Can you hear pitch correction?
 

In these modern days of recording, it's possible to create a flawless performance from any musician. Just record it and... FIX it.

They invented a way to "fix" vocals by locking them into a pitch. If the singer is flat, it just raises the pitch until the singer is exactly on the note.

Cher's "Believe" was the first single to really use it hard; they turned it into an effect, as if her voice went from natural to synthesized in mid-note, doing things a voice can't do.

Now they use it on a lot of things, and sometimes I can tell. I was listening to some band called Maroon 5 on Rhapsody, and I thought their single was pretty good, and then I got to the second song in the Rhapsody sampler and it had little hints of correction.

Well I just turned the song right off! I can't stand it when they fix every little thing, and if the singer needs correction it makes me wonder why he's the singer in the first place. Especially if the act is supposed to be a little edgy. Edgy doesn't require correction! Edgy should be off on purpose!

Do you hear vocal correction? If so, does it piss you off?

Re: Can you hear pitch correction?
 

Yes, and yes...it is sickening, and it has become omnipresent in popular music. You can *definitely* hear it...it sounds unnatural unless used, very, very subtly.

I hate this, too. Too much use of it really takes away the uniqueness of the recording. Sometimes the little imperfections in a song make that song memorable to me. I go back and listen to a once favorite song, years later, and I can still remember the quirks here and there. When they start correcting everything I feel like I am cheated...as if I don't get a completely true representation of the singer's voice. Who knows if that singer really sounds like that at all?

I have been noticing this a lot since Cher and her annoying song.

Too much artificial altering of a singer's voice makes me think that the singer is talentless, and that the engineers are trying to cover up that fact.

The thing is, it's not THAT hard to sing on key. That's the absolute smallest part of good singing.

Unless you're completely void of msucial talent. Oh, wait, never mind.

The device (and/or ProTools plugin) is called an Antares Autotune, and for some unknown reason, it is probably now the most overused device in recording.

When it has been intentionally overused as an *effect* (ala Cher's "Believe"), I could just shrug my shoulders and think of it the way people had to think of reverb and tremolo back in the surf music days. When it is used to correct a lack of talent, and that lack is so bad that the effect results in audible artifact, it is truly sad.

Is that the same tech all the idiot boy bands use to wipe all distinctivness out of their harmonies?

I can hear it, and mostly I think it's interesting.

The Diva Dance from "The Fifth Element" is (I assume) an example of this..? It's a lovely bit of music, if so.

I noticed Pink Floyd using it on Animals back in '76. I forget the cut but its an awesome song and is uncharacteristically hard driving for Pink Floyd. Unfortunately, its locked in vinyl grooves and I can't get it out.

Cher. Scoff.

I think that's a vocoder on "Dogs" - different technology.

Yes, but the story I heard from some behind the scenes show was that they gave her the score thinking that some of it was humanly impossible to sing, but she manage to surprise them by singing a few of those parts. Not all of them mind you, just a few. There definitely is some vocal enhancement in that music.

I don't find the enhancements cheapen this music the way I would in a lot of other cases. These folks were trying to make a point that some alien chick could sing outside the range of a normal human.

a'ight, this hits a little close to my bread and butter, so I'll toss in my $.02

A few things ... if it's being done right, you can't hear it. If it's being used create a "singer" out of a pretty face with no talent, you can pick it out of a lineup at 200 yards.

Following is for serious gear heads only --->

The reason it sounds "wrong"? The note that you hear sung is called the "fundamental", the lowest note in a series of overtones, tones that appear in varying strengths at fixed intervals above the fundamental. The strength of the various overtones determines the timbre of the sound (the difference between a violin and a cat on the same note).

When you drop Anteres Autotune on a voice, it scans for, and alters, the fundamental, which then moves every overtone up or down by that same degree - a perfect series duplication, just many 3 percent higher.

The problem is, a human voice singing 3% higher creates a completely unique set of overtones. You may not understand what you're hearing, but you know it sounds wrong. To compensate, Autotune removes some of the ovetones, to make the shift less obvious. So what do you get? A hollowed out sound (thin), with an artificial overtone serious.

<------------- the normals may return.

Just FYI, there is a whole world of "fixing" that gets used on pop music these days, to make the process faster and cheaper. Why spend 3 days on a song when you can play it once, have a 19 yr old kid spend 5 days editing it, and have it sound perfect? Just a sampling:

Autotune: corrects pitch, in vocals and often in the bass

Vocalign: can match up the timing of two different phrases - originally used for vocal overdubbing on film (replace location sound with ADR), now used to tighten up backing vocals

Beat Detective: Allows you to take any audio part (particularly drums), and cut it into hundreds of little pieces, based on each individual attack (snare hit, High Hat close, etc), then move each little piece into it's perfect timing position. Drummer sucks? not anymore!

Sound Replaces: This is hot. It takes any sound source, and lets you replace it with another sound source playing the original part. Your snare sounds like ass? replace it with the sound of a $6000 Black Beauty playing exactly what you played. You ever notice how everything mixed by Thom Lord Alge sounds the same? He replaces every single drum hit with his own samples.

