EPTAutotune - Should it be considered an art? - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
corpuscle
United States1967 Posts
| ||
|
jjun212
Canada2208 Posts
If the human voice is art within the realm of music because if it's unaltered talent or whatever Then the same logic can be applied to an acoustic guitar can't it? Unaltered instrument, just the sound from the acoustics of the shape of the guitar and the wood and strings. The human voice is the same thing, the resonance of our body, throat, all that jazz. Our bodies are like a pure resonance maker which creates our unique voices and what not. So if you add effects to the human voice, like auto-tune then it's not art.. But then you add all these effects to acoustic guitars.. or even the invention of the electric guitar... and even after the clean sounds, you have all these effects to change the sound and therefore you create art. Like I don't get it. Auto-tune is still art. It may not be your cup of tea but that's what art does, it allows for expression. Altered or not. | ||
|
afreak
Norway11 Posts
How can you say it's not an art ? Music is art autotune is an instrument everything that can make a sound can be an instrument. Im not saying I like the way autotune is being used today( I really puke at it) but music doesnt have to be only guitar drums bass and a voice. | ||
|
killanator
United States549 Posts
| ||
|
staplestf2
United States147 Posts
| ||
|
HowSoOnIsNow
Canada480 Posts
If you use vocal modifiers in a creative way,it can be nice,just like using pedals for your guitar,or just any other studio trickeries. | ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
| ||
|
Jonas :)
United States511 Posts
What's that? You don't want to do that? Why? Because using autotune IS definitely something that takes a great bit of skill to use and master. Claiming that using autotune to make music isn't an art is like claiming that using photoshop to make graphic designs isn't art. Autotune is just a tool that artists can use to make music better. Some use autotune well (lady gaga) while others (T pain, Rebecca Black) don't. Of course it is an art | ||
|
EdaPoe
Netherlands82 Posts
| ||
|
n00b3rt
Bulgaria890 Posts
 | ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
On April 11 2011 04:07 jjun212 wrote: Wait.. If the human voice is art within the realm of music because if it's unaltered talent or whatever Then the same logic can be applied to an acoustic guitar can't it? Unaltered instrument, just the sound from the acoustics of the shape of the guitar and the wood and strings. The human voice is the same thing, the resonance of our body, throat, all that jazz. Our bodies are like a pure resonance maker which creates our unique voices and what not. So if you add effects to the human voice, like auto-tune then it's not art.. But then you add all these effects to acoustic guitars.. or even the invention of the electric guitar... and even after the clean sounds, you have all these effects to change the sound and therefore you create art. Like I don't get it. Auto-tune is still art. It may not be your cup of tea but that's what art does, it allows for expression. Altered or not. Acoustic instruments (in your example, guitars) and electric are extremely different. I barely even think of them as the same instrument. Electric guitars offer: -Different capabilities and effects (which should not be compared to auto-tune. Guitarists need to be able to change their sound mid-performance, which could not be done otherwise. Auto-Tune is the, "I'm not good enough to reach, hold, or perform these notes. LOL, WHATEVS?!") -Enhanced volume (try playing in a large club/stadium with an acoustic. It won't work.) -An entirely different feel/sound (Black Death Metal and The Beatles were played on the same instrument? What the fuck?). Auto-Tune is none of these. It's not needed (unlike the effects of electric instruments). It's simply something that plays music for you. I don't know if you're just trying to be the Devil's advocate (which is fine. Every argument needs some), or you truly believe auto-tune is a legitimate tool for skillful, respectable musicians, but that's not a very good comparison. | ||
|
lowkontrast
United States855 Posts
| ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
What's so impressive when anyone and their mother can just pop what's in their head out as a tune? Yeah, it's nice because we get to hear all kinds of music then, but it's nothing special. Anyone who's ever sat down with an expensive synthesizer for an hour or two will realize, it takes ZERO skill to make a decent sounding song, and for that reason I can NOT respect any artist who excessively utilizes electronic devices or auto-tune. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
| ||
|
jstar
Canada568 Posts
On April 11 2011 03:47 Fontong wrote: Not going to lie, most of the people in this thread are uneducated when it comes to music. In fact, its pretty clear that people here don't know what music is. To dismiss an entire mechanic as nonmusical just because poor artists utilize it is simply ignorant and close minded. User was warned for this post This is most certainly true. Just because some of today's mainstream artists utilizes auto-tune in their music does not mean the mechanic itself is non-musical. It is sad that society immediately categorize and group things together with any sort of similarity. Today's mainstream music is going downhill due to one and only one reason. To cater to today's rapidly growing preteen demographic in the US. But to say that the tools they use is non-musical is ignorant. Who are you to say that Mozart wouldn't utilize auto-tune and the 808 drum machine if he were alive today? I am 100% positive he will. | ||
|
Questo
Sweden19 Posts
| ||
|
YejinYejin
United States1053 Posts
On April 11 2011 04:28 Jonas wrote:If you don't think that autotune takes skill then why don't you download it, drop out of school, make a catchy tune and rake in the money? What's that? You don't want to do that? Why? Because using autotune IS definitely something that takes a great bit of skill to use and master. Claiming that using autotune to make music isn't an art is like claiming that using photoshop to make graphic designs isn't art. Autotune is just a tool that artists can use to make music better. Some use autotune well (lady gaga) while others (T pain, Rebecca Black) don't. Of course it is an art That's definitely not the first reason for why I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't drop out of school to make an autotune song because success in the music industry is a very strange thing. The first example to come to mind of course, is one you mentioned: Rebecca Black. The producers of her song autotuned the fuck out of it, and it still sounds horrible. The general consensus is that she can't sing for shit and the song is annoying like nothing else, but people still buy her song on iTunes as a joke (like, they tell their friends, "TROLOLO guess what I just bought? *plays Friday, friends rage*). And then she makes all that money. T-Pain has also done quite well for himself. | ||
|
Caelixx
United States283 Posts
| ||
|
DuckS
United States845 Posts
| ||
|
Kaleb aka. Mngzkhuel
Germany49 Posts
| ||
| ||
