You do what you do to make the client happy, and there's nothing wrong with that. But is it the studio's fault that the artist can't sing? Or is it laziness?

Could be all about staying under budget.

EDIT: To me this is all about competition in the market place. You're selling a product. Return for investment ratio.

You could say that everyone should produce a car by hand and work on it till they get it right. But the guy with the robots is gonna make it cheaper and have more models to choose from.

It's bidnez.

I suppose it's a tool to be used to the taste of the producer , and however his/her vision guides them.
I've never used it but I'm very curious as to how creative I can be with it and other tools.

I also picked up Melodyne3 studio, but I'm not sure how to best integrate it into the SONAR6 pe DAW ..
anyone familiar with this product? and was it a redundant purchase since I just realized that SONAR6 pe has the v-vocal.

I'm pretty familiar with SONAR3 pe ... but just recently jumped to 6 pe. I know melodyne uses asio but I'm using wdm drivers winxp , and a motu 2408mk3 with the pci-424. anyone with a similar set-up trying to get the best out of vocal editing?

ORIGINAL: Antler

Go and have a listen to Baby Shambles. You may start to like autotune again

I collapse OFL. I wonder if they know that shambles literally means slaughterhouse?

Must be great, being a rockstar in a few years time - all they ever get to see is pure Photo/VideoShop, all they hear is vocoder/autotune, and you can just walk into any bar, and noone the wiser. Who needs sunglasses?

ORIGINAL: Analog Assassin

Maybe for commercial jingles that makes sense, but for real music, shouldn't the bar be set higher than that?

I see what you're saying... and I do agree that it would be nice if people automatically set their own bars... but there should NEVER be a "bar set" on what is considered music and what isn't. That's the beauty of art in all of it's forms. It is what it is.

For example... "modern art", referring to abstract painting... I just don't get it and never will. It all looks like someone dropped a paint can on a canvas. BUT, some see the beauty in it, so it's fine by me if they make it and enjoy it.

Although I hate a lot of the "un-talented" music, I'll fully support their right to make, sell, and enjoy it.

Dont forget ol Oscar Peterson. The greatest but another disconcerting vocalizer. But really it's not just a few. There are many many jazz artists that grunt groan and vocalize while playing. Many say it's what gets them "into the zone". They don't care one whit that it gets some of their audience OUT of the zone.

ORIGINAL: layez

question: do you think CSNY 'DejaVu' uses autotune? or is that just chorus. Some of those big harmony parts sound pretty shimmery.

That record came out in about 1971, so that predates autotuning by about 25 years AFAIK. Anyone who knows of analog tecniques that predates digital autotuning, feel free to fill me in. But I'm pretty sure that the Crosby, Stills and Nash harmony stuff is dry, without chorus or such.

Sven

>>>along with a handful of others - Louis Armstrong, Dizzie Gillespie, Duke Ellington come to mind...

Are you implying Coltrane doesn't fit in there because he "alienated" his main audience after Love Supreme? Whats wrong with the jazz artists who tried to find new forms of self expression such as late Coltrane, Monk, Albert Ayler, or Eric Dolphy? I dont think it should be that the artist has to be mindful of the audience because it leads to a trap. The trap is mostly that the listeners get to hear the same thing over and over again, and if it wasnt for the more adventurous, perhaps even selfish artists, music would never progress. Arists are all too frequently looking to just get pat on the back instead of pushing themselves to do something better. It takes brave souls to strive for something more than mediocracy because it is a lot more physically and emotionally straining.

I also think that a large portion of classical music is overtly intellectual and condescending, not just avant-gard jazz. Hell even the early rock'n'rollers were doing what they wanted to do, they just happened to be loudly applauded for it. I dont think there's any moral qualm with be disregarding of the audience because it allows them to focus on their art and not what people want to hear. Another example, how about when Bob Dylan plugged in his guitar and rocked out with The Band. My god his audience was fuming mad! But that was absolutely amazing and the right direction for him to move, mostly because he wanted to. I appreciate many artists who reinvent their sounds for the sake of progress (but not for the sake of a publicity stunt, like Vanilla Ice playing hardcore music... give me a break). Tom Waits played barfly songs all through the 70's and in the mid 80's he came out with new music that no one else was doing; im sure plenty of people wanted to hear more 'Jersey Girl' or 'Old 55'. Maybe the artist won't be compensated monetarily for being insensitive to audience needs, but for musics sake it's critical. John Zorn of the NYC downtown avant-jazz scene was just given 250,000$ a few years ago for being 'a genious', and 250,000 was given to 4 other artists in the entire world. Many progressive musicians, artists, and thinkers are rejected in their day. They can't help it that the world is slow to change. They should follow their instinct and do what feels best and necessary. Conceptual art is certainly not for everyone, and i definately don't feel like a musician should intentionally alienate their audience. However, if his/her vision happens to alienate them so be it... i happen to love Sun Ship and Interstellar Space. I also think Rubber Soul is amazing

I'm sorry my examples and philosophies meander so much but im short on time. i felt compelled to reply. i often get disgusted by business over art. But by the way, i think that Duke Ellington is one of the top 10 composers of all time.

Someday, I hope to figure out how to use autotune, or v-vocal, or anything else like that. I've tried it a couple times on my own vocal parts that sounded way off to me, and it didn't change anything -- and my vocal still didn't sound right. I'm sure I'm doing something wrong, but danged if I know what. So I just use the vocal that doesn't sound quite right...

I run into similar issues trying to "touch up" live recordings of myself and my friends. If I EQ and compress and tweak, I sometimes feel I'm improving things. But if I go back and listen to the original, warts and all -- 9 times out of 10, I'll go with the warty version. Maybe that's just my taste.

I'm sure the autotune effects can be used creatively and musically, if you invest the time. And I certainly don't fault anyone else using them, whatever their reasons. Heck, I always set up my guitars, and I generally use light gauge strings; my fingers just aren't that strong. If that makes me less of a musician, well, tough.

I guess the vast majority of the listening (and buying) public can't hear it, or maybe they just don't know enough to identify it. I bet some wonder why modern music "sounds funny like that."

based on my recent experiences a lot of fans can hear it, and actually prefer it.

I'd never use it on my own vocals. Hell I hardly even use punches anymore it's just easier to redo it. That said, I have used v-vocal to MANGLE parts. vocal, guitar and others. I like to make a v-vocal track from a guitar track then stretch it, speed it up mess with the notes,...then some times clone that track and reverse it then play them against each other...what fun!

I've gotten to the point with the radio, that if I hear the first sign of autotuning turn the channel...to talk. I can see it with some of the tweenerpoppers, but I don't get why they are using it on great vocalists!

The deadly duo of the modern music busine$$ is: Brick wall limiting and autotune!

ORIGINAL: D.Triny

I guess the vast majority of the listening (and buying) public can't hear it, or maybe they just don't know enough to identify it. I bet some wonder why modern music "sounds funny like that."

based on my recent experiences a lot of fans can hear it, and actually prefer it.

Really. I don't doubt you, but could you share those experiences a little bit? I can understand the "Autotune as an effect" like the Cher thing, but when I talk about autotune to some of my non-musician friends, they don't understand what I'm talking about until I can point it out. I don't listen to much modern stuff, but a couple years ago, there was an Avril Lavigne song where it wasn't used as an effect, but was pretty obvious. I think the technology has improved and it's smoother, but I can still hear it.
I guess there's a line between fixing up a little bit here and there to an otherwise good vocal track, and applying that thing to all the vocals because the singer can't sing. If you're an artist, why not just spend another half hour to an hour hitting that note?

ORIGINAL: SvenArne

ORIGINAL: layez

question: do you think CSNY 'DejaVu' uses autotune? or is that just chorus. Some of those big harmony parts sound pretty shimmery.

That record came out in about 1971, so that predates autotuning by about 25 years AFAIK. Anyone who knows of analog tecniques that predates digital autotuning, feel free to fill me in. But I'm pretty sure that the Crosby, Stills and Nash harmony stuff is dry, without chorus or such.

Sven

You're correct about analog techniques that predate digital autotuning, but I can tell you that back in those days we had a few tricks up our sleeves to "improve" (at least in our own minds) certain tracks that we were recording...It was not uncommon to use the VSO (Variable Speed Oscillator) on the tape deck...Slowing down the tape a couple of percent while recording and then playing it back at normal speed seemed to, in many cases, add a "tightness" and a "shimmer" to multitracked BGV's...That's just one example...

Grabbing on to principles such as that one, companies such as Fairlight & Synclavier (New England Digital) began developing digital methods to accomplish the same thing (and much more)...Much of that evolution of engineering concepts has crept into what we now consider "standard features" in today's DAW systems...

We have, in an innocent way, created the "beast"...We must now determine how we are going to "tame" it...IMO, used in the proper context of why we have the tools that we do, there is nothing wrong with utilizing them to help our clients achieve the sound that they want to hear...Auto-Tune (and V-Vocal) are just a couple of the many "alteration" tools that we have available today...How we determine to use them for our clients' benefit is a matter of personal preference...I use Auto-Tune sparingly, but only if the slightly out of tune vocal note presents a serious conflict with the rest of the track...I've never used it on any instrumental tracks (although that could be an interesting experiment)...

Many of us who post on forums such as this one would like to be considered creative "purists"...But the bottom line is, unless we want to be financially stressed for the rest of our careers, we have to accept using some of the "impurities" that have become a part of what our competitors use to attract attention to their studios...

There is, IMO, a reasonable balance that can be reached by learning to differentiate between when a slight mistake should be repaired or when the entire track should be re-recorded (or "punched in")...I'm fine with slight tempo issues (as long as they aren't creating a "train-wreck") and I'm okay with a slight imperfection in an otherwise "perfect" take...However, if the problem take s away from the overall presentation of the song, I have no problem trying to use the tools at my disposal to correct it...

Just my 2¢ worth...

ORIGINAL: subtlearts

Are you implying Coltrane doesn't fit in there because he "alienated" his main audience after Love Supreme? Whats wrong with the jazz artists who tried to find new forms of self expression such as late Coltrane, Monk, Albert Ayler, or Eric Dolphy?

Whoa there tiger. I didn't intend to imply anything about any artists other than those I mentioned. I said I personally gravitate towards artists who find a balance between self-expression and connecting with the audience, or better yet who manage to achieve both at the highest possible level. I don't think there's anything wrong with any of the artists you mention, they are all masters, especially (unquestionably) Trane, Monk and Eric Dolphy (I confess to being weak on Albert Ayler, haven't heard enough to form an opinion). But I certainly wouldn't hold any of them in higher regard as artists than Oscar, Satchmo, Duke or Diz just because they were pursuing a more personal and less populist vision. I think of Mingus, for example, as a supremely uncompromising artist, but that doesn't mean I think Stan Getz compromised himself on the Bossa Nova stuff.

I dont think it should be that the artist has to be mindful of the audience because it leads to a trap. The trap is mostly that the listeners get to hear the same thing over and over again, and if it wasnt for the more adventurous, perhaps even selfish artists, music would never progress. Arists are all too frequently looking to just get pat on the back instead of pushing themselves to do something better. It takes brave souls to strive for something more than mediocracy because it is a lot more physically and emotionally straining.

Of course, playing only for the crowd is a trap, as is playing only to appease some inner demon. I am not advocating sacrificing one's artistic vision for audience approval. Again, I said I most admired those artists who manage to satisfy both equally and entirely, without sacrifice. It's a pretty high standard, and I do not profess to meet it, but it is for me the goal. Your mileage may vary; certainly I find resistance from certain quarters of the jazz world because my work is not experimental enough, not angular or inaccessible enough; I gather the subtext is that it can't be important or relevant if someone might actually enjoy listening to it, rather than being existentially challenged by it. I can't help it, I happen to like melodies and grooves, and am not attracted to prepared piano and constant unresolved dissonance. I studied all that, I understand it, in a certain time and place it can be interesting, but by and large I find it pretentious and unfulfilling. I'm not looking for a pat on the back from my audience, but I definitely AM looking for a connection with them, of that you can be sure.

And that's pretty much all I meant, sorry if I inadvertently insulted any of your favorite artists by not putting them on my list. I like some pretty wacked-out stuff as well, and on occasion enjoy playing it as well. Especially if the audience is digging it.

Totally agree with you, subtlearts, on all counts. The issue really boils down to not only artistic integrity, but *personal* integrity as well, in my opinion. Frankly, I've never understood any "musician" that disrespects their audience by giving less than their best performance, whatever that may be at the moment. As long as the artist is doing what they sincerely feel, as opposed to pandering shamelessly, it's valid, as far as I'm concerned. Not that there's anything wrong with pandering to audiences from a commercial standpoint. The old "first rule of business" addage, "Give 'em what they want." is very true if one is looking for fame and fortune.

BTW, subtlearts, I laughed out loud when you said "Whoa there tiger." in response to layez. Given your avatar, that's pretty funny. ;>)

Hey, layez, could you elaborate a bit on this statement from your previous post? I'm curious as to exactly what/who you're talking about. Here's the quote: "I also think that a large portion of classical music is overtly intellectual and condescending, not just avant-gard jazz." This is an interesting topic all by itself. I for one, think that some of the "out there" jazz is actually pretty condescending. I mean, there *are* certain aesthetic considerations in all art forms. One really can't go against what seems to be basic human nature and expect to be applauded for it by the masses. Meaning, "artists" who play/compose completely atonal or painfully dissonant music shouldn't expect the general population to like, let alone relate to, their "masterpieces". Subtlearts hit it on the head when he said "by and large I find it pretentious and unfulfilling", above. I'm curious as to which composers of the "classical" genre you consider to be in this classification.

Bill

the country music plays soft
but there's nothing, nothing really to turn off


bob dylan said that...
Blond on Blond...