|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.208.20.231
In Reply to: RE: To Those of You.......... posted by David Smith on November 09, 2014 at 10:09:28
"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."
Follow Ups:
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
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: