|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
119.236.184.88
In Reply to: RE: Age inappropriate, weak choreography . . . posted by Todd Krieger on April 12, 2015 at 00:05:35
Gaga managed to remove the act and sell very well with a jazz release (Gold in the US).The "antics" increase youtube hits because the "antics" are video based. Shelling out the money on the other hand requires that you listen and only listen to the music content. PSY had the most number of youtube hits for example with Gangnam Style but he didn't sell the most number of actual singles that year. People will watch the geek show but to get people to part with their money - requires some songs that people want to actually LISTEN to.
And I know that bugs the hell out of self proclaimed froo froo posters on this board but Madonna and Gaga outsell most artists because in fact they're much better than most of their competition. Granted their competition isn't exactly great - this is pop music after all.
Gaga easily has the better voice - that doesn't mean she's necessarily the better talent because pop is far more about the overall production but it's pretty obvious.
I think you should sue Lady Gaga for libel because she has publicly stated that Cheek to Cheek has no auto-tune - If you can actually PROVE your assertion - you have a singer with very deep pockets to make some money on. Can you - you know prove it?
She states it here - so download it and you can take her to court.
Lady Gaga Interview 9.24.14
Edits: 04/12/15 04/12/15Follow Ups:
There were people who've demanded me "prove" WWE wrestling is fake..... My response is asking them why WWE results are never reported in sports news services. They claim that isn't proof, just speculation.How does one prove the most-blatant user of Auto-Tune uses it? I might hear a recording of what I think is obviously an oboe. How would I prove it's an oboe? I could even have someone play an oboe with the recording, and another listener can still claim the recording is of a different instrument.
Demanding proof of a recognized sound is one way to conveniently "disqualify" a finding, but that does not prove the contrary either. If you want to believe Lady Gaga doesn't use Auto-Tune, that's fine. (The biggest problem I have is people refusing to learn how to recognize Auto-Tune. Yet want to argue militantly that it isn't there. It's no different from the "sounds the same" crowd refusing to train their hearing.) But if a gun were placed to my head, where it would go off if I guessed wrong (presuming the trigger man was omniscient), I'd be a lot more stressed out if I said Gaga didn't use Auto-Tune than if I said she did use it.
I don't like it whenever my favorite performers use Auto-Tune (most notably Aleks Syntek).... But I will never claim it isn't there if I notice it.
Edits: 04/12/15
Your examples are preposterous. WWE wrestlers are real - they exist you can see them jumping around on stage and they are physically doing wrestling moves. Is it real wrestling as to not knowing the outcome at the end - well no. The fact that anyone believed that it was otherwise is the problem.As for the OBOE - yes you can prove it is in an oboe - go get 20 oboe players to listen to the track and confirm that it is in fact an oboe and not a clarinet.
I think it would be easy - get an EE to go over the Cheek to Cheek album and check every note through a computer and find variation. Her pop albums use it - she says so - you can hear it - it is fairly obvious. She claims the Jazz album claims she doesn't and Mr. Bennett and the recording team says they didn't. Since 99.99% of the music buying public doesn't care (since they bought her auto-tuned FAME album in ridiculously high numbers) there isn't much reason to lie about it. It's not like it will have the slightest impact on sales. Indeed, for Bennett's sake on several cuts it probably NEEDS autotune because well he's not "in-tune" - if auto-tune fixes being in tune then that kind of screams volume that it's not being used on the album - or can you not tell when a singer is off pitch and out of tune? I can and he is.
Illustrate the minute and second mark of the song and explain specifically which note and when there is "obvious" use of autotune. It really is that simple - if you make a claim that it is there then the onus is on you to prove the claim. It is all over Madonna's latest album and it is obvious.
You seem to be the only poster on any forum anywhere that continuously brings up autotune basically hearing it on every album.
It is frankly absurd if you don't think Gaga has a voice - I get not liking her how she rose to fame - her stances on LGBT blah blah but to suggest she can't sing or is only decent via auto-tune is idiotic. Patently idiotic.
Edits: 04/12/15 04/12/15 04/12/15
I've never heard Lady Gaga sing without Auto-Tune..... So I can't comment on her actual voice. (There are old bar clips where it's switched on and off during performance, she sounded awful without it, but I think she intended to sound awful during those moments.)
But unlike some of her producers and fans, at least the performer herself admits her real voice was never actually heard...... (The Tony Bennett duets have less Auto-Tune, but not devoid of it.)
She says that Cheek to Cheek uses absolutely no auto-tune that all of it was recorded live with numerous takes. In the link I provided the interviewer point blank says "less processing" and she jumped in and point blank said absolutely none. Listen to the radio interview linked about halfway through.
That is why I say - if someone who can factually prove that there is auto-tune on the album can file a class action lawsuit claiming that she is committing a fraud on the album buying public. This is America after all where lawyers are looking for work around every corner and with a BIG album sales behind her surely a lawyer with decent skill could get a few million out of her - just having any evidence might get you a few hundred grand in a settlement.
Better Call Saul.
The problem with all of this is that with the program in existence the assumption will be that every recording from anyone that you happen not to like will be deemed to be using auto-tune.
I don't particularly trust people who say "well I can hear it so it's there" - plenty of people claim they heard God tell them to kill a bunch of people and I don't take them at their word.
And that is the case with auto-tune - Cher's "Believe" is a hefty use of auto-tune because the voice sounds like an out and out robot. If auto-tune is taking an otherwise excellent vocal and "ever so slightly" rounding a note and only a few times then to me that's a non starter. Cheek to Cheek is pretty pitchy at times from both singers - if auto-tune was being used then those pitch problems simply would not be there - it would have been "photoshopped" out. It makes absolutely no sense to use autotune and then produce an album that is off pitch (out of tune).
This goes for live performance - if she was lipsyncing then gee her live performance would sound EXACTLY like the CD version which in EVERY case that I have heard has not been the case. She sings the same song about a dozen times in a dozen locations and each time they sound very different from each other and very different from the CD. So what on earth is she lip syncing too? She is often off pitch in all the live performances I've seen - if auto-tune was in use then she would never be off pitch. One can simply do a youtube search of about 8 versions of Speechless - it is VERY obvious that she is out of tune at times and she's off pitch - what should also be clear is that she has a good voice
In live performances of her dance songs there is clear processing being used and also very clear use of a backing track which virtually all pop music acts use. I should think it impossible to be dancing around a stage while singing and also being pitch perfect.
You do a great job describing the Emperor's New Clothes..... The problem is I still see a naked man...............
Your ears will follow.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: