|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.139.62.200
I've seen her perform on TV twice. Both times, especially the Grammys, she looked and sounded like one of those American Idol "Auditions From Hell".
She cannot sing on pitch to save her soul (if she has one) and she sounds like a reject from Laverne & Shirley. I do not get her appeal other than her druggy/bad girl persona. And her as Billie Holiday? As she sings in "Rehab", Nooo..no.no.
The Grammys have been going downhill faster than the Oscars. If she is the best of the best (save for Herbie), American pop is in a sad state.
Can someone 'splain Ms. Winehouse, please?
Follow Ups:
I have taken the time to listen to a number of the songs posted in this thread. Sorry, I don't hear the "Autotune" effect in any of the Amy Whitehouse recordings. To me, at least, the auto tune programs seems to limit the tonal changes to half tone steps, no flats or sharps, the warble effect from autotune seems to come when the tonal drift is enough to cause a shift up or down to the next note. When you listen to Amy, you hear a range between the notes, like bending a string on a guitar. The vibrato in her voice seems to be natural, something most singers are very capable of. In fact Aaron Neville can do some really remarkable things with his voice, and has been able to do them long before Autotune was available. I think that some folks are confusing effect processing of any kind as evidence that autotune is in use. Producers have used effects in vocal recordings for years, Phase shifters, voice through Leslie tremelos, ...etc. Just because an effect is used doesn't make the singer less talented. Oh, by the way, I really could not hear any evidence of Autotune on the violin duet.
I ordered the CD...... Call me a sucker......
No you're not a sucker. Get both her CDs. It seems that the US readers have only heard of her second album "Back to Black". Amy's debut album "Frank" is just as good. It features some wonderful tracks including Amy, Amy, Amy.
Until very recently Amy was completely unknown in US despite my attempt to bring her to the attention of AA inmates in January last year!
Couldn't resist.
This is one of few times I've gone against my own judgment, and gone with consensus..... If it turns out to what I think it's going to be (based on auditioning a lot of samples), I **am** a sucker..... I'm going on faith of the AA consensus (which has uncharacteristically agreed with mainstream consensus on this one), and people screaming at me that it's actually a good album and I'm closed-minded......
In case I don't like it, I also ordered a Louis Armstrong CD..... I cannot think of one thing he ever did that I didn't like.......
Amy W. isn't my cup of tea either. Although I do appreciate that she doesn't sound like another American Idol or Disney knock-off.
Hey I took a chance a few years ago with a recommendation from my nephew for a group called Cold Play. I became a fan.
By the way, I agree, Louis did no wrong.
"Hey I took a chance a few years ago with a recommendation from my nephew for a group called Cold Play. I became a fan."
Aside from Aleks Syntek and Porcupine Tree, Coldplay is my favorite rock act that has come out since 1990.
I heard her cd and was very impressed with the music and her voice.
Most women would kill to have a voice like that and her talent.
I dont care for the antics that she pulls on stage. If she ever gets
to the stage of maturing as a person she will be a dynamite performer
Remember "These Boots Are Made For Walking" by Nancy S.? Remember "Walk On The Wild Side" by Lou R.? Niether one of those artists have a classically great voice. Everyone thought modern society was degenerating and judgment day was upon us when that music was released.
Sometimes pop music requires an open mind and a sense of humor.
"'These Boots Are Made For Walking' by Nancy S.?"
The problem is unlike Nancy S., what is called "Amy Winehouse" is in actuality a makeover by Microsoft Windows, Pro Tools, and Antares Auto Tune...... If we were able to take that away, only then could one really give a fair assessment of Amy Winehouse.
(And the last time I checked, Microsoft Windows, Pro Tools, and Antares Auto Tune weren't around when Nancy S. released her legendary song.)
as I finally heard this CD yesterday and was VERY impressed with it.Her style is honest and sincere, pure emotion. The Dap-Kings and arrangements are right in the groove.
Stylistically she shares NOTHING with Billie Holiday (well, only as much as ANY female "pop" vocalist post WWll owes to BH) so whoever said that is clueless and REALLY stretching.
I'm hearing a bit o' Betty Lavette, maybe a funkier Bonnie Bramlett, some Betty Davis... Whatever- she's got a helluva voice and style and I hope she survives her current troubles to keep making such fine music.
"Back to Black" is a far more pleasant musical experience than I ever thought it would have been!
BTW: the Dap-Kings also shine with the equally talented, but seriously overlooked Sharon Jones, who, despite her great talent doesn't seem to be plagued with the demons of Mz. Winehouse and thusly hasn't received nearly the amount of "press".
"...You're all welcome to stay for the next set...we're going to play all the same tunes, but in different keys..." -Count Basie
I link to posts in this thread, and I have to keep editing the links..... They don't automatically move with the thread.
I have actually seen her perform live, and she is a very talented singer, more than capable of staying on pitch. To dismiss her as talentless after seeing a couple of TV performances is a little premature. "Back To Black" is a very solid R&B record, full of great songs, performed by superb musicians. It's easy to get caught up in all the tabloid hysteria regarding her extra curricular activities, but from what I've seen, she is the real deal.
I saw a concert of hers on telly a few days ago - I can see how she'd be good live. Bloody entertaining. I just wish they'd stop hammering us with the rehab song on the radio. When they get hold of something like that over here, they play it to death.
I gotta say, I'd rather hear her than that daughter of Ravi Shankar - wassername.
her retro quasi- Motown/R&B/50's R&R (think Buddy Holly) sound has anything to do with Hip Hop.
Anyway it's not bad, pretty good in fact. However to the fellow who made the Billie Holiday reference I certainly hope you were joking, if not you're more out of it than the fellow who moved the thread to Hip Hop!
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
I am the one that made the Billie Holiday ref. and I stand by it.
Let me explain first where I come from. First I do not like pop music in general. My main interest is female jazz singers I have nearly 300 different ones in my cd collection.
The first time I heard Amy I dismissed her completely but having been exposed to her quite a lot lately I started too appreciate her much more and from all the pop singers I've heard she is the most original and
do sing with an emotion and a feel like very few are capable of.
This is not acted, or planned, she is genuine, she sings from the heart and from the gut.
I think she has fabulous time and rhythm. She's not laying down* the time with her singing, not *stating* it but she doesn't have to, and can let go of that function and let her band do it, which to my ear is a higher-order sense of time. She's creating counter-rhythms to what they're doing and, I think, swings like crazy.
This to my mind is very rare, very few singer have this sense of rythm.
As far as her voice Amy has "a sound" you cannot mistake her for anybody else, and sure sometime she is a little out, but this is what makes
her singing interesting.
Billie did not have a great voice, but like Amy had those very special qualities.
I won't buy her cd as this is not my type of music, but in her genre
she is something very special.
has more talent, evident in all her work with the possible exception of her most recent major cash grab effort (but I haven't heard the full CD so perhaps there's good stuff on it as well).As far as BH goes her her talent was informed by working with and adopting aspects of some of Jazz's greatest instrumentalist. This shows big time in her work.
With the AW CD (which I addmittedly auditioned under less then perfect conditions) I suspect a lot of the appeal has to do with the obvious pathos, if not blatant sentimentality, related to [glorification of] the rock star death wish fantasy.
In any case with BH there is a huge body of work backing her well deserved reputation, which has also stood the test of time. From that perspective the comparison is premature (at best).
BTW as far as the voice goes I was immediately reminded of Christie Hyde.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
"As far as BH goes her her talent was informed by working with and adopting aspects of some of Jazz's greatest instrumentalist. This shows big time in her work."
Chicken or the Egg? Many instrumentalists also learned from and were influenced by HER. Two way street
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
v
.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Where would you have put it?
æIf the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.
I expect (a least there's a hope) we'll get more comments here.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
.
"You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
They have a new British 'Funk Brothers' thing going on. And her back-up singers put on a great show.
I hope she pulls things together. She has some real soulful chops.
*
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." - Albert Einstein
Many artists fall into this trap, and it is a hard one to escape from, because the trap is also your door of opportunity.
There is no secret as to why so many artists have drug and alcohol problems, creativity comes from the brink of madness, sometimes, we need to walk on the edge to be inspired, especially if we are surrounded by flat plains, with nothing in sight but desolate remains of a life once dreamed.
On the edge we can see everything we need to see to create, it is perspective, the polar opposite of ignorance. It is anything but bliss, but why is it so hard to give it up? Sometimes we feel pressured into a life of endless creation, stress, coming up with something new or die among the other bones scattered about. Sometimes it is just to have the knowledge gained from perching on that rooftop for just a bit longer. Everyone must fall to be able to stand back up.
I went straight years ago, and have not written a song in about as many years. The music is still in my head. I can hear it, but why can I not bring it out into the world? What was it about some chemical compound that made it possible for me to actually express who I was, yet all the while, being who I was not? These things are a paradox.
I am not saying that Amy is a gifted and misunderstood artist, but I do think she is being pushed to keep going, and inside her head she knows what going straight means... the end of a career.
I don't listen to pop music, but I am sure even in that line of work, there is pressure to perform, to recreate what brought success. I hope that she finds a way to cope with life after fame, or she will have to cope with life after death.
If I am correct, she is the UK's answer to Britney Spears, right? Basically... someone that used to sing OK, but now exists only to keep the paps in business?
Your right she is NOT an American
I had never heard her before. Only saw the very end of the Grammy's and caught Herbie Hancock getting the award.
But because of this thread I went to youtube and watched her video of "You Know I'm No Good". I'm not really into singing and Pop music (mostly instrumental Jazz), but gotta say I really enjoyed the song, the delivery, and the instrumentation. If this is where Pop is going now, it's a huge improvement IMO. Her personal life....of course I don't like what I'm hearing there....
I totally agree. I just checked it out for myself and there's certainly something compelling there.
JP
Did the same and just came back with her CD.
Bill.
Ever! It's in really bad shape, same with our TV, all trash, except a few programs.
You can go back to the era before World War 1 and find hair - raising sermons and editorials denouncing ragtime as worthless degenerate music from the jungle and evidence that civilization was doomed. I'm sure that your parents thought the music you liked as a young person was utter crap too.
to Buddy Holly or Elvis, Little Richard or Chuck Berry within earshot of my Dad. Had to hide the records too.
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
The state of contemporary TV is abominable. The scary part is that many intelligent, interesting, nice (for lack of a better word) people watch Reality TV because it satisfies them at some instinctual level (a kind of Lord of the Flies/Heart of Darkness thing). Those of us who rebuke it have stepped back and clearly seen the ugliness. It is social devolution at its' most destructive.
The Visigoths are among us!
IMO, She is more interesting charactor than talent. Time will tell.
.............. inside of a year if she doesn't get off the smack. She injects between her toes, and wears blood stained ballet shoes whenever she goes out in London. Nice.
.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
There's a fair dose of misogyny lurking in those captions and in the ghastly 'knowing' humour of the site, I think. By the standards of London-town in 2008 she looks like just another reveller, despite what our oh-so-concerned tabloid hacks and photo-editors would have us think.
........... and the finest female vocalist since Lady Day. It must be wonderful to live in your fantasy world! I hope she beats it, I hope everybody with a drug problem does, however, I live in the real world. It's bad and getting worse, the observation of so many close to the situation. Maybe she should come and live at your house and you can clean her up.
I don't really follow the modern-day Diva scene much.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
x
JHC, those pictures are just awful! Too bad too, her album is the best and freshest pop that I have heard in a long time.
On one the most dreadful Grammy shows ever in every way ( what with all the by-the-numbers performances and lack of awards given out on tv) Amy Winehouse's performance was easily the most compelling of the night. Only Kanye's performance was close. The rest of the show was a full blown example of the downfall of the music industry.
I have her record and don't love it, it's not my thing. I could not understand the media fascination with her. But on that stage, she showed something all those Idol wannabes are missing. The "IT" factor. She's got it, whatever it is. It isn't just voice, just song selection, just tattoos, just the beehive, the too real drug crap. She can perform. I'm not sure she could carry an arena stage, but she would be a hell of a lot of fun to see in a club.
I'd rather watch that than a tired retread of Natalie Cole's duet with her father, or of Tina singing the same 3 songs she's played on tv for over 25 years, or a time warped version of the Time reprising their one semi-hit from 1984.
I guess you missed Herbie Hancock's performance
One of the most original music talents to come along for quite some time.
Nice to see such recognised by the "industry."
I've seen her live on TV a couple of times and both times she was excellent, but when drugs are involved I've no doubt she would be capable of dying a death onstage too.
Also keep an eye out for new talent 'Duffy' about to release a new album.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
- The recording is good for the car and the ipod. Sounds like crap on my system.
- I have seen her perform on TV or video several times, If she is too straight or too wasted, she sucks. If she is in the sweet spot of her buzz, she is excellent.
to mention a song that will never get airplay....
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell
I listened to all of Back to Black this morning for perhaps the 30th time and still feel it is the best new CD of 2007.In fact the more I hear it, the more I feel it is one of the top 20 CDs in my collection of over 1500.
I wish the sound quality was better.
I wish the artist had better diction (although she talks with such a thick British accent I can barely understand her in the free DVD that came with my CD.
I've previewed her first jazzy CD "Frank" on line, and didn't like it very much.
In the Grammy performance you watched a stoned performer at 4am.
It was shocking and bad. Notes were missed by a mile.My wife and I were still talking about the "performance" the next day because a friend in "Winehouse's condition" came close to dying before entering three weeks of rehab one year ago.
Other live performances I've heard on Utube have slurred words (from alcohol I assume) but notes were not missed.
Feel sorry for this girl -- look at the "before and after crack"
pictures at the link I included.Her husband is in prison.
And she's going downhill fast.
Back to Black lyrics read like a suicide note.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
"I know what I hear" is often an audio fantasyland
I agree about the emotional quality of Back to Black. I find it very moving. I'd take one Amy Winehouse over a hundred Eva Cassidys or Norah Jones'. But that is my taste.--to each his own.
I only wish the sound quality of Back to Black was worthy of the performances that went into it.
It is painful to see such an insecure woman killing herself the way she is.
most of her tattoo's go?
"The best B-3s are A-100s!"
--Old Hammond Proverb
nt
Richard BassNut Greene
"I know what I hear" is often an audio fantasyland
Druggie Death Trip obligatory, embrace the void.
...I saw a YouTube video of her singing (~19 years of age?) prior to being "produced".
She had great potential that seems to have gone to pot, figuratively or literally as you may take it.
I'm sick of these mind bomb personas that present self-destructive behavior as acceptable or bankable -- a real sham(e) and a waste.
"...I saw a YouTube video of her singing (~19 years of age?) prior to being 'produced'."
Do you have the link, by chance? I'd be interested to hear it.
"Do you have the link, by chance? I'd be interested to hear it."
me too!
She can swing...when awake.
It also sounds like it's going through another form of processing as well..... There's some sort of "artifical nasal tone" being applied.
...its back to Dinah Washington for me ;)
I seriously doubt that anybody would go through pitch processing for a TV performance like the one shown. Hey, it's an enjoyable video. I also found her Grammy performance imaginative and a lot of fun, and I didn't find her pitch problematic. Do we put down Billy Holiday because she wasn't always on pitch? No, because musical emotion and a distinctive style are at least as important.
Shame about her drug addiction but unfortunately a goodly number of even the musical geniuses have had similar problems. More than half the jazz greats, from Bird to Jaco to Monk to Billy Holiday. Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Elvis. Sometimes it almost seems that mental illness or drug addiction is the price some great musicians pay for striking out in a new direction. Not that Amy Winehouse is in that category, but she is an original.
...and if she grows, I look forward to a CD of hers someday.
Uh, but wasn't their collaboration released in '06?? Yeah, I think so. I don't get it.
I haven't watched -- or cared about in any way -- the Grammy’s for years. Sad, very sad the state of contemporary music. Let me at those used record stores!! Tons of good music there.
A real snooze who awakens atavistic impulses in many of her fans. A surprisingly ugly and non- supple voice for a "soul singer", and stiff, repititious phrasing that uses the same slightly- behind- the- beat phrasing ploy bar after bar, to mind- numbing effect. And bad intonation. A grating, new- millenium Janis Joplin to remind us that somethings won't change or go away so easily, after all. Oh, but what a story, what style, what a cool rock n roll chick... Clever and slick retro production, however, that, for many, pushes just the right buttons...
.
in her defense, most of the other performers and particularly "divas" on yesterday's show (I exclude most, but not all, of those over 50) could not get two notes straight, were mostly screaming instead of singing (it is obviously trend), with songs/text quality same as toilet paper advertisement, so actually she was one of the better performers.
(IMHO, the the best performance was by Tina Turner, just if we could have shut Beyonce up)
In addition, as noted below Amy writes most of her material.
How she looks, how is she dressed, if she is taking drugs, ..., is irrelevant.
All together, it was very religious evening for me and my wife as we we crossing our harts the whole evening in disbelief what is considered art and artist today.
But, again if you really want to split hair, most of the other "divas" were actually dressed even more trashy than she was, except they paid lot of money on those dresses (probably acceptable because signed by well known names), unlike Amy. And you want to talk about drugs among those being present, that would be long discussion. Than, Amy is thin, most of "divas" on the show had asses bigger than full moon. Some like it one way, some other way.
...she reminds me of Mary Wells or even an early Aretha Franklin in some ways.
She's got soul, dude!
And apparetnly you wouldn't recognize it if it bit you in the ...
Also look out for a debut album by Welsh warbler 'Duffy' this year.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
The Welsh can sing...
Hi Chris,
I'm a bass player in a big R&B horn band, and our singer loves Amy Winehouse. We perform Valerie every single gig, and it's my favorite
song we do now. The band leader sent me two different versions-both excellent. I hear she closes her show with that song exclusively.
-Fish
On a sinking ship, women and rhythm section first. -Jaco Pastorius
...that's one of the few covers she's known for.
It's a Zutons song off their last album.
... then you should rethink.
Whether or not you like her is irrelevant, but I have to ask why you want to jump of this bandwagon and knock her?
I think she's great and so do many people here not fixated on pensioner "rockers".
I really shouldn't bash Amy..... It's not her fault she became a media favorite......
Bash her all you want.
But it makes a little more sense if you do so on the basis that you don't like her music...right?
In other words, bash her music; I'm sure there's a good reason why you don't like it, beyond pitch correction. So, go ahead, bash it.
As opposed to bashing her because people buy tabloids.
Or because of pitch correction.
Or because you bemoan the state of the music business, and the emperor has no clothes, or some such.
I've read some very interesting negative critiques on Amy Winehouse by people who actually stuck to the topic of her music...and so many uninteresting ones that have to do with just about anything but music, but nearly always manage to mention some lazy-ass, gratuitous Billie Holiday comparison (that does nothing but reveal yet another pseudo-critic with a desire to point out the perfectly obvious, except in this case they manage to get it wrong).
Bash away, sez me.
Tell you what, though. I'm sure there's a correlation between pitch correction & songwriting just waiting to emanate from yr keyboard. If you'd be so kind...
"Bash her all you want."As I stated before, the artist isn't really the problem. It's how the art itself is being promoted. And I think it's sickening.
"But it makes a little more sense if you do so on the basis that you don't like her music...right?"
I don't like the sheer phoniness..... The artists are being rendered as pawns in the middle of it. Like that six-year-old on Brit Got Talent, who ultimately lost to Paul Potts.
"In other words, bash her music; I'm sure there's a good reason why you don't like it, beyond pitch correction. So, go ahead, bash it."
The problem is the pitch correction turns the music into garbage. It's destroying the essence of the art. I really don't know how good or bad a lot of these artists really are. It's like I wouldn't be able to judge cyclists who use training wheels, paint artists who use paint-by-number, or swimmers who use kickboards..... (I'm a decent swimmer with a kickboard, I can't even swim without one.)
"As opposed to bashing her because people buy tabloids."
A lot of Who fans buy tabloids.....
"Or because of pitch correction."
See above.
"Or because you bemoan the state of the music business, and the emperor has no clothes, or some such."
Correct.
"I've read some very interesting negative critiques on Amy Winehouse by people who actually stuck to the topic of her music."
I have not heard one performer or performance that used any sort of prefabrication (aside from the Monkees), that has impressed me. Although I admit I was duped into believing Renee Olstead, Celine Dion, and Michael Buble were fabulous singers, before realizing they were all pitch corrected..... (And if you think that's disgusting, it's now being applied to symphonic performances. Check out that youth symphony from Venezuela.)
What's happening is the art is cheapening, being produced in a phony and maybe even fraudulent manner, and people are being duped into believing it's great, mainly because they perceive consensus saying so.
And the media and peers are expecting us to accept it as an "alternative" rather than call it for what it actually is- a decline. I just can't accept that. With pitch correction, I think I'm hearing the same thing, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. With no nuance. With no dynamics. With no soul. With no originality. With no complexity.
I'd rather listen to a singer or musician standing at a street corner. I throw them a lot of change nowadays.
Maybe I've been spoiled. I don't know. I think half the problem is fewer and fewer people are being exposed to what I think is real music. That could very well be the root the problem. The issue is how to rectify that. (This is the single biggest reason why I love YouTube. A lot of real deals that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.)
"and so many uninteresting ones that have to do with just about anything but music, but nearly always manage to mention some lazy-ass, gratuitous Billie Holiday comparison (that does nothing but reveal yet another pseudo-critic with a desire to point out the perfectly obvious, except in this case they manage to get it wrong)."
When the media compares a modern pitch-corrected vocalist to Billie Holiday, they're painting a huge target on both the music and the performer. For some people have gotten so sick of this con job. It insults their intelligence. It insults my intelligence.
"Bash away, sez me."
As if I shouldn't...... But I will. And I don't care if people despise me for saying what I think needs to be said. The emperor has no clothes.
"Tell you what, though. I'm sure there's a correlation between pitch correction & songwriting just waiting to emanate from yr keyboard. If you'd be so kind..."
I think when it comes to songwriting, a good yardstick is simply how much the music is covered by other artists. (Provided the songwriter has exposure in the first place.) Especially those whose genre isn't the same as that of the originator. (I think Nirvana won out in recent time, only because there hasn't been a lot of decent songwriting elsewhere.)
> As I stated before, the artist isn't really the problem. It's how the art itself is being promoted. And I think it's sickening.
Could you give an example? I suspect you are confusing publicity, specifically unsolicited publicity, with promotion. Now, it may be that some publicists believe that any publicity is good publicity, but I would hope we could agree that a person's life is at stake here. I would be curious as to what promotion exactly it is you would be referring to.
> I don't like the sheer phoniness...
Please explain exactly what it is about Amy Winehouse's music you find to be phony? Her work is considered to be largely autobiographical, and, as I have noted elsewhere, she writes or co-writes most of her material, nearly all of it, actually. What's phony about someone writing about their own life and experience & feelings & thoughts?
> Like that six-year-old on Brit Got Talent, who ultimately lost to Paul Potts.
I'm not sure what that has to do with Amy Winehouse.
> The problem is the pitch correction turns the music into garbage.
Disagree; like any tool, it can turn the music into garbage, but that's in the eye of the beholder. Right?
> It's destroying the essence of the art. I really don't know how good or bad a lot of these artists really are. It's like I wouldn't be able to judge cyclists who use training wheels, paint artists who use paint-by-number, or swimmers who use kickboards...
Maybe you'd be better off worrying a little less about judging the artists until you can determine whether or not you like the music? As you noted elsewhere, you're now down on artists you previously touted with great vigor here, while you have stopped bashing artists you had problems with previously. Yet you also said, not that long ago, that too much emphasis on chops distorts an evaluation of the creativity (actually, you were agreeing with a point I made in a thread where I was countering an attack on John Coltrane).
> I have not heard one performer or performance that used any sort of prefabrication (aside from the Monkees), that has impressed me.
Would you consider bringing in session musicians to replace band members--such as what was done with the Monkees--to be a form of prefabrication? I'm not talking about players playing instruments not included in the bands' lineups, I'm talking about players being replaced because labels or producers did not have faith in the abilities of the band members. That would include the Beatles, though Ringo being replaced on one single track in 1962 is, I would submit, rather trivial; however, it would also include many records that Jimmy Page worked on in the mid-60s, including, allegedly, early Kinks singles, and others, though I can't recall any other names off the top of my head. However, I have read in a few places that that sort of thing was considered to be standard practice. And I've seen that levied at the Who, as well, though I don't know whether or not that's valid.
> Although I admit I was duped into believing Renee Olstead, Celine Dion, and Michael Buble were fabulous singers, before realizing they were all pitch corrected...
