Autotune - Should it be considered an art? - Page 6

On April 10 2011 15:30 CursedRich wrote:
There is not one song that will be listened to in 10 years time that is auto-tuned and will be considered classic, its a tool for bad pop music

Vocoders are much cooler for using the voice as a synthesized sound, think Daft Punk and you should understand the difference

On April 10 2011 15:30 Parsistamon wrote:
It depends on the manner in which it's done--I think Kanye's autotune is pretty good, but others like Tpain are pretty bad. I think it's as legitimate as any vocoder or synth though. Again: it depends on the performer.

On April 10 2011 15:32 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
It's just another element of sound. Whether or not you like it has nothing to do with it is an "art" or not. This idea that the validity of music is somehow directly proportional to the skill it took to produce is pretty absurd.

I'm indifferent to autotune. Most "bad" songs with autotune would be garbage without it as well so does it really matter? It's just a vocal effect and a way of manipulating sound. That's what music is, the manipulation of sound for the purpose of expression.

On April 10 2011 15:32 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
It's just another element of sound. Whether or not you like it has nothing to do with it is an "art" or not. This idea that the validity of music is somehow directly proportional to the skill it took to produce is pretty absurd.

I'm indifferent to autotune. Most "bad" songs with autotune would be garbage without it as well so does it really matter? It's just a vocal effect and a way of manipulating sound. That's what music is, the manipulation of sound for the purpose of expression.

On April 10 2011 18:17 vek wrote:


Sums up how I feel perfectly. People had the same complaints about synthesisers and "electronic instruments" in the 70s and 80s. Both are pretty widely accepted these days. Autotune is just another new tool for artists to make use of.

I don't care if its autotune, vocaloid or some guy tapping his fingers on a desk. If it sounds good I'll enjoy it.

On April 10 2011 18:38 Navane wrote:


And what if I take a record of an obscure 80's band and I release it as if it's my own music. Is that an art? It still sounds good and that's all what counts, right?

On April 10 2011 18:15 XsebT wrote:
I hate the word "art".
It's MUSIC. And yes, autotuning is music. It's totally subjective whether you like it or not. Personally, I don't like autotune - I just think it sounds horrible. If it's only to fix vocals then obviously that person shouldn't sing in the first place.

On April 10 2011 18:29 Ceril wrote:
You look good, cant actually sing or have any real talent, but with $$$ we'll make you into a star.
You look like something a donkey rode in on, have tremendous talen but the makeup budget to get you out there would be enough to feed an african nation: Go the old long road to fame where you'll never earn a tenth of what the mixandthrowaway artists of today make, bonus; Some will remember your name 10 and 20 years from now.

I do not think autotune as a tool for artists to draw on is bad. But making an artist based entirely on autotune and sex appeal? Cultural worth of a dead rat. Nice $$$, which is all that matters short term. That said theres some great originality in electric music, but todays mainstream is a shamefull reflection of our society and what it values.

On April 10 2011 10:52 Jombozeus wrote:
Some rappers just cant sing, and they need to autotune their voice to sound remotely listenable. Plus, it sounds good, so why not.

It can be just as good as a normal song or just as bad as a normal song.