|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.42.83.12
Kindly identify any notes T-pain sings that are "off-key", and whether they are flat or sharp.
Follow Ups:
lot of other guys that can sing virtually a cappella for so long and remain in rhythm, on key, and carry the tune convincingly.
I also like the fact that he manages to sing contemporary tunes w/out using the usual gender-aggressive pejoratives and the violent or sophomoric sexual explicitness.
For the record, I couldn't hear any obvious correction, but I wonder if technology has progressed so that it could have been done, surreptitiously?
Not sure I agree with you on the lyrics, but that's neither here nor there.
As for surreptitious auto-tune, it is utterly implausible. It doesn't have much to do with the technology, sure it could be applied, but that's not what we hear. For starters, there are plenty of notes that are out of tune, and the likelihood that auto tune was used to "achieve" that at frequent random points through the performance is absurd. Outside of those the pitch just isn't that consistent, while it's decent it's hardly as accurate as pitch correction would make it. Is it possible that there is one note that for some reason somebody at NPR went in to the recording, left all of the other out of tune notes unchanged but pitch-corrected the one note? I guess that's technically possible but very absurd and would make it rather hard to answer the question "why?". Why apply pitch-correction but not fix the pitch? Not to mention the risk to the integrity of npr and the artist..etc.
Whether it's applied to one note or not, however implausible, we can hear what his singing sounds like without auto tune, which is the point.
Dave
You know I hate pop where auto tune is used most. I have little experience with it. I listened to a little of the linked T Pain and not knowing his voice at all or style I didn't hear much of anything I even considered suspect. Of course as it is often the case it's through laptop speakers that aren't really covering the room noise like the TV 30 feet away. Maybe Todd or someone could point out a few things considered auto tune corrected and there elapsed time point. I certainly didn't consider what I heard pitch perfect. Some of the sounds and techniques modern singers, mostly in R&B, seem to use could be mistaken for that effect. He certainly sounds a little off when he says "girl of my dreams" at about 10:40 such that AT would have corrected it. I also heard more I considered a little "out" later in this tune.
ET
Edits: 11/10/14
.
...who want to ridicule anyone who dare criticizes Auto-Tune or performers who use it in a deceitful manner. (Like on the linked clip. It is sans Auto-Tune like the Pope is Mexican.)
As far as I'm concerned, you've been complicit in the decline of the art of music, and the decline of quality sound reproduction. And you ought to burn in Hell.
Like the fake Dudamel recording that was actually a manipulated Szell recording you brought to our attention a while back, this clip is yet another brazen example of musical skullduggery. Its obviously an old Andy Williams recording electronically manipulated to sound like T-Pain in an effort to deceive NPR and their gullible audience.
Thank God we have golden-eared musical sleuths like you to protect us from duplicitous bastards like David Smith, who as you know deceives his own audiences by ONLY performing/recording when his trumpet mic is hooked into auto-tune. In reality the SOB can't play two consecutive notes in tune.
To say Smith is complicit in the destruction of art music gravely understates the case. As soon as I finish typing this I will be instigating a campaign to blackball Smith from the jazz community in NYC. Unfortunately I may not be successful because, as no doubt you know, its very hard to find any jazz musicians in Brooklyn - that hub of auto-tune fakery where Smith hides out and recruits accomplices in deception - who CAN play in tune without electronic manipulation. But in your honor I'll do my best.
How an obvious faker like Smith has the chutzpah to challenge a man of your stature is beyond me. On behalf of this forum and music lovers worldwide, I offer my sincere thanks for your diligence, supremely trained ears, and of course your trustworthiness.
Post of the year if I may say so..
Dave
When the Emperor is wearing no clothes, someone has to point it out.
Justin Timberlake's voice is really an auto-tuned Jim Nabors.
If you took two singers with similar talent and vocal ranges, and Auto-Tuned them (at a typical level) singing the same song, most of us would have a hard time distinguishing the two singers.
nt
About the Dudamel/Szell thread, that is. Had I remembered that, I would not have bothered contributing to this, um, learned discussion.
What is in it for NPR?
I'm not even blaming T-Pain.... In the live set, T-Pain may have actually been singing without Auto-Tune. But if that were the case, somewhere in the recording chain it was put in. I won't speculate past that. (I've seen Auto-Tune used in recent Rush DVDs. Which happens to be my favorite band. But you watch the bootlegs, you'll realize the DVD producers but the Auto-Tune in there. I wouldn't discount the notion that it may be used behind the performers' backs.)
If I worked for NPR, I would have raised the flag.... But to be honest, with the political deceit that has gone on there (just like with the other networks), this is chump change.
So the artist wants to sing without auto-tune and NPR wants to produce a show and someone slips it in afterwards and no one knows it? Not even the artist?
"So the artist wants to sing without auto-tune and NPR wants to produce a show and someone slips it in afterwards and no one knows it? Not even the artist?"
I would not discount that. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if this were the case.
Recordings in recent time go through so many hands, who knows who's doing what to them. As far as the one who actually applied the app denying it, and there's no evidence to who may have done it. Aside from the fact that it was done.
My 15 year old daughter does not know the difference between a banjo and a guitar. She likes pop music..., on the way to school last week I asked her why do singers use Auto - tune and I waited for her to ask me what is was.... To my shock she said everyone uses auto -tune.... I asked her how did she know about Auto tune.... She said everyone knows it..,she said singers use it to sound "modern"😀. I was stunned that she knew what it was.
"My 15 year old daughter does not know the difference between a banjo and a guitar. She likes pop music..., on the way to school last week I asked her why do singers use Auto - tune and I waited for her to ask me what is was.... To my shock she said everyone uses auto -tune...."
No shocker there........
"I asked her how did she know about Auto tune.... She said everyone knows it..,she said singers use it to sound 'modern'😀. I was stunned that she knew what it was."
I've encountered singers even younger, who've stated the exact same thing.
It's a culture that seems harmless on the surface, but I think will in time ruin music as we know it. Unless listeners are familiar with the songs being played, they'll have a hard time recognizing who's singing what. Auto-Tune takes the unique character of an individual singer's voice and makes it sound like every other modern singer.
The worst part of Auto-Tune is that it makes singers think they can sound great with minimal training. As I stated many times before, this is why we no longer have great singers like we once had. And singers who would likely refuse to sing in public without it. In my opinion, it is the single worst thing to happen to music, during my lifetime.
Teenagers identify it easily but NPR producers and T-Pain did not know someone slipped it in without their knowledge?
Edits: 11/10/14 11/10/14
"Teenagers identify it easily but NPR producers and T-Pain did not know someone slipped it in without their knowledge?"I don't know whether the NPR producers or T-Pain knew or not..... I was just conveying a possible scenario.
And we don't know what the video had exactly gone through between performance and production.... It's in essence "musical sausage"......
There are a lot of possibilities, and even someone taking part in the production probably doesn't know the whole story.....
There is yet another possibility. There might have been a production application (software) applying Auto-Tune, without knowledge of anyone in the performance or production chain. This could explain why there are quite a few clips out there in which no Auto-Tune is claimed, yet listeners hear it easily.
I do think whatever takes place between the session and final production should be monitored a LOT more closely. For I do believe there are a lot of productions out there which were never intended to have Auto-Tune applied to them, but have it applied nonetheless.
Edits: 11/10/14
That is.........you are just plain wrong. Unfortunately, you consider yourself omniscient regarding determining use of auto-tune.
Edits: 11/11/14
"That is.........you are just plain wrong."Keep saying it.... I'm enjoying it.....
I guess some people think if they iterate something enough times, it somehow becomes true fact.
About six people told me they'll no longer post on this board..... They've been so turned off what one of them calls, the "Auto-Tune Thugs". More and more, I'm talking music with great people on Twitter.... And my Music2Die4 page on YouTube. I've gotten more thanks from people who now know what to listen for and avoid Auto-Tuned music. There is a lot of great music out there.... We just need to discover it.
FYI, this clip is an example of why I despise Auto-Tune.... The singer, so imperfect, yet so achingly beautiful..... Great music is so fragile, anyone who thinks messing with it being OK is clueless, in my humble opinion. It's a freaking shame that there's hardly anything like this today in the English-speaking world.
Edits: 11/11/14
Coming from you, this cracked me up :-)
"I guess some people think if they iterate something enough times, it somehow becomes true fact."
So Todd, who are those six inmates?
Glad you think you won.... [-;
nt
What was your case anyway? I don't think you've actually stated one.Note that "my comments are baseless" would not be an acceptable answer. I already know you've claimed that. I just want to know what you've deduced to come to that conclusion.
Note that "I've already stated my case" is also not an acceptable answer.
Maybe if you state your case clearly, I would learn something. Thank you.
Edits: 11/12/14
In this particular case the info attached to the clip states T-Pain's performance was sans auto-tune....
"We asked him if he'd grace the Tiny Desk without any embellishment or effects to show what's really made his career: his voice, and those songs."
On the clip T-Pain jokes about it - to paraphrase - where's the auto-tune hiding? I do not hear auto-tune on the clip, nor do some others. In fact, I do not see anyone else who posted in the thread saying they hear that it was auto-tuned - other than you, that is. You claim it was in fact employed, and as per usual, are utterly convinced of your infallibility - which in and of itself should give a reasonable person pause.
Not content to make auto-tune claims regarding the clip, you launch into a conspiracy theory about how auto-tune may have been employed surreptitiously post-production, of course totally absent any actual facts or knowledge. Par for your course.
Quite a while ago you anointed yourself an auto-tune expert. I see no reason whatsoever to think you are, and previous posts (IIRC some that included recorded examples) claiming something was auto-tuned did zilch to change my mind about your "expertise". Your ludicrous episode with the Dudamel/Szell thing has, to say the least, made your later assertions suspect.
Your attacks on David are laughable and ignorant. To think he has some vested interested in applying, concealing the use of, or sanctioning the use of auto-tune is so far past absurd that it enters the twilight zone. Maybe if you had a clue about where David is at as a musician you might have avoided such idiocy. You apparently know zilch about rbolaw either, and hence either don't know how stupid it is to refer to him and myself as David's "henchmen", or can not control your emotions enough to avoid such lameness.
Todd, I basically agree with you about the negatives of auto-tune. But you are VERY far from an omniscient authority.
If people posted disagreement like this, this thread wouldn't have gotten one tenth this size.......
nt
Telling people to burn in hell? Accusing them of being part of a conspiracy to destroy music? Calling them deceitful? Calling them "henchmen"? Trust me, David, you wouldn't want to hire me as a henchman. My rates are very high.
Edit: BTW, I'm just as averse as Todd to most of today's electronically processed popular music.
Edits: 11/13/14
"Telling people to burn in hell? Accusing them of being part of a conspiracy to destroy music? Calling them deceitful? Calling them 'henchmen'?"What warrants starting a thread, with a person's name in the title? This was an blatant attempt to instigate and intimidate someone over a comment about Auto-Tune. So the above responses are very warranted.
You condone the instigation, then whine about the retaliation. That's the trait of a coward.
Too often, people run away from bullies.... They ought be confronted, to where the bullies themselves get very, very upset. Over the very things they happen to perpetrate. For they should never get away with dictating what people can or cannot say.
Edits: 11/13/14
I'm sorry, Todd, but when others politely disagree with your endlessly repeated conspiracy theories, you call this "bullying" or an attempt to silence you. Trust me, nobody thinks they can silence you.
What's worse, you respond with personal attacks and accusations, and name-calling, and even "threats" to increase your Auto-Tune posts, as if you are intimidating anyone.
Well, you can continue on with this stuff. Like you, I do not enjoy much of today's electronically processed popular music. The work of T-Pain in general does not interest me. I hope it is a passing fad. But I disagree with your grand conspiracy theory that extends even to classical music. That's all. Call me a coward if you wish, I still disagree, and will continue to say so if I want.
Not a Katy Perry concert, actual live music.
Dave
I've never experienced live music..... Maybe I'll try it someday.
Now I need to sell my Katy Perry tickets.... Any takers?
Your suggestions are very valuable.... Thanks much.
Auto-Tune Goblins!
How many? Don't be vague and make more claims of educated guesses, if you claim this recording - made live in an npr studio and published by npr on their website - has been through "so many" hands, be specific and identify exactly how many.
Dave
It's no use. Though I nominate you for post of the year for mentioning those terrific "tiny desk" concerts that npr has online.
A final thought: Can you imagine what a star rapper like T-Pain would think, after being a good enough sport to show up and sing for some npr show, an appearance that does exactly nothing for his career and for which he was no doubt paid zero, if some npr producer decided to manipulate his performance, with Auto-Tune or anything else? I guess maybe he never bothered to listen to the end result, but you have to think some people around him would have. ;)
Considering that according to the NPR producer the whole point was to have the guy sing *sans* auto-tune, I hardly think NPR surreptitiously added it later. Did you scroll down in the link Dave provided in the OP to see what the producer said? Do you hear auto-tune? I don't.
My point was, there is no possible way that npr, after convincing a star rapper to sing on that show, would f@#k with the end result and then post it on the net. And even I know enough about Auto-Tune, and other such electronic effects, to know they can't make up for bad singing, as Dave says.
T-Pain is obviously a good sport and would probably bust a gut laughing over this thread.
I think he's agreeing that it's a silly suggestion.
Dave
nt
While I wouldn't suggest there is any use from the perspective of having Todd admit that he's full of it, I do think it's worth demonstrating how baseless his claims are for the sake of those that might take him at his word.
I'm not the least bit surprised that T-pain can sing reasonably, as auto-tune is seldom used to hide poor singing. It's a production technique that is a function of aesthetic like reverb, or it's used for a variety of other reasons (the same reasons multiple takes are made, for example). I'm no more a fan of its use than anyone else, but I'm aware of when and why it's used.
Dave
We're criticizing you for making ridiculous claims without knowing what you're talking about. You don't know pitch or what in tune is, and you seem perfectly content with making false claims.
Do you have even one note from Kurt Telling our Barbara Streisand yet? If you had a clue and your claims were valid it wouldn't be hard.
Dave
"We're criticizing you for making ridiculous claims without knowing what you're talking about."
You're criticizing because you don't want the deceit to be exposed as such..... The very clip you linked is a blatant example of this deceit.
I suggest you contact npr with your accusations.
Dave
. . . I don't think it's necessary to be able to point to each and every (unprocessed) note and state whether it's flat or sharp in order to be able to tell whether autotune is being used. My beef with Todd is that he asserts that the tool has been used many times in classical music - which in most cases is an impossibility, given the way that classical is recorded (i.e., no isolation chambers, no multi-track isolation - there's always spillover of the sound even if the recording is made with a lot of directional microphones.)
The identification of flat or sharp has to do with his assertion that Barbara Streisand and Kurt Elling sing "off-key". It does relate to the auto-tune in that he has in the past identified auto-tune being used in cases where pitch is off slightly, but it's more about his general claim as an authority on all things pitch and assertions about the abilities of various singers and that auto-tune is used to compensate for their inability to sing in-tune.
Dave
"It does relate to the auto-tune in that he has in the past identified auto-tune being used in cases where pitch is off slightly"
That does not mean Auto-Tune wasn't being used.... When Auto-Tune isn't being used, there is a **total** absence of the vocal pitch "locking" on the notes. It is impossible for a singer to lock on notes with his/her natural voice, no matter how hard he or she tries.
Depending on how the app is set up, some flat or sharp stuff might pass through, but the locking-effect on the notes is what makes Auto-Tune easy to discern.
"It is impossible for a singer to lock on notes with his/her natural voice, no matter how hard he or she tries."
That is beyond absurd, but it certainly explains your position.
Dave
I also think if you ran a spectrum analyzer to capture cumulative frequency content of a music clip, you'd see thin "spikes" at the exact chromatic frequencies with an Auto-Tuned track, and the absence of them (just "blunt bumps") with a non-Auto Tuned track. (The intensity of the spikes would indicate how much the app was applied.) This might be an objective method for determining whether or not a clip is Auto-Tuned.
A much easier way would be to determine if the notes are consistently in-tune, and in the case of singing to be familiar enough with singing to know that people are capable of singing a steady pitch without the aid of auto tune.
Dave
"A much easier way would be to determine if the notes are consistently in-tune, and in the case of singing to be familiar enough with singing to know that people are capable of singing a steady pitch without the aid of auto tune."
This is maybe the crux of the disagreement. Auto-tuned clips *can* contain out-of-tune components. The key is the *locking* on the notes, which is totally absent when the app is not applied.
I've stated in the past, Elton John is a very pitch-accurate singer. But I don't hear any "locking effect" in his "The Diving Board" album.... There is some belief that a pitch accurate singer would be difficult to distinguish from an Auto-Tuned one, but it's rather easy..... A lot easier than to distinguish one Auto-Tuned singer from another.
"This is maybe the crux of the disagreement. Auto-tuned clips *can* contain out-of-tune components. The key is the *locking* on the notes, which is totally absent when the app is not applied."
First of all, this is not the crux of the disagreement. The crux of the disagreement is that your claims about auto-tune are baseless, they are entirely based on your "best guess". That is a fact, not an opinion.
Secondly, auto-tune does not leave notes out of tune when applied, that's the whole point. It can be set to engage in different ways, but if a note is not perfectly in tune, it is not being processed by auto-tune, period.
Thirdly, what you call "locking" on the notes is a steady pitch without vibrato. Yes of course something that is auto-tuned sounds like that. But most singers don't use vibrato on every note and most are capable of holding a steady pitch, which also sounds like that.
"I've stated in the past, Elton John is a very pitch-accurate singer. But I don't hear any "locking effect" in his "The Diving Board" album.... There is some belief that a pitch accurate singer would be difficult to distinguish from an Auto-Tuned one, but it's rather easy..... A lot easier than to distinguish one Auto-Tuned singer from another."
No human is pitch-accurate in the way that auto-tune is. That is why pitch-correction affects any recording it is applied to whether a good singer or bad (to keep it on singers). That is also why it may be used on a recording of someone with excellent pitch, and why its use is not a reflection of someone's abilities.
Dave
"First of all, this is not the crux of the disagreement. The crux of the disagreement is that your claims about auto-tune are baseless, they are entirely based on your 'best guess'. That is a fact, not an opinion."
So if I hear an oboe, and call it an oboe, someone who thinks is a trumpet can call it a "baseless" claim?
Now I might actually be hearing a trumpet and calling it an oboe. But the proper response is not that I stated a baseless claim. But simply, "no, you're hearing a trumpet."
The problem is you have an opinion that you want to be fact..... And you want it to be fact real, real bad.... But have nothing to support to make it factual.
And you've used this tactic to shout down any negative opinion on Auto-Tune, of all things. Why Auto-Tune?? (I've never had any problem with you regarding any other subject.)
(There was once a poster here with the moniker Rob. He was this way with negative opinions of classical performers that he happened to like.)
I'm totally OK with your opinion, but don't go around claiming that someone who states a differing opinion as "baseless". It's arrogant.
"Secondly, auto-tune does not leave notes out of tune when applied"
You *think* Auto-Tune does not leave notes out of tune when applied. Then how does one know how mild or strong the application is applied?
There are *very* mild cases of the app being applied with recent Barbra Streisand, for example. Streisand might be the one rare case where I actually prefer the singer with Auto-Tune applied. In the way that it's applied. (Had it been applied this mild on some Sinatra remasters, I might not have noticed it.)
"that's the whole point. It can be set to engage in different ways, but if a note is not perfectly in tune, it is not being processed by auto-tune, period."
I think you meant to say "if a note is perfectly in tune".... I think the app may or may not, depending on setting.
"Thirdly, what you call 'locking' on the notes is a steady pitch without vibrato."
I've never called it that.... The notes are not locked all the time . But it's obvious when it does lock. One's voice can glide from flat to sharp, but with Auto-Tune, there is a moment during that glide that locks on the pitch. (This is what I believe is going on in that T-Pain clip you linked.)
Since Auto-Tune does pass vibrato, that alone refutes your claim that no out-of-tune information gets passed through.
"Yes of course something that is auto-tuned sounds like that. But most singers don't use vibrato on every note and most are capable of holding a steady pitch, which also sounds like that."
OK.....
" I've stated in the past, Elton John is a very pitch-accurate singer. But I don't hear any "locking effect" in his "The Diving Board" album.... There is some belief that a pitch accurate singer would be difficult to distinguish from an Auto-Tuned one, but it's rather easy..... A lot easier than to distinguish one Auto-Tuned singer from another.
No human is pitch-accurate in the way that auto-tune is."
Very true.... But that contradicts your "capable of holding a steady pitch" comment earlier... In the context of mistaking it for Auto-Tune.
This is why one can tell whenever Auto-Tune is applied to Elton John. (Roughly a third of the clips on You-Tube.) Or any pitch-accurate singer.
"That is why pitch-correction affects any recording it is applied to whether a good singer or bad (to keep it on singers)."
Agreed....
The problem is while it inflates a poor singer, it diminishes a good one. (Many producers fail to realize the latter part.) An artifact of Auto-Tune is transforming a singer's unique tonal signature into a generic one.
"That is also why it may be used on a recording of someone with excellent pitch, and why its use is not a reflection of someone's abilities."
There are a lot of recent singers I've never heard without Auto-Tune. (Michael Buble, for one.) I really don't know how good they are.
The question is why would someone want to apply the app on a good singer? (Maybe the producer thinks it would still enhance the singer and the listeners would never notice it. If so, I think he's wrong in both parts.) It just destroys the qualities of the singer.
Todd I'm not going to bother to continue to discuss this with you, most of the above is factually incorrect, you simply don't understand what it is or how it works.
Again, the issue is that you are making false claims and continue to do so.
Dave
"Todd I'm not going to bother to continue to discuss this with you, most of the above is factually incorrect, you simply don't understand what it is or how it works.
"Again, the issue is that you are making false claims and continue to do so."
Why are you so f**king concerned over "false claims" about Auto-Tune? Are you a truth crusader? Trying to save the world from misconceptions about it? Or are you a shill for the product?
For the same reason that you are so unconcerned about making false claims.
Dave
And Barbra Streisand was a star singer long before auto-tune or anything digital. As I said above, it's no use. ;)
Her name should NOT be used in the same sentence with Kurt Elling! ;-)
Kurt Elling.
-Wendell
You and I have had disagreements, and it has never gone past that.
"We're criticizing you for making ridiculous claims without knowing what you're talking about."
From a person who obviously doesn't know how to listen, I take this as a compliment.
You keep trying to divert the subject..... Do you have any idea how Auto-Tune sounds like?
"You keep trying to divert the subject..... Do you have any idea how Auto-Tune sounds like?"
Yes of course, I record regularly.
Dave
"Yes of course, I record regularly."
If you knew how Auto-Tune sounded like, you wouldn't have posted that link at the top of the thread. It's so blatant, anybody who thinks it doesn't have Auto-Tune has no business being in the recording profession.
If it's a blatant example of anything, it's the absurdity of your claims. Go ahead, contact the producers at NPR.
In the mean time, demonstrate your credibility, identify one note.
Dave
"In the mean time, demonstrate your credibility, identify one note."
My credibility to you doesn't concern me at all. You keep trying to make the subject about me, but I don't care.
If you honestly believe that clip is *not* Auto-Tuned, there's no hope for you. I just find it unfathomable that someone in the recording profession doesn't hear it. (The only thing I can speculate is you've gotten so used to it, it now sounds "natural" to you.) From my perspective, it's like hearing an oboe, and someone else trying to convince me it's a trumpet.
But since the Auto-Tune on that clip is so blatant, I'm suspicious that you cannot hear it. This is why I wonder if your objective is to not let the deceit get exposed. For if I thought a singer didn't use Auto-Tune and someone else thought that the singer did (this has happened, if you'd believe), the worst thing I'd ever say is "I don't hear it. But to each his own."
David Smith happens to be a talented, well trained, experienced professional musician. As is Rick_W. As is vinylphanatic. As are a number of other posters at AA. Feel free to disagree with them, as I sometimes do on certain issues, but their failure to agree with you is not cause for you to insult them or challenge their integrity. It really lowers the standards of this forum and discourages them from contributing.
Are there pop stars who use auto tune to hide poor intonation? Maybe so. But competition in the music business is so intense, it would be very hard for anyone who can't sing in tune to get by, no matter how heavily processed the final product is. When I hear a pop star sing a cappella, I'm nearly always very impressed. Justin Timberlake and Queen Latifah are two I can name off the top of my head. T-Pain is now another.
A gorgeous woman who lisps will never make it in Hollywood, even as a B movie starlet. There are just too many gorgeous women competing for those parts who speak well. Same thing. So, calm down.
That's the question! ;-)
With how he's gone after me for merely pointing out the use of Auto-Tune, I'd say most definitely.
David strikes me as one of those recording producers who may have presumed that mild applications of Auto-Tune would never be noticed by anyone. But became alarmed that someone has noticed. For I find no reason to repeatedly and fanatically go after people for merely pointing out its use.
Dave didn't "go after you", as you put it, for "merely pointing out the use of Auto-Tune". He asked you to listen to some singing by the rapper T-Pain, a known user of Auto-Tune, in an online performance on npr's site in which he expressly acknowledged that Auto-Tune was not being used, and identify where his singing is out of tune.
Of course, you did not have to respond. But you did respond, saying that you could hear that this npr performance had in fact been modified by Auto-Tune, possibly by npr's producers without T-Pain's knowledge.
Do I have that pretty much right? Because if so, your position is ridiculous. First, ime significant use of Auto-Tune tends to have an audible effect, making voices sound artificial and robotic. There is no trace of that in T-Pain's npr performance. Second, it is beyond implausible that anyone at npr would do this without T-Pain's permission, or that he would allow it if asked, after he explicitly told the world it was being done without Auto-Tune.
Earlier you said that a Dudamel performance of a Beethoven symphony was identical to an earlier one by Szell. I listened to them both, and that is also ridiculous. They are different.
I also listend to some remastered Frank Sinatra on youtube that also has no trace of Auto-Tune, though one selection did have some awful artificial reverb that may or may not have been in the original.
Your paranoia has apparently overwhelmed your sense of hearing.
"Earlier you said that a Dudamel performance of a Beethoven symphony was identical to an earlier one by Szell."
I didn't say that. I said that the recording originated from the Szell recording, and then doctored and time-stretched/compressed. (I wouldn't call it a "performance".)
For what it's worth, here are two tracks of the final movement from the two recordings in question.... One of them time stretched to match the other. The same orchestra/conductor recording the same piece twice in succession wouldn't even produce tracks that look this close.... (The tracks from the third movement look completely different, by the way.)
I've been pitch-corrected lots of times. I'm doubtful many things I've recorded have had the entire track (of me) passed through auto-tune, but I can think of one where that is quite possible. I've never used it on my own recordings, not what I'm into.Dave
Edits: 11/09/14
d
"David Smith happens to be a talented, well trained, experienced professional musician."
I have no opinion of him as a musician.... (With his attitude, I wouldn't be interested in his music. Even if it might otherwise be good.) But as a listener, he doesn't impress me at all.
"As is Rick_W. As is vinylphanatic. As are a number of other posters at AA."
Why are you bringing others into this?
"Feel free to disagree with them, as I sometimes do on certain issues, but their failure to agree with you is not cause for you to insult them or challenge their integrity."
It's about time David Smith's integrity was challenged.
The problem isn't even disagreement. The problem is whenever someone brings up Auto-Tune (it doesn't matter if it's me or someone else), he goes after them as if he wants them silenced.
"It really lowers the standards of this forum and discourages them from contributing."
Do you think the response to my Beethoven First Concerto post raises them? Who are you do judge?
"Are there pop stars who use auto tune to hide poor intonation? Maybe so. But competition in the music business is so intense, it would be very hard for anyone who can't sing in tune to get by, no matter how heavily processed the final product is."
We'll live in disagreement here.... If the singers can sing, what's the point in Auto-Tuning them??
I think half the problem is the producers believing the consumers won't notice it. This is why some recent remastered recordings of Frank Sinatra and other legendary singers have had it applied. But what you people cannot accept is the notion that the consumers not only notice it, but think it's an absolute abomination.
"The problem isn't even disagreement. The problem is whenever someone brings up Auto-Tune (it doesn't matter if it's me or someone else), he goes after them as if he wants them silenced."
Nope, just baseless claims like yours. I know full well that it's used and how it's used, after all this is hardly news. But your lack of understanding on the topic is such that you ask questions like "If the singers can sing, what's the point in Auto-Tuning them?".
You might answer that question by telling us if Frank Sinatra "could sing". Yes or no?
Say what you will about me, I certainly don't care, but you have yet to identify one "off-key" note from people you accuse of "needing" auto-tune. Your claims are factually baseless.
Dave
"You might answer that question by telling us if Frank Sinatra "could sing". Yes or no?"
Are you suggesting that he was always on key? Never flat never sharp?
"Are you suggesting that he was always on key? Never flat never sharp?"
Sinatra was not the most on-key singer I've heard, but good enough in that regard to where any enhancement would do far more harm than good.
This is the case with all truly great singers. While Auto-Tune will make a mediocre singer sound decent, it will also diminish a great singer.
Elton John was one of the most on-key singers I've ever encountered..... Julie Andrews was another such singer. But even with singers who are great with pitch, I never hear the "locking effect" that's the dead ringer for Auto-Tune.
"You might answer that question by telling us if Frank Sinatra 'could sing'. Yes or no?"
So you believe that someone noticing Auto-Tune on Sinatra remastered recordings somehow implies that he thinks Sinatra can't sing?
Has it ever come across your little mind that I just want to hear Sinatra unadulterated?
It is sad that some others here have taken your side. Very sad.
I hope the moderators delete this entire thread.
"So you believe that someone noticing Auto-Tune on Sinatra remastered recordings somehow implies that he thinks Sinatra can't sing?"
No, that's your claim, from the post directly above, remember?
Dave
"No, that's your claim, from the post directly above, remember?"
This is what I stated.
I think half the problem is the producers believing the consumers won't notice it. This is why some recent remastered recordings of Frank Sinatra and other legendary singers have had it applied. But what you people cannot accept is the notion that the consumers not only notice it, but think it's an absolute abomination.
How does this imply that I think Sinatra can't sing?
nt
I originally bought the remastered "jewel box" version from Amazon.com. A lot of tracks on this particular disc have Auto-Tune applied. (The other 3 discs seem to be fine.) Track 6 in particular. Made me depressed....
I later got the "tall book" version of the set. Off eBay. Disc 3, including Track 6, was devoid of Auto-Tune in the "tall book" set. I've demonstrated the difference to several people, who were dumbfounded as much as I was.
There is also some Eva Cassidy CDs with and without. Don't remember the details, but will provide this later.
Sinatra unadulterated is music heaven. I can recommend the "tall book" version of "The Columbia Years" to anyone.
I'll leave it to anybody who is interested to listen for themselves - "Day By Day" is the 6th track on the third disc. Obviously just listening to the smidgen Amazon provides is far from definitive, but its the best I can do since I don't own the discs.
Hmm, didn't realize Eva Cassidy was "legendary".
"I'll leave it to anybody who is interested to listen for themselves - 'Day By Day' is the 6th track on the third disc"
You've brought up a different set.
Track 6 on Disc 3 is titled "You're My Girl".
There is only one upload of this track on YouTube.... It's the non-Auto Tuned version.
nt
Don't bother, Rick. If he honestly thinks the Dudamel/SBYO Beethoven 7th on DGG is a doctored version of the Cleveland/Szell performance on Sony, there is no point in discussing any of this with him. I could discuss that one at length an in detail, but it would be pointless. Thanks again for reminding me of it. I just don't like seeing people's integrity attacked, but Dave can take care of himself, so I'm outta here. ;)
You should campaign to the moderators to delete my response to Rick........
I was curious to see if Todd could mention any specific remasters because the idea of auto-tuning old recordings by singers like Sinatra seemed utterly absurd to me. I look forward to Todd's warning about the auto-tuned remasters of Oistrakh.
"If the singers can sing, what's the point in Auto-Tuning them??"
If the singers can sing, what's the point in Auto-Tuning them??
This paragraph is totally removed from the Sinatra comment.
What I was saying there is if the Auto-Tuned singers of today could really sing, what's the point in using it? It's as if the producers don't want consumers to know whether or not they could sing. And that raises flags. And what does this have to do with Sinatra?
The following paragraph was speculation on why producers use the app so much. To where they would apply it regardless of how good the singers were. Thinking that nobody would notice.
If this confused you, I apologize. But I think you knew what I stated and wanted to spin it as something else.
"What I was saying there is if the Auto-Tuned singers of today could really sing, what's the point in using it? It's as if the producers don't want consumers to know whether or not they could sing. And that raises flags. And what does this have to do with Sinatra?"
