If it sounds good, then i see no reason why it should be scrutinized. Sure it may make a shitty singer sound more bare-able, but the blame should reflect the singer's ability and not the song itself.

I don't think its fair to just blanket autotune as good or bad, since may other factors like singer's talent and the flow of the song strongly influence whether or not the autotune was an artistic addition or masking an otherwise talent-less Rebecca Black.

erin[go]bragh

United States815 Posts

April 10 2011 01:54 GMT

#24

I really need to avoid this thread. But no, it absolutely shouldn't. Its akin to Beethoven using a computer to write his symphonies for him. It allows those without talent to participate in something they normally wouldn't be able to. And for that, it has it's place in elementary classrooms and basements of teenagers. I will never respect any artist who forgoes their own creative input to let an auto-tuner do all the work.

That said, auto-tune will continue to prevail and will see more and more use. Honestly, it works a lot like how everyone abandoned Broodwar to play SC2. Once everyone finds out you can become more popular while doing less work, they are going to do it.

rocky13

Canada70 Posts

April 10 2011 01:54 GMT

#25

Autotune is to music as steroids is to sports

not quite but kind of ...

Ocedic

United States1808 Posts

April 10 2011 01:54 GMT

#26

Understanding Comics said it best: anything that is not done for the purpose of survival is art. Stop putting 'art' on a pedestol or trying to rank the worthiness or legitimacy of art.

thoradycus

Malaysia3262 Posts

April 10 2011 01:57 GMT

#27

Autotune is fine, but when dance tracks where people use autotune populate a lot of the charts its not however.

Loanshark

China3094 Posts

April 10 2011 01:58 GMT

#28

It's cool to have maybe a few verses autotuned in a song for a cool effect, but to have everything autotuned just should not be done.

kaisr

Canada715 Posts

April 10 2011 01:58 GMT

#29

On April 10 2011 10:39 Glaven wrote:

Show nested quote +

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.

ok then is techno, dubstep, electronica art? any sound editing?

billy5000

United States865 Posts

April 10 2011 01:58 GMT

#30

Almost every studio-recorded songs you listen to are "auto tuned" to an extent..

Reaper9

United States1724 Posts

April 10 2011 02:00 GMT

#31

I don't mind auto-tune as long as it is a minor tweak to an artist's voice. Otherwise I find it very annoying.

a176

Canada6688 Posts

April 10 2011 02:02 GMT

#32

auto tune is to music as lens flare is to photoshop

FliedLice

Germany7494 Posts

April 10 2011 02:03 GMT

#33

On April 10 2011 10:58 kaisr wrote:

Show nested quote +

ok then is techno, dubstep, electronica art? any sound editing?

you still have to actually compose the stuff there... seems like autotune on the other hand is just used to make shitty singers sound less shitty

Ympulse

United States287 Posts

April 10 2011 02:04 GMT

#34

I listen to Techno when I want to hear digitized voices.

Autotune has no place in vocal music.

SpiritAshura

United States1271 Posts

April 10 2011 02:05 GMT

#35

Autotune should be used for random dance music, I don't mind hearing it in the club because I'm more focused on dancing with women all night. When I want to listen to music for the sake of listening to music, screw autotune.

kaisr

Canada715 Posts

April 10 2011 02:06 GMT

#36

On April 10 2011 11:03 FliedLice wrote:

Show nested quote +

you still have to actually compose the stuff there... seems like autotune on the other hand is just used to make shitty singers sound less shitty

which is bad why? i'd rather listen to non shitty singing than shitty singing

Bibbit

Canada5377 Posts

April 10 2011 02:07 GMT

#37

I think anyone who calls it art is just being silly. I'm not 100% positive but I'm pretty sure theres no skill behind it at all.

Still, I dont hate it. I dont even dislike it. Whether it requires skill or not, I still like the sound of it. And if you dont like the sound of it, I cant see how anybody's gonna change your mind.

What I do hate that I've been seeing lately is people who usually sing with autotune trying to sing without it. I'm looking at you Kanye West.

Offhand

United States1869 Posts

April 10 2011 02:07 GMT

#38

Unfortunately, the existence of auto tune doesn't cheapen the work of artists willing to use it as much as it wrecks anyone else's chance at fame if they aren't willing to use the program (or have a classically "good" singing voice). That stifles, a LOT of possible musicians. Think of all the greats* who'd never have gotten famous if auto-tune existed.

I get that some musicians are using autotune and presenting it as a legit form of music like the Black Eyed Peas robot voice thing. That's just a dumb fad, don't worry about it.

*+ Show Spoiler +

Bob fucking Dylan, for instance.

meep

United States1699 Posts

April 10 2011 02:09 GMT

#39

Autotune has got to be the worse thing that is to happen to music, I hear it all the time on the radio and it sickens me. Most of those people don't deserve the amount of money they receive from making "music".

redFF

United States3910 Posts

April 10 2011 02:13 GMT

#40

There's a difference between autotune on a bad singer to make them sound like they are good,eg crappy no talent pop singers, and using as an instrument or to make a song sound a certain way, e.g. 808's and heartbreaks.