droddey

John T


Katy Perry's a fairly good singer and guitar player. She's not Joni Mitchell or anything, but she's pretty good, strong voice, good pitch, quite a range. Like most of what you've been saying, you're talking from a position of ignorance based on your existing musical prejudices.

Again, making things up. I never said she wasn't at least a decent singer. I'm a decent singer for that matter. But what do her albums sound like in comparison? And if they don't sound the same, why do here albums sound different. Could it be that the things I'm talking about are being done, despite your constant attempts to make fun of that claim?

I'd like to see anyone come across exactly like a one to one correspondence to their recording...and, again, we are kind of underestimating the intelligence of the average listener here...


Plato's Cave and all that...

It's just not the same. There's a difference between the very less than optimal circumstances of a live situation causing performances to be less technically correct than they can be in the much more controlled studio situation. Long before there were all these modern corrective tools studio albums sounded better for that incredibly obvious reason. That's not what is being discussed here, clearly. We are talking about a album that the artist cannot actually have done. Not that someone did ten takes and kept the best one, which is a fairly common way to get optimal performances in the studio. But that the performance is edited, gridded, tuned, and highly automated, turning a 'decent' singer performance into a perfect pitch performance. It just isn't the same thing.

Where do you stand on Strawberry Fields? That can't be played live to sound that way either.

Where are you getting this live vs. studio thing. I never brought that up. You keep putting those words into my mouth. Plenty of bands record things that can't be played by the band live, not because the band can't play the parts, but because there are more parts than the band themselves can play at once. Some use sound effects, but I'm pretty sure no one thinks that they made the sound effects with their mouths or something.

Again, I'm not going to be dragged into a nitpicky argument. I keep getting accused of trying to set rules for other people, when I'm not at all. You guys are the ones who seem to have to have some sort of rule book. Integrity doesn't require a set of guidelines. When people try to keep coming up with a 'but they did this, so why can't I do that' type of argument, that's for children in my opinion. Grownups don't do that.

WHAAAAA? You never brought it up? It's *exactly* what you've been banging on about.

Cognitive dissonance, that's what this all is.

John T


WHAAAAA? You never brought it up? It's *exactly* what you've been banging on about.

I have not. My arguments have been about the manipulation of performances to be far better than the artist can actually do, and not being honest about that fact. It never had anything to do with live vs. studio performance.
 

This passive-aggressive schtick is really grating too. "I'm not setting any rules, I'm just saying that any of you using these tools is a morally bad, dishonest, cheat". Oh, okay, that's not offensive at all.

Your unwillingness to engage with any specifics is absurd. Where do you stand on Strawberry Fields? Where do you stand on Chuck Berry? These aren't rhetorical questions, I'd genuinely like to know.

John T


This passive-aggressive schtick is really grating too. "I'm not setting any rules, I'm just saying that any of you using these tools is a morally bad, dishonest, cheat". Oh, okay, that's not offensive at all.

You obviously never bother to read anything. I never said any such thing. I said to use them to create performances beyond the capacity of the artist, but never admit it is the problem. I've said probably ten times in this thread that if people were honest about it, I wouldn't have a problem. You really need to take the time to read the things you are responding to.