ORIGINAL: No How

A Beatles tune comes to mind "Yes It Is" where there are a couple spots where it sounds to me like the boys were definately a bit off in the 3 point harmonies and yet, it's my all time favorite Beatles tune...go figure
To imagine that being 'corrected' with perfect pitch would be akin to sucking the blood out of the song and replacing it with anti-freeze.

+1
And if you listen to the Anthology (or have even more outtakes on boot) there's quite a few where they're a bit off (of course they were still trying to find the right notes) but those takes, to me, are great.

Robert Anthony

^ How about "Wild Honey Pie" with pitch correction?
Maybe if they did that, the band wouldn't have fought so much about that song & broken up.

ORIGINAL: Philip
But melodyne (not so great for off-register pitch correction) is great for helping me think vocal harmonies and backing vocals.

Good point. Yup, used as a tool to arrange harmonies, it's fabulous. In fact, I kinda like the effect it has on layered harmonies. Sort of a clean flanger effect.

In fact I wouldn't really be too opposed to it on lead vox if it didn't make it sound so thin. I dunno, maybe I was using it wrong, but all my pitch-corrected notes stuck out like sore thumbs, almost like they were sung into a different mic. I guess Melodyne discards some of the harmonics that normally give a voice a rich sound. Like you said, it's a tradeoff. I wonder what the (non musician) fans think? Do they even recognize the Cher effect at all?

I dunno, maybe I was using it wrong, but all my pitch-corrected notes stuck out like sore thumbs, almost like they were sung into a different mic.

Hey Duck,
Did you try adjusting the formant?

ORIGINAL: Spaceduck

Although I bought Melodyne 4 years ago, I only used it on 2 songs before realizing the horror of what I was doing. It's been collecting dust ever since.

Hmmm.... since yer not using it... is the license transferable....?

I mean, I'm going to hell anyway... Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me... so using such evil tools doesn't fill me with horror in the least.

ORIGINAL: bitflipper

Digital audio fakery, on the other hand, requires little from the performer in the way of either effort or skill. Like throwing on a stomp box and punching in a preset. That alone will encourage its continued use and continued evolution.

I think "fakery" is both harsh and meaningless. All recordings are fake. By definition. As for effort or skill, it still requires some degree of... what shall we call it... how about aesthetic instinct and judgement... to assemble the components and construct... fabricate... the recording. Whether that's done by the "performer" or the producer, or a master/mistress of puppets, or a loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires and baaby... isn't it the end result -- the listener's experience of the end result -- that matters?

Why, really, and how, is it any worse or different when recording artists use pitch correction today than it was when they used punch-in correction 40 years ago?

Recording technology makes music a plastic art. I've always thought that was a good thing. I think that's what got me into it in the first place. The beautiful fakeness of it all. Goo goo goo joob.

ORIGINAL: rsp@odyssey.net

C'mon Dave, your slippin into "curmudgeon" territory here.

Now now, it's not fair to single out Mr. Flipper -- you're ALL a buncha curmudgeons! Rhymes with Gus Dudgeon!

xx,

MM (burning out her fuse up here alone!)

ORIGINAL: Jamz0r

I dunno, maybe I was using it wrong, but all my pitch-corrected notes stuck out like sore thumbs, almost like they were sung into a different mic.

Hey Duck,
Did you try adjusting the formant?

Probably not... considering I didn't know you could! I just assumed the program would detect & preserve the natural formant of my voice. I guess that's the pitfall of a program that's really user-friendly. You tend to forget that a technical side exists, because you spend all your time playing with the shiny gold vertibrae-looking things.

Unless you're one of those crazy people who read the users manual.

Songcraft, that's some nice pitch correcting. If we weren't in here talking about it, I definitely wouldn't have noticed that it was Melodyned ...except maybe right at 1:50 the word "falls". Backups sound fantastic with the effects you used.

My problem is my style of music usually calls for dry sounding vocals, which means I can't rely on reverb/chorus/processing to smooth out the Melodyne effect. That's a copout, I know. If I really had to use pitch correction, I could probably make it fly. But this is where we get into the heady pseudo-philosophical stuff......

ORIGINAL: Marah Mag

I think "fakery" is both harsh and meaningless. All recordings are fake. By definition. As for effort or skill, it still requires some degree of... what shall we call it... how about aesthetic instinct and judgement... to assemble the components and construct... fabricate... the recording. Whether that's done by the "performer" or the producer, or a master/mistress of puppets, or a loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires and baaby... isn't it the end result -- the listener's experience of the end result -- that matters?

Ahh, now I think I see the division. We're all musicians. But the question is, do you consider yourself more of a performer or a composer? If you're strictly a composer, then by all means, use every tool (real, fake, plastic or paper) to help you bring life to your music. But if on the other hand you're a performer, then I'd say you need to do the performing yourself, not the software.

For example, Trent Reznor (9 Inch Nails) is NOT a performer. He's a studio magician, so we don't care if he uses all sorts of fakery to acheive his goal. But someone like Frank Sinatra is 100% performer, so I'd be sickened to learn that he nudged a note even 1 Hz. Both Trent Reznor & Frank Sinatra impress me with their talents. But to me there's a clear distinction. The question to all of us is where do we fit in?

I was a live performer long before I ever got into the studio, so I'll always have my roots there (even if I shamelessly use fake drums). I'm pretty sure Bitflip is a live performer, which would explain his uber-curmudgeony stance! (just joshin ya, flips. I'm right there witcha) I think the problem arises when someone pretends to be a performance act when it's really studio magic (like Yes on their last 3 "live" albums... where did those perfect 9-part harmonies come from??)

That's where we get into fraud territory. Like all those supermodels who, if you take away the photoshop & airbrushing, aren't nearly as perfect as they advertise themselves to be. But I guess that's the artist's prerogative. I'm sure Da Vinci took a couple pounds off Ms. Mona Lisa...


(edited to add that I reserve the right to be a hypocrite. There's one vocal part I've been struggling with for a week because it's two whole steps out of my range. Uh... what was that you were saying about formants, jamz....? )

ORIGINAL: Bristol_Jonesey

They'd be pretty shocked if the auto-tune went wonky in the middle of a performance by some of today's biggest stars

If I was the engineer, I'd be tempted to do it deliberately, just for a laugh.

funny i was thinking the same thing...along with a well timed press on ::solo:: muahaha

Message deleted. I replied to the wrong thread.

ORIGINAL: SongCraft

I highly recommend Melodyne because IMHO it's the best but like all vocal processors it takes a lot of

+1
Melodyne Uno can work wonders. Two caveats: First, you need to take time to learn to use it. There are a lot of parameters to play with, and a lot of ways to tweak individual notes, the formants of the notes, the way the notes blend from one to another, the amount of correction, the pitch drift, etc.

Second, some voices seem to lend themselves to correction better than others, and it doesn't seem to have much to do with how far off the pitch is - more with some esoteric quality of the individual voice. One girl I recorded has a great singing voice, but on the few spots that needed touch up I struggled with melodyne to get a transparent sound. Another girl always sings so far off key you can't recognize the tune, but I can put her right on key and it sounds pretty darned good - I can even change her melodies into realistic harmonies.

BTW - if you talk to Celemony they will tell you that Melodyne Uno will NOT work as a plug-in for Cakewalk. This is incorrect: it works fine, at least for how I use it. I click on a track in Sonar (home studio), select Melodyne from the tools menu, correct the track, close melodyne, and the track reloads and is done. For non-destructive editing you would need a different version than Uno, but you can always just save the original track off, which saves CPU anyway. Note that Uno only works with 24-bit max.

my problem with auto-tune and other "fakeries" isn't so much that people use them. i expect that buxom pop stars are going to need a virtual rackful of effects to sound like, well, pop stars. i also expect that supermodels get airbrushed and actors get makedup'd and that the whole lot of them get implants and plastic surgery and so on. that is the business.

my issue is when that stuff gets applied badly (i.e., way too obvious) and when it sucks the life out of otherwise "organic" music. compare the wailings of kurt cobain and billy corgan and chris cornell and eddie vedder to today's sterilized modern "rock". now, one could argue that is simply part of the nu-skool genre but is there any doubt that this overprocessed stuff has largely fallen flat compared to older tunes? maybe i'm just too old, but i can hear the difference. there's something missing and nothing new to make up for it.

so i'm not against autotune when it's part of the game. i expect maroon 5 to use it because it's just part of that polished, pitch-perfect, quantized pop sound. and honestly, i think it sounds pretty good. but trying to cram rock or folk into that same square peg, well that doesn't (usually) work for me.

sort of related - someone mentioned a post where a person was looking for a realistic guitar synth, and the predictable response was "learn to play a guitar". i'll admit that as a guitarist i kinda feel the same way. but i use DFHS - i'm no drummer by any stretch. the flip side of that though is that some instruments are easier to fake than others. guitar is a lot harder than say, piano. drums can be done fairly easily with good samples and some appreciation for groove (timing and dynamics both). i have yet to hear a convincing solo string synth.

the point of all that i suppose is that ultimately all these things are tools for a purpose. before i knew how to play the guitar i looked for realistic guitar synths so i could compose music. after i learned to play the guitar (and learned how futile the search for realistic guitar synths can be) i didn't need that anymore. but it doesn't make me any more or less of an artist. an artist applies the tools they have to creating art. the value of that art is subjective.

I am not a big fan of pitch correction because a) it usually sounds weird/fake b) if you cant hit the notes, then lower the pitch of the song.

Here is a studio trick that may help you stay on pitch: In your headphones, only put one side to one ear only and leave your other ear uncovered.... put tape over the speaker in the unused side of the headphone to not allow any sound to escape... you will then hear your mix in one ear and you can hear yourself singing in the non head phone ear...better... and you will stay on pitch better...give it a shot it works.

In your headphones, only put one side to one ear only and leave your other ear uncovered.... put tape over the speaker in the unused side of the headphone to not allow any sound to escape... you will then hear your mix in one ear and you can hear yourself singing in the non head phone ear...better... and you will stay on pitch better...give it a shot it works.

Yes, this can definitely work.

Curiously, I have found that my pitch is better with different sets of headphones. I used to use a pair of Koss consumer headphones which were very good, but I bought a pair of ATHM50's (?) and found that my pitch improved. These have a very flat response, which I am guessing is beneficial for tracking vocals.

ORIGINAL: esmail1

Hi Mariah Mag, I tried to PM you but your PM is full so here is my message on how to get some Beatles outtakes online:

One of the sources i have used is www.rapidfind.org... membership to the forums is free. Be sure to virus scan any files before opening but Ive never had any from this forum.

for example, a few ive gotten there...

a) Beatles first session for George Martin auditioning for him.... early versions of One after 909 etc. from 1962

b) German mix of Strawberry Fields

c) Unreleased studio jams from the Let it Be era...and outtakes from the Rooftop concert at Abbey Road in 1969...

here is one link to one download -- need winrar to unwrap it...

http://rapidshare.com/files/158178911/TBeat_Ultra_Rare_Trax_Vol._1.rar

and the original message master board, you need to be a member to log in..but its free

http://www.rapidfind.org/upload/showthread.php?t=112357&highlight=beatles


PS: Paul & John never needed Pitch Correction.

Thanks esmail1. I'll look into those!

(The PM box gets filled with only 4 PMs?? How... frugal of them! Thanks for letting me know! )

So, it's been a while since someone replied to this thread but I thought I'd give my input.

Like Jack said, I don't really mind auto-tune/pitch-correction when it comes to the genre it sounds best in. It sounds fantastic when artists like Ke$ha use it (even though she probably doesn't need it either) because it's a tool of pop music, when you're talking about the sound used as an effect. I think the effect thing is a little more respectable when you look at it that way because it's just like how we put delays or reverb on instruments. The voice is an instrument just as much as anything else, especially nowadays. 

The only thing that really bugs me about the current music industry is when these famous "musicians", whether by choice or being forced to, don't use their voice and instead choose to lip sync. Even Alanis Morissette was caught doing it once at the Canadian Olympic Ceremony because rumor has it she couldn't get her band together? Bull ****. Props to Katy Perry for never lip syncing as far as I can tell. I mean, if you have this opportunity, at least try. Even with Britney back then, her lip syncing was acceptable because her dancing was amazing (only artist I've said that about) but now it's like "Come on! Why are you even on the stage?" To me, lip syncing is the real disgrace. I honestly usually don't care if they suck live or are off pitch live. At least they're not fake. 

What the h*ll, I'll just stay home and send the laptop to the gig.....................................

thatguywiththeheadphones


So, it's been a while since someone replied to this thread but I thought I'd give my input.

Like Jack said, I don't really mind auto-tune/pitch-correction when it comes to the genre it sounds best in. It sounds fantastic when artists like Ke$ha use it (even though she probably doesn't need it either) because it's a tool of pop music, when you're talking about the sound used as an effect. I think the effect thing is a little more respectable when you look at it that way because it's just like how we put delays or reverb on instruments. The voice is an instrument just as much as anything else, especially nowadays. 

The only thing that really bugs me about the current music industry is when these famous "musicians", whether by choice or being forced to, don't use their voice and instead choose to lip sync. Even Alanis Morissette was caught doing it once at the Canadian Olympic Ceremony because rumor has it she couldn't get her band together? Bull ****. Props to Katy Perry for never lip syncing as far as I can tell. I mean, if you have this opportunity, at least try. Even with Britney back then, her lip syncing was acceptable because her dancing was amazing (only artist I've said that about) but now it's like "Come on! Why are you even on the stage?" To me, lip syncing is the real disgrace. I honestly usually don't care if they suck live or are off pitch live. At least they're not fake. 

Pitch correction/Autotune/Melodyne are not MEANT to be heard so I find it strange to say they "sound" this or that. If they are used correctly and subtly you can not hear it. The FX-use is a totally different thing, and has got little to do with perfecting the pitch.
 
I agree with you about lip sync. There's a "middleway" in it, which is seldom talked about. I came to think about it again watching Lady Gagas Monster Ball-concert on TV. It's very common to use backing vocalists with a similar voice as that of the star. These/this singer sings the whole concert or at least the parts where the star has to dance a lot. The backing vocal and the "intended lead vocal" are mixed variably. When the star gets out of breath the assistant is on top etc.  I'll have to double check, but according to my feeble ears there was a few places where you could hear the two background girls take over when Lady Gaga was in a tough spot. So, technically she was telling the truth when she said, enforced with f-words, that she'd never do lip sync.
 
In the European Song contest, which is the biggest musical event in the world, and which has become a pathetic circus nowadays (it used to be sincere in it's childishness in the old days), it seemed to me that every other performer was dancing so much that there's no way they could have sung themselves. They did have two supporting singers standing still in the background.
The rules say the lead has to be sung live, so technically everything is OK.