Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Whatevs Auto-Tune or Out o' Tune: Meh
Posted by Steve Haruch on Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:21 PM
This isn't really a new topic or anything, but Sasha Frere-Jones writes in this week's New Yorker about Auto-Tune, the audio processing tool that corrects pitch or, if desired, can be used to create the talk-box effect deployed in Cher's "Believe" and almost anything by T-Pain. Some people hate Auto-Tune. Frere-Jones rightly puts it in the bag with all the other tricks:
Aren’t some of the most entertaining and fruitful sounds in pop—distortion, whammy bars, scratching—the result of glorious abuse of the tools? At this late date, it’s hard to see how the invisible use of tools could imply an inauthentic product, as if a layer of manipulation were standing between the audience and an unsullied object. In reality, the unsullied object is the Sasquatch of music. Even a purely live recording is a distortion and paraphrasing of an acoustic event.
Anyone who's ever listened to a board recording (that is, a recording made directly from the sound board) of a live show knows that the recording you end up with is just as much "real" (it's a record of the actual sounds produced during that night's performance) as it is utterly unreal (it sounds absolutely nothing like the experience of attending the show).
Also, to Frere-Jones' list of "entertaining and fruitful sounds" I would add: tremolo (try to imagine Tommy James' "Crimson and Clover" without it); chorus, which is widely used to subtly enhance/smooth out vocals by, perhaps ironically, adding slightly off-pitch tones; compression, which makes it seem that a singer can maintain a consistent volume throughout an entire song; and, perhaps the most widely used and abused effect of them all: reverb. Of course, there is a "no mechanical reverb school" of audio engineering, but for the most part people don't get worked up over it. I mean, I get a little worked up over Hope Sandoval, but that's another story altogether.
The Scene's Michael McCall addressed the auto-tuning issue as it relates to country music in 2004, posing the question this way:
So is it cheating that [Faith] Hill's career relies on studio fixes? Is it a sham that she, like so many modern music stars, uses auto-tuning in her live performances? Or is it just a good use of the latest of studio technology to take an ambitious and dedicated young woman with an appeal beyond mere vocal ability and, with the right packaging and investment, help her become an international superstar?
I find the idea of "cheating" in music to be a non-issue. As both Frere-Jones and McCall make reference to, the history of recorded music is full of artificial effects. All of them—from the very idea of multi-tracking, at various times and in various locations, a recording meant to fit together as a temporally simultaneous whole, to purposely overdriving preamps to create harmonic distortion—are fair game in my book. (I've always wondered, had I been alive to purchase a 45 of The Beatles' "Revolution," whether I would have returned it like so many did, thinking there was something "wrong" with the record.)
I mean, sure, there is a difference between doing 20 takes of a vocal track to get it right and using Auto-Tune to correct the pitch, just as there's a difference between hanging a picture to cover up a hole in the wall that you're trying to hide and tearing down said wall to join two rooms. But is it an important difference? For the most part, people who want their singers to be perfectly in pitch are not interested in the same kind of music I'm interested in—and the effect of Auto-Tune, while not distasteful to me on any grounds related to "authenticity," is really kind of bad-sounding, to my ears. Unless it's obviously being used as an effect, in which case it just seems sort of played-out, at this point.
Kottke's got a bunch of Auto-Tune-related links, including the free pitch correction software GSnap. (Related: A $50 version of Pro Tools? Don't fear REAPER—it requires no dongle!)
Comments (24)
Showing 1-24 of 24
Reeeeevvvvvveerrrrrrbbbbbb.
Fwiw, I think there is a huge difference btw 1) using the tools of the trade to make unique and interesting sounds and 2) using those tools to perfect that sound (usually vocals) to some idealized norm. Its about deception.
An example:
1) Would be stacking reverb effects on a guitar or vocal part to enchance its timbre.
2) Using auto correct tuners to correct the mistakes of talentless hacks hired only for their looks/charisma.
like
dislike
auto tune isn't just for "talentless hacks". a common misconception about the tool it's a magic box that anyone can sing into and come out sounding like a pro. Auto Tune is not a miracle worker. if you don't have strength, timbre, and some sort of quality in your voice, Antares can't put it in there for you. The more out of key the performance is, the harder the program works to snap it back to pitch. which is why when people who can't sing use the "auto" setting, they come out sounding like a robot.
Even the most talented vocalists use it to fix little flubs and stray notes here and there (which is usually done by correcting the wave form by hand using the mouse). There's also the practice of vocal comping where the best lines and even words and syllables are taken from each take and edited into a composite vocal track.
technology hasn't just changed the way we make music, it's changed the way people perceive it.
if you go back and listen to old popular recordings, you'll notice a lot of things that wouldn't pass in music today. You'll notice the sublte sound of them inhaling between verses, and occasionally hitting a flat note. In most of those cases, those notes were left in because it was the best take they had to work with. Or maybe the rest of the performance was too good to scrap for one slightly sour note. Besides, it didn't matter so much, because music fans barely noticed these kinds of things.
(on a side note - John Lennon was always double-tracking his vocals on multiple tape machines to create was essentially meant to have the same effect as auto tune and chorusing).
But now, since these tricks are so pervasive in almost everything we hear, we've all been inadvertently trained to pick out those flaws, and simple human elements we now perceive as errors.
Hence, even with phenomenal singers, you're not going to get today's standard of perfection out of them using just a good old fashioned mic and a pop filter. excellence isn't enough anymore. modern audiences demand perfection. this is affects everything from the way we record and edit singers to the way we track drums.
in other words, to err is human, to auto tune is divine.
most engineers will agree, you do whatever you have to do to make that particular recording great and appealing to the audience you think will buy it.
at the same time, if the notion of a singer "cheating" you with studio trickery is that offensive to you (or offensive at all), chances are you don't listen to bands who use it anyway. Thus, it's not too hard for you to boycott. Go listen to some Al Green and find something new to complain about.
I wouldn't have a problem with singers and engineers "cheating" if they were actually gaining something from it. Unfortunately, auto-tune ALWAYS makes vocals sound like crap.
Dunno if this debate will ever end. But here's my 2 cents:
My big problem with the egregious use of auto-tune, comping of tracks and all the modern conveniences that recording technology has to offer is that the general populous will come to expect an unrealistic performance from musicians.
All these pop records where everything is "perfect" are gonna damage people's ears. There's a lot of beauty in the flat notes and the missed fills.
Take for example "Like A Rolling Stone". Arguably one of the finest singles ever released. Al Kooper's b-3 organ part is very important to the record. But if you listen, the guy plays totally behind the beat. He didn't know the song, he just wanted a chance to play on the record so he sat behind the organ without hesitation. But the late chord changes/riffs he plays are a perfect foil to Dylan's vocal and make the record kick ass.
If that were made today, the engineer would probably have pushed the track back in time with the rest of the instruments and it wouldn't be the same.
Also, the heavy use of these correction techniques makes it harder to tell if a band on record is that good live. Everyone has had that moment in their life where they loved the record, spent the cash and came away disappointed.
With that said, I use these tools. I do my best to make it a last resort, though. There's nothing that pisses me off more than doing two takes with a musician and having them say, "you can just fix that later, right?"... or you could just play correctly right now.
It's sort of a catch-22. If we didn't have these tools, bands would be on top of their game when they came to the studio knowing they HAD to get it. But having them can stop a session from falling into a rut.
Patsy Cline did "Crazy" in one take. Mistakes are kinda there because nobody's perfect. So it's all an aesthetic argument. If it works with what you're trying to achieve, then that's cool. However, I personally wouldn't use it because I don't like that degree of control over a song or a take.
The argument over effects seems kind of out of place here, because chorus and doubling achieves a different effect than altering the actual sound by affecting the performance through editing or pitch correction. If you're getting a faulty performance from somebody, maybe it's not time to record?
I don't think it's the audience demanding perfection as much as the engineers and producers who are surrounded by this stuff and NOW have the means to alter it if they choose. I guess I just don't agree with it being used as a crutch instead of getting a good performance. It's lazy for both the performer and the producer. Unless, of course, that's the sound you're going for.
I want a portable auto-tune so that I can walk around and my whole life will sound like Lil' Wayne's "Lollipop".
I've heard rumors of a version of Auto-tune being used even in a live concert setting for people like Brittney Spears, etc...
Any audio engineers out there want to weigh-in on this?
Yep. From Michael McCall's article: "As one Music Row executive pointed out, you'll never see Tim McGraw pick up an acoustic guitar and sing in front of an audience without using a microphone that's run through an auto-tuning device. But his records not only sell, they're also praised as some of country's most broadly appealing and progressive work."
thanks for the interesting post Steve! i think the issue points back to the age old question: is music a process or a product?
I think music is a processed product, like EZ-Cheez or monkeys with robotic arms. And I've got the student loan payments to prove it.
ya'll want some portable 'lollipop' or 'believe'? talk to casio. anybody who likes the last song on the first ghostfinger record should know he knows how to do that shit. but i'll spill the beans: hook up one of those late 80s-early 90s eventide harmonizers, find the auto-tune patch, and turn the sensitivity up to 100%. it's an automatic vocoder! auto-tune used like that is pretty much awesome.
Dude that used to mix front of house at the Opry told me they have 17 channels of autotune available at any given time. The steel guitar player could have done up enough dilaudid to level a field of elephants and still at least sound like he's doing the job.
I used to hate autotune for moral reasons. However, after I spend 2 hours tracking layers of background vocals and there's some BS in there that doesn't sound good..., then I realize that time is money. At that very moment, I'm suddenly ok with autotune. It doesn't make me shitty, it just means I'm working on a budget. I'd prefer a completely organic recording in some regards, but c'mon. Nothing's truly organic anymore. However, usually I'll tell the producer that I absolutely won't use it, especially on lead vocals.
Sometimes producers don't have the patience to let you screw around and try and re-try stuff all day, and they are the ones who push for the quick digital fixes. And sometimes I'll take the quick fix over the whole vibe in the room being ruined because someone just wants you to freakin' get it right already.
I will also say that while autotune can't make a terrible singer sound good, it can make a sketchy singer sound a lot less sketchy.
Thank you Aaron. Time IS money, and when you're paying for studio time by the hour, you become acutely aware of that.
MBH needs to cut some people some slack. Sometimes after two takes, you just know you're not going to get it right today and you cut your losses (especially if you've got an antsy engineer acting like you're wasting their time). It's not ideal, but it happens. And frankly, if you as the producer or engineer are in the studio with that kind of attitude, getting pissed at players, you're really not helping anything. Odds are you're the only person in the room getting paid to be there which makes YOU the professional. You need to act like a professional and not increase the stress level.
Singing isn't easy, and some days your voice just doesn't cooperate. There isn't always time or money to get everything perfect. Same thing with punch ins and fixes. I think everybody would love to have single take records, and practicing helps, of course, but some days there are going to be mistakes, and the red light seems to bring that out. Some mistakes you can live with and some you just can't. Fix it in post.
I wanna talk about spell checking software. Just think of all those people out there who don't know how to spell. And to think they call themselves literate! It really makes my blood boil.
i miss mistakes. the demands of pop music has now exceeded the capability of microphones.
Autotune degrades authenticity. It lowers the value of a real musicians’ effort. To me music is a fine art, but to many in this world, music is just a product to be reconciled in regards to cost and resources. For those of you who believe in the dollar as a defining factor of success, I feel sorry for you. For you are helping to destroy a beautiful concept… you are equating music with a mass produced McDonalds hamburger. You are not an artist.
Yes, some people do define quality by the amount of money generated, but everyone should know by now that it is only a sad commentary on today’s lazy and greedy society.
Music is so much more than simple parameters that can be tweaked and fads that can be copied, yet some of you will never understand this and will continue to validate yourselves by such primitive standards.
Music has a soul and when processing overshadows the source, you are raping the soul of music. It is easy to tell simply by listening for the honesty and integrity. If you are an engineer or producer that follows in most so called music professionals’ footsteps, you will cave in for lack of artistic integrity… likely you will be “successful” by today’s pitiful standards.
Vote here for best Band of the Week
Slideshows
Top Commenters