AudioMorph: Takes the sound of one singer, analyzes all of the unique characteristics of that voice (overtone series, etc.), then applies that information to a second sound source. Got a singer with a unique voice who can't hit the damn part? Higher a session pro, have them sing it, Morph the "artist"'s voice characteristics onto the session singer's part, tada!

There are a few more in beta that I've used in the studio, but haven't gotten my hands on yet. With all of these, when used in the hands of a pro, you really can't tell the difference. It's when records start being made by guys green of the street, just bought a pro-tools rig, trying to get a band's first record done for $80k to keep the label happy, that the tools get used more agressively and it becomes immediately obvious.

whew.

I'm back.

And my hands are cramping.

-sm

Hey that's right sm, I forgot you're a studio guy!

Take care of those hands though.

My question then changes to: why oh why would anyone make the decision to leave the audible correction IN?

The track in question is "She Will Be Loved" by Maroon 5. Now that I listen to it again, this must have been a production choice. Any correction is inaudible until the song kicks into second gear, and then it's very audible.

And I hate it! Grrrr

As with any technology, there's plenty of opportunities for misuse. But ProTools is my friend. We have a kick ass drummer, but being able to move that one teensy little flubbed high hat beat over instead of having to re track it is oh so cool. And cheaper.

I do mourn the loss of the "live" feel of analog, though. It's the slight variations that couldn't be programmed out that made stuff feel more real.

I think there's an additional element to the "olden days" of recording ...

the ante for being a studio player was much higher. You had to have monster skills to get in the door - think Funk Brothers, the LA Wrecking Crew, etc.

Along with those skills came a musical intuition, creativity, whatever, that made them make damn fine at cutting grooves, building arrangments, creating tones, all that stuff that goes on behind a great song. It comes from spending 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, sitting at your instrument for 20 years.

Today, you can call yourself a "session player" if you know which end of the sticks to hold, and can remember how to play a guitar power chord two days out of three. Everything thing else can be "fixed". They haven't paid their dues, played the scene, lived long enough to have good ideas on their instrument. So now, it sounds perfect, but who cares? We have dull, lifeless, unoriginal ideas being edited to perfection.

There are still a few guys who are holding it down. Tim Pierce on guitar. Abe Laboriel on Bass. His son, Abe Jr. on Drums. Russ Miller on Drums. All guys who got in the game before the advent of ProTools.

But where are tomorrow's session players? Where are they cutting their teeth? What will we do when the giants have died, and everyone left is recycling the same five drumbeats, the same five guitar tones, and the same good god for the last time the exact same U2 bass line?

You wanna know why the industries is dying? We're running out of musicians.

You wanna know why classical is still going strong? Every new generation is better than the last. They make old music new, with better technique, better understanding, and better musicality.

Lordly, who lent me this soapbox? Take it back! I have work to do!

-sm

http://www.barks.org/misc/rotflmao.gif
Sorry.. maybe you have a point about the training of young musicians... but, nobody WITHIN the classical industry thinks it's going strong. Maybe live performance is. Maybe. (The Opera Company of Philadelphia cut back the number of productions for next year. The Philadelphia Orchestra saw subscriptions DROP during the current season, which was the first season with new music director Christoph Eschenbach. Maybe it's just us.) But people seem to agree recordings are dead in the water. This is a sample opinion (only somewhat extreme).

I wonder if there is an equivalent of 'functionally illiterate' in musical terms. I think a great deal of the younger crowd these days is like this. The closest they come to classical music is movie soundtracks. They might recognized Beethoven's 5th and other monster compositions that the media beat into your head over and over, but that is the extent of their knowledge.

Remember when cartoons used to include classical music? Bugs Bunny did the Rabbit of Seville and some Wagner. Tom and Jerry played piano. Has any recent cartoon done anything like this?
This generation is growing up not knowing which end of a violin you blow into.

I don't think the future of classical music is very promising. Yes, it will exist for people to listen to, but talent is not being nurtured. Today's virtuosos and good orchestras just don't rake in the money, and things don't look to be changing for the better.

Animaniacs used to do a lot of it. Of course, Animaniacs was a conscious homage to the older Warner Brothers cartoons.
I have to play devil's advocate and ask, "so what?" If nobody really cares why should we bother? There are plenty of other museum-worthy pursuits that have declined, and while those people who have developed a following for those things may wish their interests were more mainstream, it's hard to argue that people "ought" to be more interested in Mozart than Britney Spears.

This is hysterically funny, and very, very sad.

Who needs to learn to play an instrument, anyway? All you need to know how to do is operate sampling and looping software on your computer, and maybe how to program a drum machine.

I would like to make the prediction that 100 years from now, far more people will be listening to Mozart than to Britney Spears. Any takers? :p (of course, by then the real big thing will probably be a new, yet unborn teen idol everyone drools over (and her clone backup singers, all lip synching to their 'flawless' digitally enhanced heavy metal/bubblegum pop/rap atonal arhythmic psuedo-random fusion music)

Okay, SteveDallas, you say 'so what', and in a way, you are right. Tastes change, and sometimes they change to the extreme where something that was priceless becomes worthless generations later. Its not the music that has changed, it is only one's point of view.

There is one thing that withstands changing opinion. Human genius tends to shine out of whatever genre it is in. Da Vinci, Van Gogh, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Einstein, all genius. I for one wish I had the math skills to be able to understand the music Einstein composed with his theories, but those that do understand it, all agree, genius shines from his equations. English is almost reaching the point where Shakespeare becomes gibberish, but genius still shines in his work. These days, kids aren't learning the music listening skills to appreciate the geniuses of thousands of years of music. The music may be outdated as all hell, but if a genius composed it, it will shine - you just have to be able to understand the language it is in, even if just a little bit. Appreciating the work of genius is sublime, whatever form the masterwork takes.

Then again, the French think Jerry Lewis is genius, so what the hell am I talking about.

But I don't want another hobby, ie learning another language. Music that sounds good to my ear, is all I want. I'm not a musician (1 year of Jr High clarinet) and don't want to be. I don't want to take Italian to appreciate opera, either. I've been exposed to all kinds of music and liked some of it from every catagory. You can tell me that a particular piece of music is sheer genius in it's intricacy but I'm more impressed with a finely crafted piece of machinery. Different interests, and I don't feel obliged to support other peoples interests just because it's "high class", "classic" or "stood the test of time".

O f course we can all agree on:
Bad boy, bad boy, whatcha gonna do?
Whatcha gonna do, when they come for you?
Ahh..the classics.:D

Yeah, I'll buy that. But who cares? I'll be dead and so will you. The question is whether people NOW should go out and listen to the Great Classics(tm) or the latest bubblegum fluff. I'm not going to be the one to sit everybody down and make them choose A.

Yeah, and they aren't learning enough math to appreciate Einstein, and they aren't learning enough English to appreciate Shakespeare.. and... and... hmmm. Am I in a little bit cynical tonight?

Is that what it looks like from the top? I know those musicians that walked the walk, paid their dues, learned their craft and more. BUT they couldn't get a deal, because the music "business" stinks. MADD killed the clubs, so the few venues that are left are controlled by a few agencies that are pushing whatever is hot at the moment. Boy bands, grunge, snake charmers...crap of the moment. There's no room for innovation...guitar riffs?..how gauche!
We aren't running out of musicians, they're out there. They may still get together and jam or even play an occasional party for friends. BUT, they're still working their day jobs, because they can't get a deal...or even a gig...in the "music business". :vomit:

I just find that some people don't get anything but one type of music. Everyone should at least be exposed to stuff like jazz, orchestral, opera, indian, african, etc. Maybe I think this because I like to try out new things. If I go to a restaurant, I'm going to be trying all sorts of weird stuff. Sometimes I don't like what I get, sometimes I find a new favorite dish.

I guess noone really needs to be exposed to art, museums, literature, classical music, and all that other artsy fartsy stuff. I just don't think it ever hurt anyone, and it probably has helped some people discover new things they are interested in, as well as new thoughts, ideas, and feelings.

Bruce, you've at least heard a great deal of different music, and know what you like and don't like. What's bad is when a person doesn't even know what is out there. Imagine thinking gansta rap is the only music worth listening to, and never listening to anything else because nothing else is 'real' the way rap is real, that's the mindset of some teens.

and back on the thread, I have to say Blue by Eiffel 65 is worse that Cher's Believe if that is possible.

If this is the top, I want my money back. Let's call this the middle, with a view to the top.

Just to clarify, I'm not so much talking about "artist" musicians, who are out to get signed and play stadiums. Those chaps are in full supply.

I'm more talking about the players who actually make records - the professional studio musicians. When editing lowers the standard, and we lose that top 1% of players who can own their instruments with complete command, speak the language of music with intelligence and eloquence, and deliver inovative and entertaining ideas, then I think my comment stands. We're running out of musicians.

-sm

On the other hand, all this technology has also given the average joe or jane the ability to create an average quality recording all the way to the end product. While at the same time, getting truly high fidelity into the end consumer's hands. Who knows how it could all play out!

Those two terms don't EVER belong in the same sentence. Gansta rap is not even related to music, it's poetry with a noise background. If you like it, hey, fine with me, just don't tell me it's music. :p

It's music Bruce! :P

Music is much like poetry...some folks still think rock and roll isn't music.

Bruce

You wanna take a crack at defining music in a plenary, concrete way that doesn't rely on example or exclusion? Not meant to be sarcastic, honestly. It's an ongoing project of mine, to further refine my own definition.

BTW, this is a class project. Feel free to grab a partner and share notes. We'll meet back together 5 minutes before the bell to compare answers.

-sm

Are you trying to tell me Grandmaster Flash, is a musician?:rolleyes: