On April 10 2011 12:26 Ghostpvp wrote: The problem I have with it you can take a random "pretty" face with talented writers/choreographers and turn them into a pop sensation that is basically all a marketing force and essentially talentless. This style of marketing has become extremely popular because somehow 14 year old girls have the money to keep buying this crap.
Actually, I am a musician, and have a degree in Recording Arts, and that is precisely why I feel the way that I do.
I don't even know where to begin with this debate. What you are expressing is so contradictory that it is difficult to present this in a way laymen enough for you to grasp. But let me make an attempt.
First, it is always correct to understand things at their most fundamental level, and if you find that to be 'extremist' then holy shit, you received a terrible education.
You say autotune "has been used as of late to cover up musicians or lyricists that can't actually sing or have tone in their voice." No shit, and I am okay with this because people mask and 'cover up' a ton of shit in their lives without having debates about whether or not it is right to do so (like putting things in your hair to make it better.)
You then babble about being able to play instruments, and you are stuck on the point that being slightly off key while singing is like not being able to put your fingers on the right notes. You are clearly not a musician because you would know that their is a massive difference between being able to fret the correct notes on a guitar, and being able to play them well without introducing fret noise, muting notes prematurely, and playing with the right delicacy or intensity. All of these things are amended with the introduction of distortion, which is why it masks a poor performance.
My point is that if you look around with an objective eye you will see that there is a moral dilemma between the 'against auto-tune' argument and the things you do everyday, which you take for granted.
I can see this is going to be difficult to put lightly.
First you attempt to babble on with your qualifications and how they're somehow similar or equal to mine in some feeble attempt to pump up your own ego to match what you mistakenly think is my ego.
You then attempt to insult me directly by implying I'm somehow less than you. This is ego again at its finest.
You then attempt to make a comparison of your blatant insult towards anyone with a certain opinion as "understanding the fundamentals" which you have demonstrated none of so far. Hate to be the bearer of bad news but calling something by a name other than what its largely recognized as usually results in mis-communication of some sort. I'm going to excuse your term here and assume you meant something entirely different.
If you don't see how giving someone a quality and modifying an existing quality are two entirely different things, I can't help you much. Also ending it with another insult doesn't add to your "credibility".
In the second to last section, you attempt to belittle my knowledge of music by implying that I'm somehow an inferior musician or am lying about being one in some way. Once again this isn't going to make anyone other than complete egotistical idiots think you're more of an expert. Its a very poor attempt to boost your own ego once again.
My point is that you're too mis-informed, mis-guided, and completely utterly lost in your own ego to be anywhere near what any intelligent person would call "objective thinking". You also have managed to get completely into a flaming mode over my entry into the discussion. Believe it or not, you're not the controller of everybodys' lives.
Back on topic, what people really don't understand is that music is entirely subjective. Some people might be hit really hard by the auto-tune and it just speaks to them in a way it doesn't to others. Others might have nostalgia or any number of reasons why they prefer a certain style of music. The true beauty in music is that its possible to even have all these varying styles. I will not agree that auto-tuning should be used as much as it does today, but that's only based on my opinion that being a poser shouldn't warrant recognition. I respect anyone who says "music is awesome" in any way. I don't care the style or preference.
On April 10 2011 12:26 Ghostpvp wrote: The problem I have with it you can take a random "pretty" face with talented writers/choreographers and turn them into a pop sensation that is basically all a marketing force and essentially talentless. This style of marketing has become extremely popular because somehow 14 year old girls have the money to keep buying this crap.
Are you saying that as a fact or as an opinion?
Anything that can be considered subjective is opinion.
I think this sounds terrible, yet I recognize that it takes a ridiculous amount of skill. Too many people think skill required = quality in music.
Keyword, I think. I think it sounds pretty bad ass. Your using your tastes in music to decide what is terrible and what is good. To an extent higher skill produces better quality music. It is ridiculous how auto-tune makes it possible for bad singers to become so famous, if anyone can do it what makes it so special? If no skill is required then what is the difference between quality music and crap music?
Actually, I am a musician, and have a degree in Recording Arts, and that is precisely why I feel the way that I do.
I don't even know where to begin with this debate. What you are expressing is so contradictory that it is difficult to present this in a way laymen enough for you to grasp. But let me make an attempt.
First, it is always correct to understand things at their most fundamental level, and if you find that to be 'extremist' then holy shit, you received a terrible education.
You say autotune "has been used as of late to cover up musicians or lyricists that can't actually sing or have tone in their voice." No shit, and I am okay with this because people mask and 'cover up' a ton of shit in their lives without having debates about whether or not it is right to do so (like putting things in your hair to make it better.)
You then babble about being able to play instruments, and you are stuck on the point that being slightly off key while singing is like not being able to put your fingers on the right notes. You are clearly not a musician because you would know that their is a massive difference between being able to fret the correct notes on a guitar, and being able to play them well without introducing fret noise, muting notes prematurely, and playing with the right delicacy or intensity. All of these things are amended with the introduction of distortion, which is why it masks a poor performance.
My point is that if you look around with an objective eye you will see that there is a moral dilemma between the 'against auto-tune' argument and the things you do everyday, which you take for granted.
I can see this is going to be difficult to put lightly.
First you attempt to babble on with your qualifications and how they're somehow similar or equal to mine in some feeble attempt to pump up your own ego to match what you mistakenly think is my ego.
You then attempt to insult me directly by implying I'm somehow less than you. This is ego again at its finest.
You then attempt to make a comparison of your blatant insult towards anyone with a certain opinion as "understanding the fundamentals" which you have demonstrated none of so far. Hate to be the bearer of bad news but calling something by a name other than what its largely recognized as usually results in mis-communication of some sort. I'm going to excuse your term here and assume you meant something entirely different.
If you don't see how giving someone a quality and modifying an existing quality are two entirely different things, I can't help you much. Also ending it with another insult doesn't add to your "credibility".
In the second to last section, you attempt to belittle my knowledge of music by implying that I'm somehow an inferior musician or am lying about being one in some way. Once again this isn't going to make anyone other than complete egotistical idiots think you're more of an expert. Its a very poor attempt to boost your own ego once again.
My point is that you're too mis-informed, mis-guided, and completely utterly lost in your own ego to be anywhere near what any intelligent person would call "objective thinking". You also have managed to get completely into a flaming mode over my entry into the discussion. Believe it or not, you're not the controller of everybodys' lives.
Back on topic, what people really don't understand is that music is entirely subjective. Some people might be hit really hard by the auto-tune and it just speaks to them in a way it doesn't to others. Others might have nostalgia or any number of reasons why they prefer a certain style of music. The true beauty in music is that its possible to even have all these varying styles. I will not agree that auto-tuning should be used as much as it does today, but that's only based on my opinion that being a poser shouldn't warrant recognition. I respect anyone who says "music is awesome" in any way. I don't care the style or preference.
You have successfully avoided making a compelling counter-point by being offended, and talking only about how hurt your feelings are. Very nice.
If you don't see how giving someone a quality and modifying an existing quality are two entirely different things, I can't help you much. Also ending it with another insult doesn't add to your "credibility".
I'm going to try and pry this little gem from the mud and see if I can't identify the type of stone it is.
So I'm trying to understand the difference between modifying an existing quality and 'giving someone a quality'. By 'giving someone a quality' I assume you are referring to the presentation of a singer as being 'good' when they actually rely on auto-tune, and when you say 'modifying an existing quality' you mean using auto-tune because it is aesthetically pleasing.
To use your rapport: If you don't see how auto-tuning a vocal to make the pitches perfect and auto-tuning a vocal to achieve an effect are both the exact same thing (creating what the artist envisions) then I can't help you.
I will always choose the good songwriter who makes good music over the person with technical talent. I'm not so egotistical that I can only appreciate the work of someone who has put in 10,000 hours of practice. And if you appreciate music then ye shall agree.
On April 10 2011 10:34 kaisr wrote: i think natural skill is overrated.
If there was ever a post worthy of a facepalm, this is it.
In the context of discussing the merits of autotune, would you care to explain your opinion? Or is posting useless one liners your forte? At its core, music is entertainment, if the artist can make the song sound exactly as he/she intended it to sound, I don't understand whether or not it is done with a singer's natural voice is relevant at all. One of the arguments against autotune is that it doesn't take skill. So what? Why does that even matter as long as the song sounds good?
Autotuning is a technique. Music including autotuned vocals is art, as all music is. Autotuning in itself is not an art though.
Autotuning does have its place in satire and comedy, but in music? It's absolute rape of vocal input, ruining the artistic performance of the singer. That it's also mostly used to "correct faults" in the singer's performance, moving them better into cetain notes or varying their high and low end tones, only magnifies the flaw in the artist, something that makes their lacks that much more obvious. In effect, it's kinda like postergirl airbrushing, but for failed vocalists stead.
I imagine autotuning computergenerated voices would be pretty neat though.
On April 10 2011 10:34 kaisr wrote: i think natural skill is overrated.
If there was ever a post worthy of a facepalm, this is it.
In the context of discussing the merits of autotune, would you care to explain your opinion? Or is posting useless one liners your forte? At its core, music is entertainment, if the artist can make the song sound exactly as he/she intended it to sound, I don't understand whether or not it is done with a singer's natural voice is relevant at all. One of the arguments against autotune is that it doesn't take skill. So what? Why does that even matter as long as the song sounds good?
For that last line there - there's a lot more to music (and art in general) than just the finished product. While some are content with a product that's consumer-ready without any thought about anything else what so ever, some have more developed tastes.
On April 10 2011 10:34 kaisr wrote: i think natural skill is overrated.
If there was ever a post worthy of a facepalm, this is it.
if the artist can make the song sound exactly as he/she intended it to sound, I don't understand whether or not it is done with a singer's natural voice is relevant at all. One of the arguments against autotune is that it doesn't take skill. So what? Why does that even matter as long as the song sounds good?
Here is something a lot of non-musicians do not understand..
Shit in is shit out. End of story, autotune will never make a bad voice good. There is no dispute over that. And if you want to take the argument further, Michael Jackson used Melodyne back in the early 90s on his records. Almost every mainstream song since the 90s has used a form of pitch correction.I think it's funny most people go crazy saying the super autotuned music takes no skill, but if you really think about it, it's a bit more honest than all the other musicians who do it and mask the effect so you think it's their skill.
On April 10 2011 13:22 plated.rawr wrote: Autotuning is a technique. Music including autotuned vocals is art, as all music is. Autotuning in itself is not an art though.
Autotuning does have its place in satire and comedy, but in music? It's absolute rape of vocal input, ruining the artistic performance of the singer. That it's also mostly used to "correct faults" in the singer's performance, moving them better into cetain notes or varying their high and low end tones, only magnifies the flaw in the artist, something that makes their lacks that much more obvious. In effect, it's kinda like postergirl airbrushing, but for failed vocalists stead.
I imagine autotuning computergenerated voices would be pretty neat though.
I don't see the problem with using Auto Tune really I think it suits some songs and genres fine
On April 10 2011 13:25 xLethargicax wrote: Here is something a lot of non-musicians do not understand..
Shit in is shit out. End of story, autotune will never make a bad voice good. There is no dispute over that. And if you want to take the argument further, Michael Jackson used Melodyne back in the early 90s on his records. Almost every mainstream song since the 90s has used a form of pitch correction.I think it's funny most people go crazy saying the super autotuned music takes no skill, but if you really think about it, it's a bit more honest than all the other musicians who do it and mask the effect so you think it's their skill.
Seriously read this
Even if you are a bad singer, even with auto tune, I doubt you will sound good
If you're using autotune to changed the mood/theme of a song, totally cool. But, using autotune to cover up the fact that you're a terrible singer isn't cool.
On April 10 2011 12:17 jalstar wrote: Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not art.
favorite auto-tuned song, it's used mostly sparingly and for effect.
I think Autotune is a legitimate way to make music, and I think this song is awesome, but I think you may be underestimating how much Autotune is being used in this song.
it is like asking "should scales be considered an art?" it is only a technique that may be employed to create a musical piece
perhaps you were TRYING to ask whether music composed thus far with autotone should be considered art? still a rather vague question, due to the difficulty of defining art. But to this, i would nonetheless probably say that most music with autotune is rather rubbish, as is the vast majority of pop/rap/rock music nowadays, and that autotone is usually employed to cover up a weakness in vocal technique. it is also something of a mannerism nowadays, and that's never a good start to creating art.
favorite auto-tuned song, it's used mostly sparingly and for effect.
I think Autotune is a legitimate way to make music, and I think this song is awesome, but I think you may be underestimating how much Autotune is being used in this song.
Yeah, there is a lot of autotune in this song >.<
I don't have any problems with this song, though there is definitely a lot of autotune...
I think it varies depending on the situation. Should it be considered an art? It can be. Most of the people who are against autotune in this thread (I only skimmed it) seem to be against the type of 'artists' who do not have any actual singing or writing skill, but are still very popular.
There are people out there who have no singing ability, do not write their own music, choreography, or anything really. They are a pretty face and are handed everything, and then autotuned. I think its completely fair to hate this when there are so many others out there who work so hard and never get the recognition they deserve when they have so much more talent/passion/whatever.
This doesn't answer the question, though. As it was mentioned, autotune isn't just a magic button that fixes things. Theres editors working that autotune. Making crap sound good through autotune can definitely be considered a skill. Just look at the Bed Intruder Song. That's fucking awesome, and its not even singing; its a goddamn news report.
I think this is very much like asking if macaroni pictures are art. Not usually, but I bet someone out there can do it.
EPT
