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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ok then is techno, dubstep, electronica art? any sound editing?
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.
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
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.
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.
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
which is bad why? i'd rather listen to non shitty singing than shitty singing
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.
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.
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".
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.
The argument against auto-tune, the one along the lines of 'It is not right to use software to compensate for a lack of talent' is discourse's version of Simple Jack. Sure, you may feel that way, but at least develop the audacity to admit how retarded and hypocritical that opinion is if you:
-Listen to music with distorted guitars (heavy distortion significantly masks mistakes) -Enjoy food with artificial flavoring (they should use organic recipes if they want to show their skill) -Use products to change the appearance of your hair (it doesn't really stand up like that) or partake in any of the millions of acts that invalidate this argument against auto-tune.
Basically, smart up and get off the fucking bandwagon.
I am really amazed at how many people (and I don't necessarily mean the OP or anyone else in this thread) who usually listen to the crappiest cookie-cutter radio stuff all day for years because its trendy, heavily compressed and got a big promotion budget suddenly start to feel "tricked" because they heard that people use autotune to sound cleaner or bigger?
Are you kidding me?
Obviously heavy autotune stuff seems more appropriate for funny tracks but theres no reason why someone might not be able to use it in a cool and original way.
On April 10 2011 11:36 StyLeD wrote: The auto-tune "originals" in mainstream music have used autotune for a while and have their own distinctive style. They're good (T-pain, BEP).
But someone like Kesha, who without autotune would just be another country singer or failed mainstream artist...
On April 10 2011 11:18 khOOM wrote: The argument against auto-tune, the one along the lines of 'It is not right to use software to compensate for a lack of talent' is discourse's version of Simple Jack. Sure, you may feel that way, but at least develop the audacity to admit how retarded and hypocritical that opinion is if you:
-Listen to music with distorted guitars (heavy distortion significantly masks mistakes) -Enjoy food with artificial flavoring (they should use organic recipes if they want to show their skill) -Use products to change the appearance of your hair (it doesn't really stand up like that) or partake in any of the millions of acts that invalidate this argument against auto-tune.
Basically, smart up and get off the fucking bandwagon.
Its not only NOT a retarded andNOT hypocritical opinion, but actually true that auto-tune or "robot voice" has been used as of late to cover up musicians or lyricists that can't actually sing or have tone in their voice. If you can't add pitches to your words other than purely with a device, its so different from what you're implying, its not even funny. People who use auto-tune, but have nothing else to prove they can sing (no tracks, no live shows, not even an interview clip) might as well hold up a sign saying "I can't sing".
As for your other *ahem* "similar effects" being used today, you must not be a musician if you think things like distortion covers like auto-tune does. If you CAN'T(keyword) play the guitar at all without such a heavy distortion on it you can't even tell its sound, or if you use an effect that creates a certain pitched tone no matter what fret you hit, THEN AND ONLY THEN is it comparable to auto-tuning. Even if you go into the realms of the heaviest, darkest, death metal, you can usually still hear their pitches clearly. There's such a tiny percentage of people who use distortions at the level you're implying, its ridiculous to even suggest such a similarity.
Enjoying food that contains artificial flavoring? How is this similar at all? Most foods with artificial-anything is junk food and we all know it by now. Real chefs almost always use all real ingredients as untainted as possible. I personally don't like anything that has preservatives or extra crap thrown into it, but I can't speak for everyone. Maybe there really are people who eat nothing but junk food all the time, but who's gonna listen to them about health? Musicians with no skill somehow still get massive publicity and attention. People in bad health due to eating nothing but junk food only ever make it to bad reality TV shows. They don't spread their bad habit like these so-called "musicians" do.
Hair products? You serious? Basically you're arguing that making anything artificial in any way is relate-able to this auto-tune being used in music. THAT, is in fact a very extremist and in my opinion, very incorrect way to think. Shampoo and conditioner aren't for if you have no hair, food flavoring isn't for anything that isn't food, and distortion/reverb/tube-screamer/etc effects CERTAINLY aren't used for if you aren't actually playing the guitar/bass/violin/etc. Auto-tune, however, IS used when you can't sing.
On April 10 2011 11:39 sCCrooked wrote:...Musicians with no skill somehow still get massive publicity and attention. ...
If you think that autotune is in any way influencing this or even responsible for it, you are dead wrong.
There is no correlation between "skill" (whatever this means in musical terms) and publicity/attention, with or without autotune. Thats just not how the market works. For every half decent artist that gets known there are 1000 who are much much better who will just never get famous because they don't have the marketing knowledge/ressources necessary.
Why do you have horribly biased options. What's wrong with a simple yes or no? "No it's not art" and "It ruins the originality of music" are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things.
On April 10 2011 12:02 Craton wrote: Why do you have horribly biased options. What's wrong with a simple yes or no? "No it's not art" and "It ruins the originality of music" are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things.
Unfortunately the OP sounds like a troll with this thread =/. People have liked different music since the beginning of time.
Considering people make electronic music without any singing ability, I don't see why autotune should be an exception. That said, I personally don't like the sound, just like I don't like country music that much either. But if people like it, it's fine in my opinion. I think it sounds alright when used occasionally, too, like in rap or whatever.
On April 10 2011 11:39 sCCrooked wrote:...Musicians with no skill somehow still get massive publicity and attention. ...
If you think that autotune is in any way influencing this or even responsible for it, you are dead wrong.
...and if you thought that I in any way thought autotune influenced non-skilled "musicians" to mass-popularity, you are also dead wrong. Just clarifying. I've been in the music/entertainment business in practically every way for the vast majority of my life. I'm well aware that marketing and advertisement draws people to popularity. However people just going for what's "catchy" and promoting it as "music skill" often leads to them putting things like T-Pain"I'm Sprung" on the same pedestal as things like Jimi Hendrix"Foxy Lady". You don't have to be a 23-year professional musician like me to understand that's just wrong in more ways than can be spoken.
On April 10 2011 11:18 khOOM wrote: The argument against auto-tune, the one along the lines of 'It is not right to use software to compensate for a lack of talent' is discourse's version of Simple Jack. Sure, you may feel that way, but at least develop the audacity to admit how retarded and hypocritical that opinion is if you:
-Listen to music with distorted guitars (heavy distortion significantly masks mistakes) -Enjoy food with artificial flavoring (they should use organic recipes if they want to show their skill) -Use products to change the appearance of your hair (it doesn't really stand up like that) or partake in any of the millions of acts that invalidate this argument against auto-tune.
Basically, smart up and get off the fucking bandwagon.
Its not only NOT a retarded andNOT hypocritical opinion, but actually true that auto-tune or "robot voice" has been used as of late to cover up musicians or lyricists that can't actually sing or have tone in their voice. If you can't add pitches to your words other than purely with a device, its so different from what you're implying, its not even funny. People who use auto-tune, but have nothing else to prove they can sing (no tracks, no live shows, not even an interview clip) might as well hold up a sign saying "I can't sing".
As for your other *ahem* "similar effects" being used today, you must not be a musician if you think things like distortion covers like auto-tune does. If you CAN'T(keyword) play the guitar at all without such a heavy distortion on it you can't even tell its sound, or if you use an effect that creates a certain pitched tone no matter what fret you hit, THEN AND ONLY THEN is it comparable to auto-tuning. Even if you go into the realms of the heaviest, darkest, death metal, you can usually still hear their pitches clearly. There's such a tiny percentage of people who use distortions at the level you're implying, its ridiculous to even suggest such a similarity.
Enjoying food that contains artificial flavoring? How is this similar at all? Most foods with artificial-anything is junk food and we all know it by now. Real chefs almost always use all real ingredients as untainted as possible. I personally don't like anything that has preservatives or extra crap thrown into it, but I can't speak for everyone. Maybe there really are people who eat nothing but junk food all the time, but who's gonna listen to them about health? Musicians with no skill somehow still get massive publicity and attention. People in bad health due to eating nothing but junk food only ever make it to bad reality TV shows. They don't spread their bad habit like these so-called "musicians" do.
Hair products? You serious? Basically you're arguing that making anything artificial in any way is relate-able to this auto-tune being used in music. THAT, is in fact a very extremist and in my opinion, very incorrect way to think. Shampoo and conditioner aren't for if you have no hair, food flavoring isn't for anything that isn't food, and distortion/reverb/tube-screamer/etc effects CERTAINLY aren't used for if you aren't actually playing the guitar/bass/violin/etc. Auto-tune, however, IS used when you can't sing.
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 don't like it and it's sad that artists use it, but its a tool that many artists use(as stated by a previous poster, can't think of your name off the top of my head, sorry >.<) because it's there, at their disposal to make their music sound better. It's a shame, but it's true.
That's why so many great artists that we all know were back in the '60s, '50s or any other era for that matter was before auto-tune or with digital media editing software. Back when 4, 8, and 16 tracks were on the market. Record producers would have an entire band plugged into their 4, 8, or 16 tracks, and with the absence of being able to edit halfway during the song, they would hit record and a band would have to run the entire song through and get it right the first time. Only bands, artists, and/or singers that were truly talented, whether it be from having it as a natural gift or hard earned talent, were ever able to get on a record.
Technology is a love hate-thing, and I say that as a musician. I love it in the fact that when I record a song, I can record a verse, stop record, record the chorus, re re-cord if I don't like it, or keep it, and so forth. I don't have to worry about getting it all right in one shot as I said above. It makes recording music A LOT easier. But then again, things like auto-tune really sadden me.
That's why for the past, I don't know, 5 or so years, I been judging artists more on their live performances and the shows that they put on as opposed to what they record. "Yeah, cool album. But can you play it live and entertain the crowd?" is the real question I ask for half of the mainstream artists out there.
On April 10 2011 12:10 Enervate wrote: Considering people make electronic music without any singing ability, I don't see why autotune should be an exception. That said, I personally don't like the sound, just like I don't like country music that much either. But if people like it, it's fine in my opinion. I think it sounds alright when used occasionally, too, like in rap or whatever.
i pretty much agree with this. i think the reason autotune has a bad name is the people choosing to use it are doing so because they have no talent but still want to sing, or would be putting out garbage either way. its so rare to find anyone experimenting with it that has any interest in music as art.
How could it not be considered an art or skillful?
I don't understand the reasoning. In fact, I refuse to believe the poll results are people answering the actual question. I think people are answering questions like, "Do you think autotune is a good thing?" "Is it skillful for a singer to use auto-tune?" "Do you think its used in the right way?" These are not the question.
Auto-tune isn't some sort of magical automatic tuner either. You're still coming up with the melody and just using the notes from that melody to alter the vocal track. It's not some like person sings random weird notes and then you just go and click the auto-tune button and create a song. It's basically the same process that you would go about creating instrumental music on a music program. There's no way to avoid the fact it is creating music.
If you consider creating music to be an art form, I find it extremely unreasonable to not consider the autotune aspect of it to be an art as well.
Edit: I should also mention there is a huge amount of modification that goes on besides autotune. From things like guitar amplifiers to all the things they do in the studio. Unless you're listening to some acoustic music live, you're listening to modified music. It's absurd to selectively pick out autotune as bad among all the modifications.
Charlie Sheen and #winning would not have happened without Auto-Tune.
The Bed Intruder Song would not have happened without Auto-Tune.
Please stay, Auto-Tune, even if few can utilize you for good.
Should we be listening to 100% acoustic music? I mean, clearly, distorted guitars and drum tracks and pre-recorded tracks and modern musical innovations are terrible, and aren't art. Really, though, auto-tune is just overused currently (like synthesizers were in the 80's and terrible midi-style drum beats), and eventually it will die down and become just another part of creating good music.
Surprised at the amount of "yes" responses. Autotune isn't supposed to be a replacement for a normal vocal tone. It's simply an instrument: it makes a sound at a specific pitch. Saying autotune is bad because it doesn't have an authentic vocal tone is like saying that violin is a terrible instrument because it does a bad job at approximating a piano. It was never intended to sound like authentic singing, so it's hardly a surprise that it doesn't.
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.
Auto tune definitely has a place to be considered a legitimate part of music. It creates a definite feel and sound with electronic music, and when it is used to that effect it works great. Where it doesn't work and just sounds weird and awful like someone is trying to pass themselves off as a good singer is something like Glee. Sure some of them can sing, but when everything is auto tuned it sounds over produced. When auto tune is used like that they are coming off as trying to make up for the deficiency of the singer and pass it off as actual talent. That blows, and everyone with a brain knows it. When it's used to create a specific sound and feeling and for creative purposes(such as the BRILLIANT bed intruder song), I don't see how anyone can say it is not legitimate. Sure you may not like it, but that doesn't mean it's not "music". Hell, I think dubstep is fucking garbage, but I'm not about to say it isn't music. I would just come off as some 90yr old saying how Elvis is ruining music.
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.
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.
Autotune is a stylistic choice, like painting with a thin brush or a thick brush, naturalism v. expressionism, black & white film v color/different saturations & shot compositions, like choosing to use an electric guitar or an acoustic guitar, or to synthesize electric drums vs. using natural drums and putting effects on them or running them clean. There are a million more examples these are just a few.
Autotune can be used badly or used incredibly well, like any other instrument.
To back my statement, here is an example of what I personally consider to be an excellent example of using autotune as a stylistic choice to (arguably) great effect. This piece of music is, in my mind, indubitably art, whether you personally enjoy it or not doesn't include or preclude it from being art.
Bon Iver doesn't use autotune in many songs, but when it is used it's not to cover weaknesses, check out the album For Emma, Forever Ago if you'd like some validation of Bon Iver as a bona fide musician.
Autotune doesn't show skill of the singer, but it shows skill in a musical ear and technical ability by the mixer. There is both good mixing and bad mixing when it comes to autotune as well. I think there's place for both in music. Autotune is an especially powerful tool for up and coming mixers who don't have the resources to hire an elite vocalist, they can get a good sound out of a moderate singer if they have some skill with the digital manipulation.
I think part of the problem is we still have a music industry who worships singers and musicians, when so much of the real brilliance is the work of the guys behind mixing boards and computer screens these days, and those guys are making some ground shaking music.
if duchamps "fountain" (which he literally just took from a store and wrote his name on,) is considered the single most influential piece of art, then im sure auto-tune can fit right into the great world of art.
I think if your vision for music requires a robotty sound that is auto-tuned, then do what you please. However, I doubt most people when they sing their songs think "Well, what would be really awesome in my masterpiece, is some auto-tune to ruin my voice".
As a tool, by all means use it. A group like Daft Punk uses it and it goes well with their music. *Gulp* Even heartbreaks and 808s was done with autotune as the wanted product (or so the artist says... regardless, you can't deny that it did fit together nicely).
But in Pop music, I have never said "well this artist was going for a shitty robot voice".
Weather you differentiate between the two cases, it does not matter. My ears are used to hearing live voices with changes in pitch, tone, etc. When I hear auto-tuned stuff like Kesha, I don't see any artistry behind her singing or the way she communicates her music. The only thing you may call art is her lyrics which she probably doesn't write, and even if she did, it isn't stimulating in any way shape or form.
I think that autotuning could be an interesting dabble by an already established or capable artist to try out a new genre, but having artists autotune every single one of their songs........ well then they aren't or shouldn't be called artists.
Ehhh...depends how it's used. There are times when it's used well, and I think that the composer/producer has artistic creativity. However, if the person using autotune has not proved that they can actually sing, or it's clear that they have no actual talent, then that's a case where autotune is misused.
As for whether or not it's dead, I think the type of autotune where that's all that's going on is dead, but I think it'll always linger on occasionally for certain runs or whatnot. It's not going to be completely dead because it's a quick and easy way to make something sound different, but I think most people are past the point now where they're ok if autotune is the only standout feature in a song.
umm..people need to visit a recording session in an actual studio and compare the song before and after some tweaks have been made. believe it or not, most artists/bands use auto tune (OMG, right?). it may not sound the same on the surface, but it is auto tune to a lesser degree nevertheless.
personally, i dislike the sounds made by pure auto tune (t pain, kesha, etc). but i think people in this thread need to realize they're bashing their own favorite artists/bands when they give autotune a bad name.
autotune like lo-fi music is a style choice it's popular now thus it's also popular to hate on it. but shit will stick around in one form or another, in the end if the music sounds good people will listen.
On April 10 2011 14:54 moltenlead wrote: I think that autotuning could be an interesting dabble by an already established or capable artist to try out a new genre, but having artists autotune every single one of their songs........ well then they aren't or shouldn't be called artists.
I'd disagree with this... but then, you have some distinctions to make. Is the "artist's" greatest selling point their vocals? Are they a singer, or a song writer, or a musician, or a mixer? I'd forgive Moby 100% of the time for using autotune should he so choose to, because what's good about his music was never his vocals, it was his sound, the bigger picture. Singing quality isn't what sells his songs, and never has been. The great vocals in his music, if there are any, aren't his anyways.
If we're talking about generic Idol #4593, who has some douche bag pay writers 2 cents a word for song lyrics and tosses tracks through the mixing machine where some devry art institute music grad "masters" the track for 30 dollars an hour and a microprint credit on the back of the CD cover, then ya, I don't think what's going on there should be called art. It's pretty much McMusic.
Not every artist who uses auto-tune fits into that category though, not even remotely.
Auto tune is a tool that can greatly enhance the feel of a song unfortunately it's been over used and shed in the wrong light now that there is a taboo in trying to use it to some form of actual artistic success. Listen to "Hotel Arizona" By "Wilco" where they use a small bit of autotune to meld the Lead singer, Jeff Tweedy's voice into the sound of the distortion guitar. It's a really cool trick that really adds a cool weird vibe to the song
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.
The Vocoder is the real answer here. Cynic is a good example of a great band that uses vocoder to complement the sound without diminishing the artistic value. Would that same drum solo be so impressive if it was a drum machine? Kinda ruins it for me, I have no interest in autotuned music.
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.
To be honest, there are some cases when autotune sounds actually better than the original singers voice, but in most cases no - Autotune ruins everything.
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
Vocoder and autotune is the same thing, more or less.
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.
Tpain is famous for the talkbox style. He has some good stuff and some bad stuff. He's not too bad as a mixer in general.
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.
I think that auto tuning should be considered an art form, because you can use it to make some really awesome effects in rap and music in general, but using it to make someone sound terribly bad instead of ear-bleeding-ly(now I'm making up words =/) terrible is just wrong. and violates the ear drums in ways I'm scared to describe...
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
Your question is "should it be considered art", and yet your yes answer states "Yes - I find autotune to show skill within the artform of music." Skill != Art. You don't need any sort of vocal talent if you have auto-tune, but auto-tuned songs can still be artistic works.
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.
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.
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?
I don't really understand what your argument is, sorry.
I'm pretty sure what you are talking about is just plagiarism. Autotune is just another tool artists have access to that they can create new/different sounds with.
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.
It fits with some stuff. The way it's used in most pop I'm not very fond of.
I think there are better examples of autotune as art, take imogen heap or bon iver, of course some auto tune stuff is trash but sometimes its used really well
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.
Why do people who can't sing should do rap ? Is it only because music industry can't find young talents fast enough to satisfy the demand? So the autotune will be the quickest way arround? Dunno, it feels wrong to me, i couldn't like autotune songs no matter how much i tried. It's so robotic and out of soul.
Yeah but the way she does it is different. When she performs that song live it's with a keyboard playing the notes and her voice going through what she does with the keyboard. Whole different beast. Either way it creates a different sound which is what autotune CAN do when implemented creatively.
edit: Forgot how good Imogen Heap was. Very talented chick.
I think it can be neat to have like a chorus with autotune for an interesting effect, but to have an entire song with the singer's voice autotuned it is just ridiculous.
I am not musically talented in any way but I think it is similar to the wammy bar on a guitar. If you play an entire guitar solo using it, it is super annoying, but every few notes here and there can make a song sound a bit better.
I haven't heard a song which uses autotune which I like. That said, I hate pop and hiphop so maybe its just that I guess for me personally, autotune puts the nail in the coffin.
Auto-Tune is a joke. It's literally means for an insignificant vocalist to get away with their inferiority. There's nothing more to it. Why just plug the words into Text-To-Speech, as far as I'm concerned. It takes just as much effort.
That song isn't actually auto-tuned (at least not when she does it live). She uses a harmonizer and vocoder. The effect is similar in terms of how her voice sounds but they're not quite the same thing.
The point still remains though considering that the harmonizer/vocoder combo is modifying her voice to do things it couldn't otherwise do (a la autotune).
Auto-Tune is a joke. It's literally means for an insignificant vocalist to get away with their inferiority. There's nothing more to it. Why just plug the words into Text-To-Speech, as far as I'm concerned. It takes just as much effort.
That's only one application of autotune, and often when autotune is used during production it is for the purpose of saving an artist's time (less takes) and therefore money. Perhaps artists shouldn't need autotune to record flawlessly, but that's a different conversation for a different day.
It has plenty of other uses. Just because you disagree with one way of using it doesn't mean you have to label the whole thing as a joke. Why have less tools available to you when you could have more?
The poll on the front page is fairly biased. I'm not sure if this argument has been brought up already but there are definitely shades of grey just because of the subjective nature of art not two explicit opinions as shown in the poll. Autotune can be similarly related to the introduction of the synth where people could get sounds that were just like the instrument being emulated. You could argue that musicians that have taken years to learn their instrument just get them emulated near perfectly by a machine would be cheated by others taking the easier alternative where they are just utilizing available technology. People are more than welcome to voice their opinion on whether or not they "hate" some art form but I don't see how they are going to achieve anything especially on such a subject as art. There are art forms, a fair few of them, that I don't agree with and can't for the life of me understand why people would bother using their valuable time listening/watching/playing them. It would be insensitive and incite a fair amount of anger from a large community of people if I told them that.
On April 10 2011 20:04 Fog-of-War wrote: If autotune is an art. it would be like finger painting. I mean sure it's art, but c'mon anyone with half a brain can do it.
The art is, like in all artforms, in doing it well and not anyone with half a brain can do that.
It's just a tool for musicians, albeit much easier done horribly wrong than most other tools and effects. Good musicians will make good use of autotune, horrible musicians will earn lots of money. Just the natural cycle of musicianship.
Auto tune is as much an instrument to musicians as electric guitars or keyboards. It doesn't matter if it's a natural voice or autotuned, if it sounds good then anything goes. This oldskool elitist mentality that autotuning is bad has got to stop.
It's just a tool, whether it's art or not depends on how it is beeing used.
To my knowledge many famous composers in the history only saw musicians as their tool, too. They didn't care about these people and their instruments, all they wanted is their music to be played perfectly the way it was supposed to be. Many would probably have loved autotune etc, as long as it can give them the results they want to.
I only have a problem with autotune if singers who don't need it use it. For musicians who can't sing, autotune is necessary or their song will suck, so I don't blame them for using it. As for the poll, yes autotune is art. Just because most people don't like it doesn't mean it's not art. It may not be good art but it's still art nonetheless. No autotune isn't dead. Netizens can whine all they want about autotune, but people are still buying and listening to autotuned songs and that's the bottom line.
If a singer wants to use autotune that's fine, but they should no longer consider themselves a "singer" in the true form of the word. I'd call them more of a DJ in the vocal medium. In fact I don't even know if they should be considered that, since the person who is actually singing probably doesn't even do the autotuning? Either way, some autotune is fine, but I just can't help but laugh when you have no sense that someone is actually singing at all.
On April 10 2011 11:36 StyLeD wrote: The auto-tune "originals" in mainstream music have used autotune for a while and have their own distinctive style. They're good (T-pain, BEP).
But someone like Kesha, who without autotune would just be another country singer or failed mainstream artist...
i actually found Kesha to be quiet good before she got famous, and personally think autotune has killed whatever talent she had.
Auto tune in music is like an unmade bed, some idiots might pay to see it, and some pretentious douchebags in the industry (looking at you Simon Cowell) might say it qualifies as art. But it doesn't. It takes zero skill and zero thought on the "artist's" part. Take Rebecca Black for example, her parents paid Ark to make a video for her. So she was given a song to sing, music to sing it to and because of autotune she didn't even have to sing it well. I'm sorry but it you don't write lyrics, don't write music, cant play an instrument and cant sing in tune in what sense are you a musical artist? /rant
Autotune and vocoders are completely different, in that one doesn't necessarily apply pitch correction. Daft Punk, Kraftwerk, Cynic, Styx, etc. used vocoders, T-Pain, Rebecca Black, Kanye West, etc. use autotune. You can use vocoders to pitch-correct, but then you have to use a keyboard or guitar to give the frequencies, like what Imogen Heap or Peter Frampton do.
Second, someone was saying that guitarists using distortion is the same as autotune being used, which is just silly. Besides the fact that playing with distortion actually makes it harder to play cleanly since it exaggerates your mistakes, no guitarist has ever said "well I want to play this lick on clean channel but it sounds like shit, so I'm just gonna crank the distortion and it'll sound good." A semi-accurate comparison might be the heavy use of noise gating in a lot of modern metal/hard rock, which removes a lot of the fret noise and unwanted scratching that plague sloppy guitar play.
As for the actual thread topic, I don't think it's really fair to say that using autotune doesn't require skill. You can tell if someone really can't sing even if it is autotuned (see: Rebecca Black), and there are some artists who clearly have practiced singing into autotune and know how to make it sound better. Obviously there's a lot of trash out there that people just slapped autotune on, but there's a lot of trash out there that some producer just slapped more mild pitch correction on. It hasn't really been important to sing on pitch in recorded music for decades now.
There's some great music out there that uses auto-tune and that's not just thrown in there to compensate for something. Be a little more open minded. It's like saying screamo is all shit because it's just people wailing -- and a lot of it is terrible, truthfully. But when someone does it right and knows how to incorporate into a piece of music, it's art (well, everything is technically art but let's not go there).
What takes vocal talent is irrelevant. By that logic all electronic music is garbage.
On April 10 2011 19:47 TALegion wrote: Auto-Tune is a joke. It's literally means for an insignificant vocalist to get away with their inferiority. There's nothing more to it. Why just plug the words into Text-To-Speech, as far as I'm concerned. It takes just as much effort.
As someone who makes music (and makes money off of it from time to time):
Autotune is NOT art. It is a tool of producers and musicians. It is no more art than a piano is art... meaning, autotune has more in common with a musical instrument (or a couch) than a stand-alone piece of art.
It's usage can be art. It usually is. Just most of the time, it's cheap pop-art. Sometimes it's tasteful and well done. Vocal talent is art, just made by the singer, not the composer or producers. With all due respect, saying autotune is not art because it takes away from the purity of the vocals is like saying distortion on guitars is not art because it doesn't sound acoustic anymore. It's misinformed, and unrelated to the discussion.
And considering the MASSIVE amount of production work that goes into tweaking mainstream hit vocals (equalizing, spacial imaging, reverb, chorus/ensemble, and yes, editing so it will be right on rhythm and ON TUNE) in every song, this point should be null and void, just as it will be as soon as that fad goes the way of the vocoder (remember that fad guys? *shudder*).
Be a little more open minded. It's like saying screamo is all shit because it's just people wailing -- and a lot of it is terrible, truthfully.
I just want to point out that the scream vocals you hear in screamo, hardcore, extreme metal, etc etc actually take a lot of practice and skill. You obviously aren't trying to argue that, and I'm not disagreeing with you at all since you're right, but I hear a lot of people say "well that guy can't sing, he's just growling and shrieking," and it couldn't be farther from the truth.
On April 11 2011 02:34 Kazius wrote: As someone who makes music (and makes money off of it from time to time):
Autotune is NOT art. It is a tool of producers and musicians. It is no more art than a piano is art... meaning, autotune has more in common with a musical instrument (or a couch) than a stand-alone piece of art.
It's usage can be art. It usually is. Just most of the time, it's cheap pop-art. Sometimes it's tasteful and well done. Vocal talent is art, just made by the singer, not the composer or producers. With all due respect, saying autotune is not art because it takes away from the purity of the vocals is like saying distortion on guitars is not art because it doesn't sound acoustic anymore. It's misinformed, and unrelated to the discussion.
And considering the MASSIVE amount of production work that goes into tweaking mainstream hit vocals (equalizing, spacial imaging, reverb, chorus/ensemble, and yes, editing so it will be right on rhythm and ON TUNE) in every song, this point should be null and void, just as it will be as soon as that fad goes the way of the vocoder (remember that fad guys? *shudder*).
Good point. People not involved in music production don't realize how much editing is done to "natural" vocals, really not that much less than anything involving autotune. Very few records are produced with the vocals being "natural", it just doesn't happen like that.
Be a little more open minded. It's like saying screamo is all shit because it's just people wailing -- and a lot of it is terrible, truthfully.
I just want to point out that the scream vocals you hear in screamo, hardcore, extreme metal, etc etc actually take a lot of practice and skill. You obviously aren't trying to argue that, and I'm not disagreeing with you at all since you're right, but I hear a lot of people say "well that guy can't sing, he's just growling and shrieking," and it couldn't be farther from the truth.
Why does it matter how much skill it takes? If it was the easiest thing in the world does that make it somehow worse? Would you stop liking it?
Why does it matter how much skill it takes? If it was the easiest thing in the world does that make it somehow worse? Would you stop liking it?
I don't think it matters if something takes skill, though I've heard almost nothing in music that sounds good and requires no skill. I just wanted to comment on the fact that some people immediately hear a vocal style that isn't traditional singing, and say "that takes no skill, and therefore is bad, and the artist is bad" when a lot of work actually goes into what they're doing. Applies to autotune, applies to scream vocals, etc etc.
90% of times i hear autotuning in song I will instantly stop listening to it because it makes headache and sounds shit and feels shitty cheating and nuisance nosense.
This is art. This is the whimsical voice of a diva who has not only control in her voice, octaves that needs two hands to count with, but sincerity of her talent reigning purely from her voice alone and complimented by instruments.
Autotuning is purely, as others have said, a tool to from the music industry to not only assure that one's voice has no faults, stability and consistency, but also gives a generic aftertaste on everyone's voice, that electronic one-dimensional face that bores me, but also lies to the ears of the listener. It lowers the standards of talent, saturates the industry with the same one-time wonders who write about the same cliche normalities of a materialist: drugs, drinks, party, women (or men), sex and probably ignoring moral values in exchange for a good time.
Like others have said Auto tuning is not an art in itself, it's just a tool, like a paint brush or a pencil.
It's how you use the tool that makes it art. There are many times where the use of Auto-tune is done in a fashion where it's not to make up for the singers lack of vocal ability but to enhance it.
This is one of the songs I find where Auto Tune is used in an artistic fashion.
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.
I'm really surprised to see the result of this poll, actually. Of course, I don't agree, I think autotune is one of many tools you can use to make art.
I never listen to radio, nor do I know anything about the latest pop songs though, so that might explain why I disagree with the consensus.
But I just don't see why autotune would be any less compatible with art than any other instrument, human vocal cord included. What matters is the result, not the amount of effort or skill that was put into it.
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.
I like how you criticize those who give an opinion, but don't give your own.
I don't like that even some of the people who are arguing in favor of autotune are implying/outright stating that it takes "less skill." There is no skill ceiling to anything in music, you can always make whatever you're doing sound better, even with a pretty limited toolset. Whether the skill comes in how you're producing the sound or in how you're singing/playing your instrument, there is ALWAYS room for improvement and refinement.
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.
There shouldnt be a limit to intruments, if a new instrument is discovered people shouldnt condemn it. 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.
If people are guna buy the music, then they will make it. Some artists need autotune to continue to be successful, for instance Ke$ha has built autotune into part of her sound, if she stopped it, regardless of how well she can actually sing, her records just wouldnt sell like they have because it would be a different sound. I think some artists can definitely sing fine without autotune, and in their case its best just to use autotune to fix a particular part of a song without having to re-record the entire part(which is what autotune was originally made for, touching up a song and fixing a couple wrong notes)
I guess that if using autotune aint art then using a wah wah on your guitar isn't as well. As for a pitch corrector used because a person cannot sing, i guess that's different. At the same time,other form of music doesn't require real singing skills, such as rap or various forms of metal, and it doesnt matter that much.
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.
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
Performing music is not an art as a whole, auto-tuned or not. It's a money-maker, and the person of art is the composer. But the level of music you're arguing about is far from art anyways
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.
It's like preset effects in video editing software - overuse it and it just ruins the novelty of the effect. Sure, auto-tuning has its' place, but its' usage definitely shouldn't become commonplace.
I absolutely hate auto-tune along with most techno/electronica. The impressive aspect of musical art is the translation of what is in someone's head, into the air because they're GOOD at something, be it guitar or piano, or what have you and it's hard to do.
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.
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.
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.
Anyone who uses autotune and actually gets paid for it makes me want to gouge my eyes right out of my skull. Sorry, Kanye West. Stop putting it in 90% of your songs, buddy.
Stupid question to ask, which seems to be misguiding a lot of the posters. Is it an art? Yes, of course, it's expression. It masks a persons actual talent though, and can make a terrible singing voice into something decent. If you like this stuff, is to your own. I personally prefer none to little. A lot of the beef with auto tune recently is record labels snagging a pretty face and just auto tuning her voice with sub-par lyrics but making a fortune.
Argh.... you just can´t listen to autotune -.- but you know what? i guess almost every professionally recorded singer has some kind of autotune (melodine or something) to correct wrong nuances. You only can say if a singer is good if you hear him live.
Auto tune is a crutch. It has it's place in mass produced shit pop/rap. It doesn't bother me because it stays in that area and I don't bother listening to any of it.
There are plenty of singers out there who sound like shit but nobody cares. Brent Hinds? Ever seen him sing live? He doesn't give a shit and it sounds fine.
People saying auto tune use is OK when used for a desired vocal effect is LOL. There are tons of other ways to change your vocals with effects. People using auto tune, even sparingly are doing it because it's...auto tune. There are much better ways to imitate Kraftwerk than use it.
Also wanted to post that. In my opinion this proves autotune can be some kind of art. It certainly emphasizes this scientific-ish style. Symphony of Science is pretty interesting.
People saying auto tune use is OK when used for a desired vocal effect is LOL. There are tons of other ways to change your vocals with effects. People using auto tune, even sparingly are doing it because it's...auto tune. There are much better ways to imitate Kraftwerk than use it.
But what makes those other effects OK? They're doing the same thing in principal - modifying your voice to sound a certain way which it couldn't otherwise sound.
People DO use auto-tune for reasons other than pitch-correction, regardless of what you might say.
Besides, most of the bands you listen to probably use it (read: do use it) without you even realising.
Autotuning "real" (and I use this term lightly) music ruins the originality. IMO, it is borderline shenanigans to pass off autotuned lyrics with synthesized backgrounds as "music". However, autotuning for the sake of autotuning, such as Bed Intruder or ATTN is just as much an art as a masterfully executed Photoshop.
To those comparing auto tune to electronica: If you have an awful voice auto tune can make you bearable to listen to. If you are bad at composing electronic music no device can help you. You still need some amount of creativity to write music.
It isn't the technology that is artistic, but the user of it. I think autotune like sticks and stones you find on the ground can be used artisticly, and to wreck havock and pain around you. Just like 3D it can be a cheap way to get people to the cinema but some use 3D to express emotion and action in a way that would almost be impossible in 2d, like avatar(say what you will of the story, in 3d it was a great experience) though many would say 3d in its essence is gimmicky nobody seriously doubts its artistic potential. Autotune only has the misfortune of being moderately enjoyable even when used poorly .
EPT
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/YYzaJ.jpg)
is considered the single most influential piece of art, then im sure auto-tune can fit right into the great world of art.
. 
