Now in modern day music, auto-tuning has become a common part of music, especially in pop and even some rap music. So i ask you TL....
Poll: Should it be considered an "art"
No - Autotuning music ruins the originality of the music where the singer has a natural sound. (515)
86%
Yes - I find autotune to show skill within the artform of music. (85)
14%
600 total votes
Your vote: Should it be considered an "art"
(Vote): Yes - I find autotune to show skill within the artform of music. (Vote): No - Autotuning music ruins the originality of the music where the singer has a natural sound.
Now many people absolutely hate Auto-tuning, while others find it entertaining to completely torch up the news and write an entire song out of the news.
Before voting check these links for some popular songs that use auto-tune:
I think it ruins actual music while making parodies and comic skits more amusing. I don't like how a person, who normally would be unsuccessful, can be successful by singing into a computer that fixes their voice. It is hard to say they don't deserve it though, because they more than likely put in the same amount of time / dedication to someone who can actually sing.
I don't think Auto-Tune should be used to make a crap singer sound 'good'. But when it's just used to alter the voice-sound to a computery-way that would be impossible otherwise it can be really quite a cool effect
Edit: I guess a succinct way of putting this would be to say that it should be use to augment rather than replace or fix.
On April 10 2011 10:33 404.Delirium wrote: I don't think Auto-Tune should be used to make a crap singer sound 'good'. But when it's just used to alter the voice-sound to a computery-way that would be impossible otherwise it can be really quite a cool effect
I completely agree with this, auto tune is just like a synthesizer. When pop and kpop use autotune it makes me cringe because these singers can't even sing, sure I like k/pop as much as the next person since you feel good listening to it, but I would feel even better if they just used their real voices.
I don't think its fair to put all autotune in the same category. Listen to Kanye's 808s+heartbreak album, where he uses it to create a sort of distant/lonely sensation. Then theres people like the Black Eyed Peas who use it for their techno/robotic-sounding stuff. Then of course theres people who autotune because they cant sing for jack shit, like kesha.
Auto-tune is one of the tools available to a composer/musical arranger... and composition is absolutely an art. However, it removes the artistry present in the singing of a song.
On April 10 2011 10:34 kaisr wrote: i think natural skill is overrated, if it sounds good, why not.
The question is whether or not autotuned music should be considered art as opposed to whether or not it's appealing. It would be like if I painted a stick figure, then a machine improved upon it and I sold it for millions of dollars. I'm not an elitist but I can't stand auto tuned music. I stick firmly to independent/underground/alternative stuff.
On April 10 2011 10:38 Severedevil wrote: Auto-tune is one of the tools available to a composer/musical arranger... and composition is absolutely an art. However, it removes the artistry present in the singing of a song.
This is how I feel, I enjoy auto-tune, but i feel it definitely takes away from the singing art of the song itself. Although some songs sound really cool with it, some could just leave it out and sound fine.
Art is whatever pleases the person experiencing it. That's all it is to me. If someone enjoys listening to autotuned music, great. If someone enjoys menstruated blood splattered on a canvas in some abstract way, great (go google it if you're one of these ppl).
Edit: Also the way you word the poll can bias ppl since you mention "skill" and "originality". You should be absolutely clear of what you're getting at in your poll.
Auto-tune is often used just to speed up the recording process and save an artist's money. It costs Britney Spears a shitload more if she keeps doing take after take until she gets it perfect rather than just doing one decent take and auto tuning out the mistakes. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's another reason why it's used which a lot of people don't seem to know about.
There's also the auto-tune sound which some artists like and purposely go for. T-Pain for example.
To be honest I don't think it makes sense to say autotune is always good or always bad. It should be judged on a case by case basis.
On April 10 2011 10:33 404.Delirium wrote: I don't think Auto-Tune should be used to make a crap singer sound 'good'. But when it's just used to alter the voice-sound to a computery-way that would be impossible otherwise it can be really quite a cool effect
Exactly what I think. It makes me sad that for every person who get famous from auto-tuning there crap voice there is a naturally good singer who is stuck singing covers on youtube...
Just because you use auto-tune doesn't mean that your music is automatically good. Auto-tune is just another tool that musicians use to enhance their music. That being said I find it really hard to like music where the artist uses auto-tune. And why does everyone think that the word art is synonymous with the word good? Sure most of todays music that uses auto-tune is horrible but it is still art.
Autotune should be used in moderation. I won't mind it as much if it wasn't used so often to hide a singer's awful voice. If you know that the artist has a good singing voice, I wouldn't mind it so much.
On April 10 2011 10:32 jester- wrote: I think it ruins actual music while making parodies and comic skits more amusing. I don't like how a person, who normally would be unsuccessful, can be successful by singing into a computer that fixes their voice. It is hard to say they don't deserve it though, because they more than likely put in the same amount of time / dedication to someone who can actually sing.
PS> I hate the Black Eyed Peas.
I agree with the first part of this. I don't mind autotune, I actually like it sometimes. I guess it really depends on how you want to consider it's uses as "art". Maybe it could be considered so with songs like "Bed Intruder" because it's turning a conversation voice into, singing? Or whatever you want to call it. It's entertaining and sounds good. But then again, it depends on how one defines art. I guess it takes a certain amount of skill to use autotune, but I wouldn't call it skill vs. the talent of a natural singing voice. I don't like how songs nowadays such as rap/pop use autotune throughout the ENTIRE song. I don't like the fact that some people make a living and fame off music where they don't even use their real voice. I don't mind it most of the time, it's just that I would prefer to also hear the person's real voice too.
On April 10 2011 10:33 404.Delirium wrote: I don't think Auto-Tune should be used to make a crap singer sound 'good'. But when it's just used to alter the voice-sound to a computery-way that would be impossible otherwise it can be really quite a cool effect
Exactly what I think. It makes me sad that for every person who get famous from auto-tuning there crap voice there is a naturally good singer who is stuck singing covers on youtube...
Yes, autotune songs with a nice funky hook/beat (except Friday) overshadows those who have great singing talent. Autotune is nice in small dosages.
i agree with a lot these guys, autotune should be used as a tool to enhance the mood and theme of the song not to completely alter some really bad singer's voice(rebecca black, kesha, etc.) and when its used that way it feels like they are cheating you of your buck cause you wanna hear a great voice singing along with the melody not a robot trying to cover everything up.
EPT
