|
Home
/ FAQ
/ News Classifieds / Events |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer |
Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
66.140.46.178
In Reply to: RE: Well, I've done a bit of research on pitch-corrected software and look at it like any technological change. posted by Todd Krieger on July 01, 2009 at 21:42:12
>>> " And therein lies the problem...... The same excuse is used for "loudness wars"....... Hence both applications continue in spite of the scorn." <<<
Apple (software) and Orange (amplifiers), AFAIC. There is a difference between how a musician's voice is recorded and compression added in the mastering process to punch-up the volume for mass consumption. The two concepts aren't interchangeable.
>>> "During Springsteen's Super Bowl gig, which most of it was lip-sync'ed, someone brought up the lip-sync'ing, and I then said better that than pitch correction." <<<
And here we really part company: lip syncing is more egregious by far than pitch correction, IMO. At least with pitch-correction you are hearing a live performance.
While I completely sympathize with your POV, I think each case should be taken on merit. As you so eloquently pointed out you've already made an exception with Barbara Streisand, so maybe there's some wiggle-room for other artist's as well! :o)
AuPh
In my humble opinion....... I think if they at large found out what I found out a little over two years ago, there would be outrage that would make the Milli Vanilli incident seem tame by comparison.
And I'll live with the disagreement. I'd rather hear someone lip-sync'ing using a recording of his natural voice than via a live feed that is pitch-corrected.
> > > "In my humble opinion....... I think if they at large found out what I found out a little over two years ago, there would be outrage that would make the Milli Vanilli incident seem tame by comparison." < < <
Not by a long shot. At least with pitch correction you are hearing the artist, even if the sound of the vocal is altered in some manner. Substitution of voice, whether it's sync'd from a studio record or provided by alternative voices behind a curtain is fake. IOW, I'd rather have my recollection of a live performance relatively intact, even if enriched electronically, than to be deceived by any substitution by hidden performers or voice recordings.
> > > "And I'll live with the disagreement. I'd rather hear someone lip-sync'ing using a recording of his natural voice than via a live feed that is pitch-corrected." < < <
You're right, we'll just have to agree to live with the disagreement I guess.
AuPh
If you were to listen to an audio track of a known singer who is pitch-corrected to a moderate degree (typical for what's done in modern pop music), doing a song you've never heard the singer do before, and the singer's name was *not* disclosed, I think you'd have a hard time recognizing who was singing the song. Even if it turns out to be your favorite singer....... (Unless if it was Geddy Lee, Ozzy Osbourne, Willy Nelson, or someone so distinctive in his tone.)Or......
If a familiar singer who is normally pitch-corrected in a live feed lip-sync'ed to a recording of a **different** pitch-corrected singer, you'd probably notice the lip-sync'ing, but you would not necessarily realize it was a different singer's voice. (But that other singer must also be pitch-corrected.)
Edits: 07/02/09 07/02/09
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Go Green ]
[ Take5 ]