|
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: You know what? posted by David Smith on November 09, 2014 at 12:11:07
"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.
Follow Ups:
"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: