DoubleJ
111 posts
Dec 11, 2014
2:13 PM
|
|
didjcripey
849 posts
Dec 12, 2014
12:51 AM
|
I wonder if auto tune would be able to hit 'blue' notes?
----------
Lucky Lester
|
jbone
1825 posts
Dec 12, 2014
3:46 AM
|
Vomit city. Tech is the enemy as often as it is a savior.
----------
http://www.reverbnation.com/jawboneandjolene
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000386839482
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbTwvU-EN1Q
|
kudzurunner
5179 posts
Dec 12, 2014
5:01 AM
|
It's a misleading story. RT is Russian propaganda; in this case, it's anti-Western propaganda. If you carefully watch the example they give of the guy in the studio whose voice is "helped" by autotuning, they completely fudge the difference between his original and autotuned voice. The final phrase or two that he sings DOESN'T sound autotuned. So it's not clear to me that he's nearly as bad as they say.
At the 2:17 point, when they've got a "recording engineer" "say" stuff ("Let's just say I've had autotune save everything....."), it's not a human voice. It's a computer generated voice. Would you trust a "news" story where one of the key informants is a computer-generated voice? Sorta undercuts the point when the "guy" delivering the bad news is a computer you've programmed to say that stuff. :)
Everything about the story stinks. This doesn't mean that there isn't quite a bit of underlying truth to the idea that autotune is omnipresent. But the story, as told by this RT piece, is manipulative crap.
I watch The Voice and American Idol. Some of the young singers, especially in the early rounds, are "pitchy"--i.e., they've got voices that autotune would help in the way that autotune helps--but by the final 8 or final 12, they're all singing in tune, on stage, live.
Anybody who says that autotune is "required" or "omnipresent" in the contemporary music industry, in other words, is lying.
There is, on the other hand, a specific modern "sound," one I associate with Justin Bieber, where the heavy hand of autotune is intentionally foregrounded. The best example I've seen recently is "Gummy Bear," a huge international kid's hit:
Last Edited by kudzurunner on Dec 12, 2014 5:04 AM
|
Mahcks
22 posts
Dec 12, 2014
10:08 AM
|
Now I want to play a harmonica through an autotune. It would be neat to see how the tone is affected the more the computer has to correct the pitch.
|
kudzurunner
5180 posts
Dec 12, 2014
10:11 AM
|
That's a brilliant idea! Do it. I'd like to hear it.
|
timeistight
1666 posts
Dec 12, 2014
10:30 AM
|
Even great vocalists are being autotuned these days. At around the 30:00 mark of this podcast, there is a discussion of the autotuning and other tweaking on Aretha Franklin's version of "Rolling in the Deep":
|
DoubleJ
113 posts
Dec 12, 2014
10:33 AM
|
Mahcks,
A good way to get the same effect without a computer is by playing through a vocal processing pedal, many of which have the equivalent of autotune and more.
The background harmony settings that create multiple harps playing a three or four part harmony can be dramatic if used correctly.
|
kudzurunner
5181 posts
Dec 12, 2014
10:34 AM
|
Actually, it's crazy-easy to autotune your own voice, using Garage Band 11. It took me five minutes to create autotuned blues. Listen and weep.
Here's how you do it. Get cracking, boys! Make sure you choose "voice," as per step one ("Create a Project"). That's key.
http://www.maclife.com/article/howtos/how_autotune_yourself_garageband_11
This is fun! I think we're about to have some big, big fun here. Somebody needs to start a thread called "MBH autotune party."
Last Edited by kudzurunner on Dec 12, 2014 10:37 AM
|
DoubleJ
114 posts
Dec 12, 2014
10:38 AM
|
Kudz,
Tried to post a response but the spam filter didn't like my links. It's been emailed.
|
Gnarly
1181 posts
Dec 12, 2014
10:41 AM
|
I use the VoiceLive Touch for my vocal (and thus my harmonica, too lazy or rushed to set up separate mikes), guess I'll try harmonica melody with autotune at my next gig, see who votes and how.
I use it as a harmonizer vocally, the harmonizer doesn't like harmonica much. But there are some other effects--Brendan Power uses it as a looper!