I don't think this is that difficult. If there is no point in using it but to compensate for the ability to "really sing" as you suggest, how does that square with it being used on Sinatra unless your claim is that he couldn't sing either?
Dave
"I don't think this is that difficult. If there is no point in using it but to compensate for the ability to 'really sing' as you suggest, how does that square with it being used on Sinatra unless your claim is that he couldn't sing either?"
In case you didn't know, David, changing the context of what someone says, expressly to project an impression that the person stated something different from what he actually said, is also a form of deceit. Willful deceit. Deceit of the worst kind. I'm not going to let you get away with that.
The only thing you've accomplished here, David, was showcase what an absolute jerk you really are.
Spare the grandiose commentary, simply clarify what you meant if you feel I've misrepresented it.
You seem to think auto tune is used to compensate for a singing deficiency. Am I correct? If not, clarify what you said because that's how it reads.
You claim it's been used on recordings of Frank Sinatra. Do you think Sinatra had singing deficiencies compensated for with auto tune?
That's it, simple enough to clear up.
Dave
He did clarify it. You are being a dick...again. Try making an honest argument without being a dick for a change. Let's see you make an actual point rather than an attack on Todd. Good luck....
The thread has exposed David Smith for who he is.... Same goes for Rick W and rbolaw.
If someone cited what I thought was a genuine artist for using Auto-Tune or other trickery, the worst thing I would ever say is, "I don't hear it, so we'll peacefully live in disagreement here." And move on.
I think we were "exposed" long ago during your classic Dudamel episode.
Todd, you're getting funnier and funnier. I especially enjoyed the "henchmen" bit :-)
"To those of you who want to ridicule anyone who dare criticizes Auto-Tune or performers who use it in a deceitful manner. (Like on the linked clip. It is sans Auto-Tune like the Pope is Mexican.)
As far as I'm concerned, you've been complicit in the decline of the art of music, and the decline of quality sound reproduction. And you ought to burn in Hell."
You forgot the "peacefully living in disagreement" while you were typing the "burn in hell", and you certainly forgot the moving on part as well.
Dave
"You forgot the 'peacefully living in disagreement' while you were typing the 'burn in hell', and you certainly forgot the moving on part as well......"This wasn't disagreement. This was slamming you for trying to bully and stalk whoever states something you don't like. If I made a mistake, it wasn't slamming you hard enough.
When you start a disparaging thread with a fellow poster's name in the title, that isn't disagreement. That is bullying. That is intimidation. Especially having henchmen pile on in the process. This is something that I've never done in 13 years on AA, and something that I'd never do.
To be honest with you, I don't even know what your mission here is.... Aside from wanting to silence anyone who dare points out of the use of Auto-Tune or other trickery in music production. But I will continue to criticize the use Auto-Tune, especially in a deceitful manner. Whether you like it or not.
I've kind of refrained pointing out Auto-Tune the past couple years.... Maybe I'll turn it back up a few notches.
Edits: 11/11/14
OK. I will continue to point out when your comments are baseless. If asking you to identify/support your claims is "bullying" to you, oh well.
Dave
"OK. I will continue to point out when your comments are baseless."
Hey David.... If someone's comments about Auto-Tune are "baseless", what's your motivation to be so disparaging as to start a whole new thread over this, with that person's name in title? You repeatedly go on a personal vendetta whenever someone points out the use of it. It's as if Auto-Tune is your livelihood.
"If asking you to identify/support your claims is 'bullying' to you, oh well."
You're not just a bully, but a pathological bully. You do it so often, you don't even realize you're doing it.
You can always spot it but, David does not recognize it when he is bullying, and artist don't recognize it when Auto-Tune is applied!
It's no surprise you would fail to differentiate between "ridicule" and "peaceful disagreement."
"You claim it's been used on recordings of Frank Sinatra. Do you think Sinatra had singing deficiencies compensated for with auto tune?"
No, David, Sinatra's singing qualities were destroyed by the application. Destroyed. I've actually purchased older releases of his recordings, just so I can enjoy Sinatra in an unadulterated state.
Auto-Tune does not enhance great singers, it ruins them.
Why the producers applied Auto-Tune on Sinatra and other greats, I have no clue. I cannot speak for them. But I find the application on truly great singers a total abomination.
So you agree auto-tune can be used for reasons other than compensating for singing deficiencies, is that right or an I "willfully misrepresenting" your comments?
Dave
Maybe if you shed more you could throw away that auto-tune gadget you used at Smalls, and I wouldn't have to start my campaign.
DAMN that Sinatra. I always suspected.
until Todd hipped me to auto-auto-tune, I realized it was all entirely unnecessary. I've also been able to save my students lots of time by referring them to auto-tune from the first lesson. No need for lesson two.
Dave
One of my favorite world artists.
Many major names in those tiny desk concerts. Great concept. T-Pain was wonderful, even in a musical style that usually isn't a favorite of mine.
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: