Spears, these shows are much more visual than they are music. So having the song sound identical to the record is almost a must. The music or the song is just a filler for the visual. In these cases I think it is to be expected.

When dealing with a show like Kiss or The Scorpions, Metallica or hard ass blues then we are all looking for those squeeling amps and blown notes once in a while. There is no way you can tame down this type of live perfomance in my view. It has to be raw or it just wont work. I dont mind Rush or Van Halen throwing in a audio track of some keyboards or something on a song or two.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

GC .. I think it has more to do with syncing with the light/effects that the record label is paying big bucks for more than anything.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Duster said:


> I remember when I was younger and first started going to live shows (back in the 80s), how my friends would say they didn't like a particular concert because "those guys sound horrible live!" or "that didn't sound anything like the record!"
> 
> I didn't really get what they were saying - it seemed to me to be an irrelevant standard of comparison. Even at that age, not knowing anything, I assumed that a live song wouldn't sound like a recorded song. I didn't expect it to. I expected a recording of a song to be like a movie, while a live performance of a song should be more like a play. A movie is all perfectly edited, they do re-takes when things aren't perfect. In a play, there are no re-takes, the performers just go with what happens, and every performance is going to be a little different. It didn't seem fair to me to hold a live performance to the same standard as a recorded one.
> 
> ...


I'm along the same lines--I liked the band to take chances live, and I didn't mind it was less polished live--sometimes the song was better for it.
There are songs I didn't like the studio versions of, but live they were great.



GuitarsCanada said:


> There are varying degrees to this and also I think it depends on the act you are seeing. For example, when we are talking about things like The New Kids On The Block or Britney Spears, these shows are much more visual than they are music. So having the song sound identical to the record is almost a must. The music or the song is just a filler for the visual. In these cases I think it is to be expected.
> 
> When dealing with a show like Kiss or The Scorpions, Metallica or hard ass blues then we are all looking for those squeeling amps and blown notes once in a while. There is no way you can tame down this type of live perfomance in my view. It has to be raw or it just wont work. I dont mind Rush or Van Halen throwing in a audio track of some keyboards or something on a song or two.


For some people blown notes are part of the attraction.
I'm sure Ritchie Blackmore has a few on Made in japan--and it's a classic live album.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Auto tune = talent booster


Pretty sad in my opinion. 


The part that bothers me is that the average person has no clue that their favourite singer can't carry a tune. This is just one more nail in the coffin of the radio star who was offed by video.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

zontar said:


> I'm along the same lines--I liked the band to take chances live, and I didn't mind it was less polished live--sometimes the song was better for it.
> There are songs I didn't like the studio versions of, but live they were great.


+1 - there's tons of tracks that I heard on the album and though "meh," but that blew me away live. Especially when a band takes an old standard and totally reinvents it. Sometimes it might not work, but I appreciate the effort.



Milkman said:


> Auto tune = talent booster
> 
> 
> Pretty sad in my opinion.
> ...


I read somewhere that at a Britney show a while back, there was a poster at the entrance informing the crowd something along the lines of: "Tonight's performance will be synched"

Apparently she was feeling unwell and didn't want to strain her voice. 

It's not like fessing up to lip-synching makes it any better or more acceptable!


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...are you sure about that?


hell yeah..she has one of the most processed voice out there. she's been having trouble singing for a good 10 years now.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## corailz (May 1, 2008)

That's really bad thing...That's why you can be disapointed by a live show of a band or a singer that you like!
Sometimes ,i'm listening to a great band on CD,but when i hear them live....It's more like a big mess than everythng else!!!!

Really not good!


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...to clarify, i don't have a huge problem with autotune, either. my problem is with the overuse. as i mentioned, country, heavy metal, pop/commercial/mainstream and commercial jingles use it extensively on the entire vocal track. it really can get quite sickening.
> 
> i do intend to use it on my next cd. on one track. on one note, at the very end of an otherwise acceptable vocal track. and never, ever, on stage.
> 
> because i perceive my own audience to be far too discerning to accept dishonesty or fakery.


before I had ever heard of these devices I would marvel at how incredibly 'tight' alot of modern pop/metal/country music was. I marveled at how the vocals were so on pitch and the harmonies were dead on, not just in pitch, but in timing. Instruments and solos dead on, for pitch and timing. I used to thing " man they must have some strict production regimes and do hundreds of takes to get it that tight." It certainly 

I heard a story about a Canadian recording artist, I can't remember who, and I don't know if it is accurate, but they sang at the Juno's or somehting without the autotune and their vocals were way out of tune and they didn't sound much like their recording and it was painfully aweful I was told. anyone know that story?


----------



## xuthal (May 15, 2007)

bluesmostly said:


> before I had ever heard of these devices I would marvel at how incredibly 'tight' alot of modern pop/metal/country music was. I marveled at how the vocals were so on pitch and the harmonies were dead on, not just in pitch, but in timing. Instruments and solos dead on, for pitch and timing. I used to thing " man they must have some strict production regimes and do hundreds of takes to get it that tight." It certainly
> 
> I heard a story about a Canadian recording artist, I can't remember who, and I don't know if it is accurate, but they sang at the Juno's or somehting without the autotune and their vocals were way out of tune and they didn't sound much like their recording and it was painfully aweful I was told. anyone know that story?


Sounds like tayler swift,she's not Canadian though,thank God for that little favor.


----------



## Pepper_Roni (May 29, 2008)

[YOUTUBE]aMuf_ekJhOs[/YOUTUBE]

LOL, I know you prolly all hate rap, but that song is to damn fitting to leave out.

I couldnt care if Artists use auto tune, a good song is a good song. But I hate when the try and lie and say they dont use it.

Its great to hear songs without it though. The perfection of imperfection I think.


----------