I'd suggest that perhaps what actually happened was that you convinced yrself of their abilities based on you actually liking their music, which ultimately should mean more, I would hope, than what anyone thinks of their abilities. We've spent years going around & around on stuff like this, and I think a large part of it has to do with evaluating music based on the abilities of the performers without regard for the music itself. Way too much emphasis is placed on ability, far too little on creativity, a point which you agreed in the aforementioned Coltrane thread.
> What's happening is the art is cheapening, being produced in a phony and maybe even fraudulent manner, and people are being duped into believing it's great, mainly because they perceive consensus saying so.
People can be brainwashed, sure, but ultimately I think usually they like what they like. Meanwhile...fraudulent? That's a BS charge. What's being represented that's not true and could be actionable in a court of law? Am I missing something here? If pitch correction is fraudulent, then so is just about any other effect placed on any other recordable entity. Reverb, in this context, produces a 'fraudulent' result. So does a distortion pedal, noise gates, flangers, aural exciters, double-tracking, octave pedals...and on and on. Is punching in phony and fraudulent also because we're supposed to believe that everyone gets everything correct in one take?
> And the media and peers are expecting us to accept it as an "alternative" rather than call it for what it actually is- a decline.
I don't know where you're going with this.
> With pitch correction, I think I'm hearing the same thing, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. With no nuance. With no dynamics. With no soul. With no originality. With no complexity.
Sounds like something I remember hearing about the evils of multi-tracking, since it provided people leeway in the realm of the discipline required to get it right in one track.
> When the media compares a modern pitch-corrected vocalist to Billie Holiday, they're painting a huge target on both the music and the performer. For some people have gotten so sick of this con job. It insults their intelligence. It insults my intelligence.
Okay, so when was the last time you listened to Lady In Satin? I'm the one saying the Billie Holiday comparisons are not only ludicrous, but lazy. The only true comparison lies in the area of substance abuse. Winehouse's jazz phrasing evoking a Billie Holiday reference makes no sense when her voice just doesn't sound like Billie Holiday's at all.
> > "Bash away, sez me."
> As if I shouldn't...
I meant that sincerely. But keep it to her music, that's all. I still don't see much here that has to do with her songs; it's all about pitch correction.
> I think when it comes to songwriting, a good yardstick is simply how much the music is covered by other artists.
I don't think that's a good yardstick at all. For one thing, it doesn't take into consideration the wide disparity in licensing fees to cover this artist's work, as opposed to that artist's work. For another, there are some intangible factors that aren't always readily apparent. I'll try to make this point by comparing the number of covers of Beatles songs vs. the number of covers of Beach Boys songs. The problem is I don't have numbers, but I'll go by memory by way of anecdote: there were a million Beatles covers, more than 1,000 of 'Yesterday' alone by the mid- or late-70s, I do believe, and very few Beach Boys covers. I think there have been fewer Beatles covers in recent years, but I think that may have to do with their publishing interests charging more for the license. Regardless, both were hugely popular, and though of course the Beatles were more popular, wouldn't it seem odd that there weren't many Beach Boys covers? Well, until a friend pointed out what now seems to me to be completely obvious, it never occurred to me: so few attempted Beach Boys covers because so many, at least the popular ones, were so difficult to actually perform. But that doesn't make sense, because they sounded so simple, perhaps simpler even than the Beatles' music. Well...they weren't. Sure, examples to the contrary such as David Lee Roth's cover immediately spring to mind, but that's the exception & not the rule. What now seems obvious to me, was something that had never occurred to me before: and music, as art, is full of hidden truths that make it difficult for me to understand why you seem to view music as you do.
That's why I have suggested that you view it in terms of the market, as opposed to in terms of art. Pitch correction is no more the enemy than any other technology, though it can seem annoying in elevating lesser talents over greater ones. Yet you were one of the few who acknowledged hearing that Barbara Streisand sang flat! Ultimately what matters is the music, not whether or not someone can sing on key perfectly. And if someone who writes like Amy Winehouse has her records adjusted so that her pitch seems better than it is, I'll accept that. In a sea of poor pop music, I'll take this one artist whose music I do enjoy, whether their pitch is better than Barbara Streisand's or not.
I don't see it as that much of a big deal, especially since the hordes of others is easy enough to ignore...at least for me.
"Pitch correction is no more the enemy than any other technology, though it can seem annoying in elevating lesser talents over greater ones."The talent alone is only a minor part of the issue.
What's annoying is how the production sounds compared to one with a decent unadulterated performer.
And even more-annoying is it de-humanizes performance. The very essence that makes music so enjoyable, so memorable, from Bach to the Beatles, is taken away.
But what's most-annoying is rewarding such prefabrication (like with the Grammys) sends a message that having the right technology, not refining the skills, is the key to artistic success...... Again, I think it's sickening.
This could be why the level and quantity of genuine talent has declined. People have been conditioned that using a computer software plug-in is a viable substitute for practice, practice, practice.
The path of least resistance.
Another problem, and I cite you personally as an active participant, is the "unadulterated performers" being bashed and degraded. And it's gotten to the point where the masses don't get to experience such performers so much anymore. So with future generations, the perspective ultimately shifts to mostly prefab performers with pitch correction. Yet the shift has been so gradual, a lot of people haven't even noticed or realized the decline in artistic standards. (Elton John calling Eminem a 'Hendrix'.) Or what has been taking place in the studio or on the concert stage.
Then everybody gets into a raging fit whenever someone dare calls a spade a spade. The little boy too naïve to worry about social acceptance. Not seeing the Emperor's clothes......
This is why I've backed off of what I've deemed awful in the past...... It's been overtaken be something much worse...... And the problem is the general practice, not individual performers. I don't dislike Amy Winehouse. I cannot really assess her. I only despise the use of pitch correction. (Winehouse could be a hack elevated by pitch correction, or she could be a brilliant singer muzzled by it.)
If pitch correction isn't a problem, then why stop there?. Why not just synthesize the vocals completely from a computer using a performers voice sample? It's no more an enemy than any other technology......
Or why not go all the way and render the music to polyphonic ring tones? It's no more an enemy than any other technology.....
If you think rendering music to a cheesy (IMO) ring tone would make it useless for you, maybe you'll realize where I'm coming from in regard to the pitch correction.
"Ultimately what matters is the music, not whether or not someone can sing on key perfectly."
If so, then what's the rationale to even use pitch correction at all? I thought it was expressly for helping someone "sing on key perfectly". And apparently, those who use it think it's paramount. Heck if the music is otherwise ruined.
Todd,
You stated: I was duped into believing Renee Olstead, Celine Dion, and Michael Buble were fabulous singers, before realizing they were all pitch corrected.....
I too like Renee Olstead --- I still cannot believe how young she was (14) on her self-titled debut CD --- and Michael Buble. Todd how is pitch correction applied? To the entire song as sung by the artist or as needed? Does the pitch correction machine sense when to self apply or is it manuelly applied by the recording engineer as they feel it's needed?
Thetubeguy1954
A Rational Subjectivist
"I too like Renee Olstead ---I still cannot believe how young she was (14) on her self-titled debut CD--- and Michael Buble."It occurred right before Clark Johnsen's revelation, but I was perusing Olstead's live stuff, and it was shockingly off-key..... (Very "American Idol-ish"....) That was the initial red flag..... Then when I realized what was happening, I downright soured on her. Dion I think could have stayed away from it, but it's such a tempation, because artists *are* successful with it (in the public realm), even though I think it destroys the performer's character. Buble initially struck me as a neat singer, maybe the "new generation Frank Sinatra", but it turns out, the "neatness" was from the pitch correction. If you notice, it also kills the vibrato and inflections that can really hit a listener with the right performance. The synthesis also ruins the "attack" and dynamic range the singer would otherwise have.
A great example of a "non-pitch-corrected" performance of recent time is a live clip on YouTube by Ana Torroja called "Hijo de la Luna" , played in an acoustic setting. There is a passage where she glides to a crescendo (3:03-3:09 and 4:11-4:18 in the clip), and the tone of her voice transforms from "delicate" to "powerful"..... Gives me goosebumps..... A la Bing Crosby..... This is an example of artistic nuance that makes performance so unique, and the performer to die for..... But it's the very thing that gets whacked by pitch correction. And if Torroja were to be pitch-corrected, she'd be reduced to a just another generic pop singer, if you get the gist. (Torroja's problem is she does a lot of stuff that don't really bring out her incredible voice. And if you want to hear how "Hijo" sounds like pitch-corrected, listen to the Sarah Brightman version. Although I think it's also lip-sync'ed, since the audio in several different performances also sounds identical.)
I get asked all the time how pitch correction is discerned. The blatant cases, the singer sounds synthesized..... It doesn't sound like a real person..... It's a tonal character I couldn't stand even before I knew its actual cause. (I used to call it "generic".) The song "Californication" by the Chili Peppers is a classic example. If the voice is recognizable only because of the song, that's the first sign. (I hear obscure stuff by Paul McCartney, because his voice is easily recognizable. Even heard him sing some Cole Porter...... There isn't a non-pitch-corrected voice that I'd mistake for another non-pitch-corrected voice.)
In the subtle cases, like with Olstead, Dion, Buble and recent Streisand, one hears some semblance of the real voice, but still, it doesn't sound like Ella..... Or Eva Cassidy..... Or Ana Torroja...... (Streisand is the only singer who I actually prefer with pitch correction. Only because the application is so subtle in her case, you'd only notice it side by side, with and without .) Where the unadulterated quirks and inflections just send the listener reeling.
"Todd how is pitch correction applied? To the entire song as sung by the artist or as needed?"
Depends on the act. Most pop acts are done in real time, so in concert, it's heard as well. Mainly so the fans aren't tipped off that such application is being applied- Most don't realize it's even taking place. (A lot of these acts tend to do "lip syncing" and "playback", often to create a perception of individuality in performance. Most such acts have limited interaction with the audience, which is maybe the most-striking difference from the real thing. For the gestures would be "pitch corrected" too. Another sign of pitch correction in a pop or rock concert is a total lack of vocal improvisation.) Some acts have it applied only in the studio. Like Olstead. Her live stuff doesn't have pitch correction, but then you realize she's really not that great of a singer. (I think this is why she's since fallen off the map.) Buble is done real-time. And others have it applied "post-production", where it's done by an editor afterward, where needed. It can throw off a listener because he'll hear both pitch correction and off-key singing in the same track. Some of Sting's later solo stuff is post production. A lot of "post production" is done with decent singers who occasionally hit a sour note.
"Does the pitch correction machine sense when to self apply or is it manuelly applied by the recording engineer as they feel it's needed?"
There are a lot of demonstrations on YouTube. Look up Antares, Autotune, Auto Tune, Pro Tools, pitch correction, pitch software, vocal enhancement, T-Pain (the one pop singer whose pitch correction somehow got widely-known).
The link will help some lock onto the characteristic tone of Auto Tune, which I've grown to despise. Once you get familiar with its characteristic "sound", it then sticks out like a sore thumb in commercial music productions.
Aleks Syntek normally does not use pitch correction, but he did use it in recording "English versions" of his hit songs. So I was able to find a second comparision using the same singer singing the same song (save for the language), with vs. without. And unlike the Streisand comparison, at least difference here is easily noticeable.The Spanish title is "Intocable"..... The English title is "No Matter Where You Are".
you tube
He's probably one amongst hundreds who are popular but can't sing.......
I wonder what Maria Carey did, not to become a media favorite.Soul,looks,higher pitch than 'Idols',rehab,the whole works.
And figure the difference in image of Joplin because she was a woman.
Brian Jones tragic rocker against Marianne Faithful hopeless ex-junkie... and so on.
Why pick on Amy given the performance by Feist on the show. Given all the hype about Feist, I thought her performance was horrible. At least Winehouse had some entertainment going (though I think a lot is due to her skanky image with too skinny legs and a dress so short you think her coochie is gonna pop out at any minute).
You nearly made me spray the place with the mouthful of wine I was enjoying! I love that expression. Back in the UK they say 'growler' instead of 'coochie'. The naughty boy in me wants to see this develop into a euphemism battle.
You've made up yr mind, so what's to explain?
Still...first, her pop is not American (but then neither is Joni Mitchell's). Second, Billie Holiday comparisons are mostly silly (Madeleine Peyroux is the one who actually sounds like Billie Holiday, minus the drugs, if not the drama), and lazy at that. Third, American Idol comparisons are at least as silly, since Amy Winehouse actually writes or at least co-writes nearly all her material. Fourth, not only is she obviously addled by substance abuse issues & who knows what else, but she is not considered to be a motivated performer, but is rather someone who creates an end product others see merit in due in no small part to the interaction with the record producer. Fifth, I'm not sure what looking 'like a reject from Laverne & Shirley' has to do with music. Sixth, most people I know who like the record consider the hit single to be one of its weaker tracks. Seventh, I'm trying to explain this to someone who watches awards shows. Eighth, ditto to 'American Idol,' which, like awards shows, someone would have to take at least as much time & effort to explain their appeal to me . Ninth, if you don't like the music, don't listen. Tenth, unlike some, I prefer producer Mark Ronson's use of the Dap-Kings with Winehouse, as opposed to with Sharon Jones, and Back To Black was by a wide margin my favorite record last year. But then I was lucky to be exposed to it relatively early on, months before any of the Holiday-esque substance abuse, bad-girl escapades. And all I heard was what I considered to be an authentic-sounding, heartfelt, well-conceived and executed, pop album.
To some, great American pop music is typified by Tony Orlando & Dawn, to others, Michael Bolton. I'll take the skank who can't sing on key, thank you very much.
You nailed it. Well done.
Who gives a damn about the grammy's (or is it grammies?)anyway?
- Jim, who wouldn't recognize Amy W if he heard her on the radio, but who rather enjoys his atavistic impulses
Its her personal life. Is it wise? Of course not, but how often do you hear the media say that the Rolling Stones/WHO/Fleetwood Mac/Pearl Jam/CSN/Miles Davis/Elvis/ etc etc etc are/were "troubled"? I imagine that Amy's party lifestyle does not even come close to the limits pushed by most of the great rock bands/musicians from the last 50 years.
bleep
The Grammy's are not going down hill, since that implies that they ever had any altitude in the first place.
Dark soul music that's tuneful and masterfully arranged/produced.
pay attention to Mr. Shamburg.
"pay attention to Mr. Shamburg."
You know the adage, "Don't pee on my leg, and tell me it's raining".....
The music industry is using pitch corrected vocalists, and telling us it's singing excellence.....
And a lot of us, sadly, are buying into this con...... It would be like professional wrestling being considered as real sport......
The consumer music market really needs to be informed of what's happening here..... Otherwise, the art of music, in its genuine form, will eventually become extinct.
..
We should just toss Beethoven in the toilet.....
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: