Pitch correction is a tool. You can be lazy, and just pitch-correct everything. You can listen back to a vocal, and fix only the pitches that sound wrong. To me, the biggest value of pitch correction is that far from sucking the life out of vocals, it's made my vocals more emotional.
 
Huh?!?
 
Yes, really. I take a lot more chances with my vocals because I know that if there's a bad note or two, I can fix it rather than have to re-do the vocal (and lose the spontaneity) or punch, which puts me in left-brain mode. Since pitch correction came along, more of my vocals are first or second take, and I think the vocals are better for it.
 
I should also add that many people forget that pitch correction can uncorrect. It's very difficult (at least for me) to sing deliberately off-pitch by, say, 10 or 30 cents. Yet sometimes, there are notes that sound better when they're not precisely on-pitch. I suppose if I practiced enough, I could learn to sing off-pitch by tiny amounts, but I'd rather practice other things and just use Melodyne to change the pitch if needed.
 
Back in the 50s, people would get totally bent out of shape that singers were using equalization. Today it's accepted that equalization is just another tool for making vocals sound better. Sure, I could try out 100 different mics to find which one gives the perfect high-end lift that flatters my voice. But I'm in the studio to record a vocal, not evaluate mics...it expedites the creative process to choose a mic out of a handful of mics that comes close, and add the high-end lift exactly where I want it with EQ.
 
 

I did run Melodyne on this but I guess I missed a few spots.  My voice issue, as far as pitch is concerned is more control than pitch recognition.  It's like trying to drive a car with a bad front end.  You know where you want to take it, but you just can't aim it right.  I've been seriously considering voice lessons because I also have asthma and I know it's not impossible for asthmatics to sing.  They just need some extra coaching and a strict practice routine.
 
JB
 
 

All good advice, especially the freq. sweeping with a boost to find the freq.'s that "honk" and then pulling them back. I usually start by pulling them down 3db then un-solo the track and see how the mix sounds.
 
BTW, have you gone to Pluginboutique.com to snag the deal on iZotope Ozone Elements? Free with any purchase, so buy something for $1 and you have it.
 
It's a mastering suite, but the EQ is excellent and versatile and great for this kind of surgery. Just turn off the other modules and it's a standalone EQ.

Euthymia
 
 
BTW, have you gone to Pluginboutique.com to snag the deal on iZotope Ozone Elements? Free with any purchase, so buy something for $1 and you have it.
 
It's a mastering suite, but the EQ is excellent and versatile and great for this kind of surgery. Just turn off the other modules and it's a standalone EQ.

YES, YES, YES!!
I bought Scaler and with the newsletter subscription I became the proud owner of Ozone 8 Elements, and I'm totally in love with it!!  It's a great program @ $129.00, but even better FREE!!
 
JB

Hey Anderton-
 
I'm not saying "Never use Melodyne!: I'm saying, if one spends an hour of focused vocal practice on a new or unfamiliar song, as outlined above, you can reasonably expect to not only be able to sing the song in question much better, but to improve generally as a vocalist. If one spends an hour tinkering with Melodyne...you'll improve your abilities with Melodyne.
 
As the old expression goes, "If you teach a man to fish, he can feed himself forever. But teach a man to tune a fish..." Wait, where was I going with this?

One last thing--
 
>>Back in the 50s, people would get totally bent out of shape that singers were using equalization.>>
 
Who? Surely not any engineers. Certainly not good ol' Johnny Mathis and the Percy Faith Orchestra (or whatever genius was manning the controls that day...)
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuOa0uNM1Sg
 
(is it early for Christmas tunes yet? Or does Johnny M get a pass?)

seanmichaelrobinson
Hey Anderton-
 
I'm not saying "Never use Melodyne!: I'm saying, if one spends an hour of focused vocal practice on a new or unfamiliar song, as outlined above, you can reasonably expect to not only be able to sing the song in question much better, but to improve generally as a vocalist. If one spends an hour tinkering with Melodyne...you'll improve your abilities with Melodyne.

 
Agreed completely. But when you hit a wall and the vocal is what it is, Melodyne can help take it a bit further.
 
One last thing--
 
>>Back in the 50s, people would get totally bent out of shape that singers were using equalization.>>
 
Who? Surely not any engineers. Certainly not good ol' Johnny Mathis and the Percy Faith Orchestra (or whatever genius was manning the controls that day...)



No, not engineers...mostly critics, record reviewers, and others "arbiters of taste." Then again, when it comes to critics, I defer to the sentiments expressed by Barnum in "The Greatest Showman" 

Hey, Seanmichael;
I appreciate your feedback and suggestions for sure and they make sense........
but...........
I don't know if it's my asthma or just my advanced age (63), but when I record vocals I record line by line.  It might not sound that way (hopefully it doesn't) but every line I punch in takes me several ( sometimes up to 20+) takes to nail it at least adequate enough to call it acceptable.  So, in that sense, I do practice.  And before you suggest waiting till I know the song better in my mind, I've tried that more than once.  One would think "OK, now that you're more familiar with it go back and do a more complete take and it will sound better".  And that would probably work for most, but not for me.  It seems the more familiar I get with a melody the harder it is to sing it.
 
JB

Anderton
 Back in the 50s, people would get totally bent out of shape that singers were using equalization. Today it's accepted that equalization is just another tool for making vocals sound better. Sure, I could try out 100 different mics to find which one gives the perfect high-end lift that flatters my voice. But I'm in the studio to record a vocal, not evaluate mics...it expedites the creative process to choose a mic out of a handful of mics that comes close, and add the high-end lift exactly where I want it with EQ.

 
Oy, people with their little bits of knowledge. Once the general public (at least the part of the general public that writes about recorded sound) learned that there were such things as EQ and compression, I think they became suspicious that professional studio recordings were being manipulated with these tools to make crappy performers sound "better" than they would without them and to make otherwise "raw" performances sound "slick." And that if mix engineers would just lay off, the honest artistry of the performers would shine through.
 
There is this notion, and I have seen and heard it hinted at both by audiophool types and by otherwise sane people, that there is some kind of ideal of recorded and reproduced sound of leaving it untouched between the mic and the speaker, as if the application of EQ and/or compression is somehow "unnatural."
 
The belief is that what a good recording engineer should do is buy 750 different mics and learn how to perfectly place them, and for their part, the talent should learn to tailor the dynamics of their performances so perfectly to the recorded medium that there is no need for dynamics processing. If the recording sounds like it "needs" EQ or compression or some other contamination, what you really need to do is find another mic, or move the mic you are using, and have the talent play it again. They should be happy to do so, even if they are the ones paying you for studio time.
 
Back on planet Earth, our listening apparatus itself has both EQ and compression built into it not to mention the huge effect that the construction of the mic and speaker and their placement in the recording and listening environment inevitably have.
 
Put on a recording, put on a blindfold, then turn your head, tilt your head, stand up, sit down, and you'll hear variations in "EQ." Turn up the volume and your ears' built in "compression" (or is it "dynamic EQ?") will start kicking in and leveling out the transients. Also, the volume will have an effect on the tonal balance of the reproduced sound as well, thank you Fletcher and Munson.

Euthymia

Anderton
 Back in the 50s, people would get totally bent out of shape that singers were using equalization. Today it's accepted that equalization is just another tool for making vocals sound better. Sure, I could try out 100 different mics to find which one gives the perfect high-end lift that flatters my voice. But I'm in the studio to record a vocal, not evaluate mics...it expedites the creative process to choose a mic out of a handful of mics that comes close, and add the high-end lift exactly where I want it with EQ.

 
Oy, people with their little bits of knowledge. Once the general public (at least the part of the general public that writes about recorded sound) learned that there were such things as EQ and compression, I think they became suspicious that professional studio recordings were being manipulated with these tools to make crappy performers sound "better" than they would without them and to make otherwise "raw" performances sound "slick." And that if mix engineers would just lay off, the honest artistry of the performers would shine through.
 

 
The names Fabian & Milli Vanilli come to mind.
 
On this notion that everything we hear in recorded entertainment should be "pure and real" and that true talent should never need to be artificially manipulated in any way.  If we are to go by these "purists" then the whole practice of multitrack recording is a lie.  In most cases, modern pop and rock recordings are creating an artificial landscape to the listeners where every member of the band and everything on the recording happened all at the same time and in the same place with no overdubbing or treatment or manipulation.  The reality, most of the time, is that recordings are "productions" and made in pieces like a Hollywood movie.  Rhythm tracks may (or may not) be recorded together but vocals are dubbed later as are embellishments like horns and strings (or other things) and in many cases in different locations.  Then all of the elements are "mixed" with all kinds of echo and delay and special effects added that could never actually be part of the  "image" that we hear from our stereos when we put on the record.  And it's all Les Paul's fault for creating this deception! (how DARE he)!!  So those who want to accuse some of us for using a little pitch control here and there or spicing the vocals up with a bit of EQ and compression, well, maybe somebody like you should just ditch Cakewalk, Pro Tools, Ableton, Logic or whatever else you're multitracking on and just trade all that in for a simple 2 track recorder and do everything live.
 
I would wager that if Beethoven were alive and creating music today, he would be using a Pro Tools rig himself because when a technology is there, in music, medicine, engineering or anything else, we are inclined to use it for the simple fact that it tends to help us make a better product or service.  That's just human nature.
 
JB

Johnbee58
 
The names Fabian & Milli Vanilli come to mind.
 
On this notion that everything we hear in recorded entertainment should be "pure and real" and that true talent should never need to be artificially manipulated in any way.  If we are to go by these "purists" then the whole practice of multitrack recording is a lie.  In most cases, modern pop and rock recordings are creating an artificial landscape to the listeners where every member of the band and everything on the recording happened all at the same time and in the same place with no overdubbing or treatment or manipulation.  The reality, most of the time, is that recordings are "productions" and made in pieces like a Hollywood movie.  Rhythm tracks may (or may not) be recorded together but vocals are dubbed later as are embellishments like horns and strings (or other things) and in many cases in different locations.  Then all of the elements are "mixed" with all kinds of echo and delay and special effects added that could never actually be part of the  "image" that we hear from our stereos when we put on the record.  And it's all Les Paul's fault for creating this deception! (how DARE he)!!  So those who want to accuse some of us for using a little pitch control here and there or spicing the vocals up with a bit of EQ and compression, well, maybe somebody like you should just ditch Cakewalk, Pro Tools, Ableton, Logic or whatever else you're multitracking on and just trade all that in for a simple 2 track recorder and do everything live.
 
I would wager that if Beethoven were alive and creating music today, he would be using a Pro Tools rig himself because when a technology is there, in music, medicine, engineering or anything else, we are inclined to use it for the simple fact that it tends to help us make a better product or service.  That's just human nature.
 
JB

I think you are taken this a bit further then it needs to go.
I personally have never used Vocal Software like Melodyne because I'm a traditionalist, I like to do things the hard way. 

I am recording a song as we speak, the first set of tracks were great but the key was low and I wasn't feeling it.

1. I could have run for Melodyne, BOOM! Fix.
2. I could change the key of the song and sing the parts again, which is what I did.

If I screw-up on a high passage, I undo and do it again, and sometimes, I will rehearse a song in the car on my way to work or I will let it rest for a day, then come back to it.

If I cannot sing something, then I wont try to sing it but I wont fix it with software.

So what's the difference between using a loop or computer generated sound vs using Melodyne?

For me singing is like my blood, it is very personal, correcting my pitch with software and making me appear to do something I cannot do is IMPO misleading. 

Now some engineers will use this to fix things here and there, that to me is acceptable.

To conclude, what we are telling you is simple:

Practice, Practice, Practice, use the software only to fix almost perfect passages that You can perfect but do not have the time, NOT for passages that you cannot sing.

Fabian & Milli Vanilli are a fraud, hopefully you will not follow that example.

By the way, some songs are not for every singer, not everyone can sing and not everyone will sound great on every material. Find a material that works better with your voice and vocal skills.

Mick Jagger will never sound like Barry White.