One of the nicest features is that it can be used to harmonize from the guitar input (I play guitar) as well as from a digital source (laptop sequencer drives it wonderfully well).
|
DoubleJ
115 posts
Dec 12, 2014
10:42 AM
|
didjcripey
Pitch correction technology allows you to dial in the blue note by frequency. The inflection and nuance is another matter entirely.
|
nacoran
8155 posts
Dec 12, 2014
12:34 PM
|
Mahcks, here is an example I did a while back. It's not autotuned in the sense Adam's vocal sample is- it's pitch correction to play notes I don't have (because I don't have the money for the deeper harps)
I find the auto tune debate strange. I've got recordings of our band that I've worked on to take out background hiss and microphone pops. I've taken a single track and made it quieter in the mix- even taken parts of a single track and made it louder or quieter in the mix. The way I see it, there is using auto tune to correct a mistake in recording. In that sense, I don't see it as any different than any other tools a sound technician has in his toolbox. Then there is the auto tune sound, when it's used to create that weird sound like in Adam's example. Even although I'm more a grunge rocker/classic rock guy it doesn't particularly bother me. The first time I heard it I actually thought it was pretty cool- but then everyone used it to death and it's become tired. I suspect a few years from now that sort of auto tune may have a huge backlash, like any other sort of vocal that isn't sort of down the middle (think Bee Gees or Frankie Valli).
It's also used live sometimes. You know, even that doesn't bother me. There is some guy behind the vocalist hitting keys to make the singer's voice change, but it's still a vocalist and musicians making music live.
Then there is lip syncing. I don't even mind backing tracks and drum machines. I do feel it's important for the people on stage who are 'playing instruments' and 'singing' to actually be doing that live. That's what live shows mean to me. I've got a friend who uses software to compose all his music. He doesn't play an instrument. He even records backing vocals, but when he performs, his actual live voice is in front in the mix. He doesn't have anyone pretending to play instruments behind him. He just doesn't have the money to pay a band. He sounds fine and he's not misrepresenting what he does. I enjoy his stuff.
When I was a kid I used to 'airfest'. I had a tennis racquet guitar and I'd do all the high kicks like David Lee Roth. That's child's play compared to some of the dance routines pop stars do on stage. I can't imagine being that active and still having enough breath to hit notes cleanly, on harp or vocally. I kind of expect those sorts of shows to be phoned in, but when it's memorex, I want a disclaimer saying that the band is just airfesting so I can decide if I'm going to go listen. I imagine you get a more consistent product that way, but you aren't likely to see moments of pure genius too.
Beyond the amatuer level, this is people's living. I understand why they pull out all the stops to sound top notch. If that's what their fans want, eh, I'm okay with that. Right now my band is basically me and a guitar/bass player. We've considered, since he can't play both at the same time, using a backing track to perform- at least until we can add some other reliable members.
Of course, when you lip synch or use backing tracks, you better make sure you are good at it. I was at an open mic one night. A techno band came in. They were using computer backing tracks. There was a young lady playing bass. After their first number I told her she needed to turn up. (I was in the front row.) I couldn't hear her at all. She played with the knobs and went into the next song, still completely silent. Turns out they were entirely pre-recorded. I hope she at least yelled at the guy who recorded the mix.
----------
Nate
Facebook
Thread Organizer (A list of all sorts of useful threads)
First Post- May 8, 2009
|
Milsson
178 posts
Dec 12, 2014
4:01 PM
|
It´s a lot of crap in that vid. First of they say that people get riped of going to a B.spears consert. Thats not true! If you would go there it´s to see a show not to hear her sing. Let´s hear pavarotti sing an opera while doing burpes.
Then they say that beyonce use autotune, that CAN`T be true. She´s an awsome singer and iv´e never heard a slightest proof of autotune in hera recordings.
|
Mirco
229 posts
Dec 12, 2014
5:16 PM
|
I'm in the camp of narcoran and (I think) Adam on this. Electronics are just additional tools to make music, and their implementation--when used sensibly and stylistically--can result in great music; the resulting music is something that can't be achieved through "traditional" means. There's a place for purists, and that type of music. It's raw, authentic, and powerful.
But bands and musicians that use electronics as an added component-- NOT to mask imperfections-- can create something very new and powerful.
Case in point: the stage show of Nine Inch Nails is something that depends very heavily on production. But it's probably the most powerful show I've ever seen. Even if you don't like this kind of music, admire the production value and aesthetic sensibility:
|
