I'll be interested to here how you get on with it - it's definitely overused, and the worst offence is using it on all the backing vocals as well. As someone pointed out, two voices in perfect pitch just sounds like a car horn.
To hell with perfect vocals. That's not how it works. There is supposed to be some variation, it's what makes us human.
I have a personal vendetta against things like this. Music has become so sterile and boring because of things like auto tune and copy/pasting in the studio. When bands are spending hours getting that one perfect snare drum hit to copy a few hundred times it's no longer music from the band, it's an engineer's album. It's sickening.
Do I understand the appeal? Sure. I can't sing to save my life, and I've made recordings with auto tune that sounded killer. Are there people that use it as a once in a while tool, not a crutch? Absolutely, and I hope that's what you're doing.
I'm not totally against the mild use of technology to polish a really bad note, or adjust the effects of production (i.e. pitch shifting from editing etc.). Just don't auto tune you're whole recording. That's just lying to anyone that listens to it. If you can't reproduce it live, don't bother doing it at all.
(after re-reading that, it sounds harsh, and I mean no offense to Troy specifically, it's just a topic that get's me riled up)
I think it can sound cheesy, but on garageband you can use it in percentages like tune 10% or 50% or even 100% (which will get you the sound you associate with auto tune). The benefit is the ability to get a particular track in tune or in key like say a vocal/guitar track that has a couple of flat or sharp notes throughout can be smoothed out by using auto tune. It rounds the sour notes up or down to the key being used and If used subtly it definitely is effective.
To hell with perfect vocals. That's not how it works. There is supposed to be some variation, it's what makes us human.
I have a personal vendetta against things like this. Music has become so sterile and boring because of things like auto tune and copy/pasting in the studio. When bands are spending hours getting that one perfect snare drum hit to copy a few hundred times it's no longer music from the band, it's an engineer's album. It's sickening.
Do I understand the appeal? Sure. I can't sing to save my life, and I've made recordings with auto tune that sounded killer. Are there people that use it as a once in a while tool, not a crutch? Absolutely, and I hope that's what you're doing.
I'm not totally against the mild use of technology to polish a really bad note, or adjust the effects of production (i.e. pitch shifting from editing etc.). Just don't auto tune you're whole recording. That's just lying to anyone that listens to it. If you can't reproduce it live, don't bother doing it at all.
(after re-reading that, it sounds harsh, and I mean no offense to Troy specifically, it's just a topic that get's me riled up)
To hell with perfect vocals. That's not how it works. There is supposed to be some variation, it's what makes us human.
I have a personal vendetta against things like this. Music has become so sterile and boring because of things like auto tune and copy/pasting in the studio. When bands are spending hours getting that one perfect snare drum hit to copy a few hundred times it's no longer music from the band, it's an engineer's album. It's sickening.
Do I understand the appeal? Sure. I can't sing to save my life, and I've made recordings with auto tune that sounded killer. Are there people that use it as a once in a while tool, not a crutch? Absolutely, and I hope that's what you're doing.
I'm not totally against the mild use of technology to polish a really bad note, or adjust the effects of production (i.e. pitch shifting from editing etc.). Just don't auto tune you're whole recording. That's just lying to anyone that listens to it. If you can't reproduce it live, don't bother doing it at all.
(after re-reading that, it sounds harsh, and I mean no offense to Troy specifically, it's just a topic that get's me riled up)
Auto-tune devices don't make music so sterile and boring, people who use auto-tune devices make music sterile and boring.
I'm not sure I get the point of "transparent" autotune, you could just punch in the out of tune note... it seems to me that it's more of an effect than a corrective tool... and as an effect, if you choose to use it, it should noticeable... that's the point. You don't need auto tune to correct the occasional sour note. Everyone does that all the time, on every instrument, not just voice. You have a few mistakes on an otherwise good take, you just punch in and fix them. No "studio trickery" or anything like that, just a better take.
I'll avoid totally getting on my recording industry soap box, but I don't really take offense to any particular studio technique. Evaluate the song for the song. If you don't like it and it's too sterile/compressed/whatever, it's probably because the song sucks, auto tune or any other effect(s) didn't make it that way. Everyone has preferences on which effects sound cool and which don't, but I don't think there's any moral high ground in avoiding something out of the sake of some "purity." It's whatever, the studio is an instrument, use it the way you want.
Strummerson had an interesting idea in one thread about how he sees himself appreciating old technological advances (in guitars) and sort of scoffing at news ones (I hope that's a fair summary) and I think that's at play here. The Beatles know a thing or two about deviating from "pure" recording techniques... with hindsight, old innovations are brilliant but the new ones are sacrilege or something... pop-filters, de-essers, in-the-box reverb, whatever... all okay, auto-tune not? Line seems pretty arbitrary.
@Matt - Pretty much. I wouldn't say scoff, but I don't think I give newer tech enough of a shot. And I think I probably wouldn't be all that interested if I did, but there may be useful things I'm missing.
My problem with auto-tune is actually not so different from my concern with tuners, strobe and otherwise. My first instrument is violin. Ear training, pitch training, is part of the game. A small number of people are simply tone deaf, and a smaller number is born with perfect pitch. The vast majority of us are somewhere in between. Ears learn if you teach them. I use a tuner when I'm in the studio and if I were gigging, I'd use one on stage b/c no one wants to keep the audience waiting and watching while they tune audibly. But other than that, I tune my guitar by ear. Tuning fork and then string to string. If you don't use your ears, you lose precision.
Likewise with auto-tune, I can imagine situations in which it's useful. But using it regularly would impede growing as a singer. As an effect, it's not to my taste, but it's as interesting as any effect. Also, in certain cases, imprecision in pitch can be aesthetically effective. Ringo Starr famously often hits just under his notes. But I wouldn't want anyone else singing With a Little Help From My Friends or It Don't Come Easy. It's charming and part of his performance persona.
I was at a friend's studio here in Las Vegas about 1982. A well-known recording star was doing a commercial.
After a day of spending a ton of money, there were two or three bad notes in the tracks.
She said watch this and walaa it was fixed.
Long before auto-tune, they knew how to fix stuff. So, instead of another day and big bucks...
I don't think it is all bad.
Autotune eh? So what you could do is just sample all the words to "overkill" by Motorhead from King of the Hill episodes, sequence it properly, then autotune pitch it to what... f#?, put some cyberpunk guitars and filthy synthesizers, minstry-like beats underneath it for some industrial strength Overk(ing of theh)ill mayhem.
I don't like using stuff like that but I'm from the Analog days where you had to get the take right or do it again. That being said, there is a perfectly good application for tech things like auto-tune. If you are a Songwriter that is seriously trying to demo your material to pitch to industry reps and publishers then that's a different story. Then you are not trying to sell the performance, you are trying to give a good example of what the song can sound like with good vocals and if you don't have the voice then you have to find someone to sing on your demo's which can cut into your budget. I think it's a fine tool to use for that application.
Autotune don't have to sound like vocoders. If you want a vocoder sound, then get a vocoder, because you'll have greater sound options and textures than you will with autotune. But of course you can use it for that passe sound if you want.
I have 2 x Antares rack models, plus the software, and many times they have got me out of trouble with clients. I have never used them on my own voice (yet) but I might try one day. I have used them on guitar solos to good effect and sometimes on bass as well. Sax also. Tastefully used, they can sound invisible but pull everything tightly into tune.
If you have a bad tracking room, with standing waves or reinforced nodes, where people struggle to sing in tune, they are great.
I have also used them a lot with an old Roland analogue synth which kept drifting out of tune. We tried digital synths and the sounds didn't work. With the Roland going through Antares, the results were perfect and musical, and saved the sessions.
i just hate HEARING autotune. much like other studio stuff, if i don't notice it, i don't care. If I do hear, it bugs me.
i just hate HEARING autotune. much like other studio stuff, if i don't notice it, i don't care. If I do hear, it bugs me.
This is the nut here, folks. Auto-Tune, at a certain level, is almost unavoidable. The trick is to use it correctly, and so that the average person cannot perceive it.
My Ex did her first album with T-bone Burnett, and there were MANY arguments over the (admittedly light) usage of Auto-Tune on her vocals. T-Bone's placation to her was, "If this one ever gets anywhere near Grammy territory, the folks who are listening and make decisions are listening closely for a hint of Auto-Tune. To them, it's like a badge that says, 'This track was professionally Produced and Mastered.' They assume that if they can't hear a bit of Auto-Tune anywhere, that there simply MUST be pitch errors, and they vote accordingly."
This is a terrible and unavoidable truth. Thanks to the many hours of listening to tiny adjustments to my (at the time) lover's voice, I can now distinguish it in most of my favorite singles from the past 20 years. It's depressing. Most tracks these days (especially something meant for the radio,) I can't NOT hear the Auto-Tune!
About a year ago I got a Digitec Volcalist for messing around and doing some solo gigging. It has pitch correction built into it. While I sing pretty good, I can hit a clanger every once in awhile and having it set to a low setting can be a lifesaver especially if I'm tired. The harmony feature has a "human touch" setting so you can dial up anything from perfect pitch (which sounds real wierd) to way out in left field flat. I've used it on a few solo gigs and it's fun to lauch into Turn Turn Turn with a Rick 360 and 3-part harmony and see the looks on everyones faces as thay think "where did everyone else hiding".
Bob Howard said: "Auto-tune devices don't make music so sterile and boring, people who use auto-tune devices make music sterile and boring. "
I assume this is directed at me. Really? Jeez. For starting a thread asking if anyone would happen to have any experience with a product I bought? Seems a little harsh, to me.
Facebook
Twitter
I ordered a stripped-down version of Auto Tune to experiment with on vocals. $99.00.
Any of you guys/gals have any experience with the program? Even better would be some tips to get started with.
The thought of it does make the purist in me cringe a little, but people expect things to be pitch-perfect nowadays. Probably due to American Idol....
I'll be interested to here how you get on with it - it's definitely overused, and the worst offence is using it on all the backing vocals as well. As someone pointed out, two voices in perfect pitch just sounds like a car horn.
To hell with perfect vocals. That's not how it works. There is supposed to be some variation, it's what makes us human.
I have a personal vendetta against things like this. Music has become so sterile and boring because of things like auto tune and copy/pasting in the studio. When bands are spending hours getting that one perfect snare drum hit to copy a few hundred times it's no longer music from the band, it's an engineer's album. It's sickening.
Do I understand the appeal? Sure. I can't sing to save my life, and I've made recordings with auto tune that sounded killer. Are there people that use it as a once in a while tool, not a crutch? Absolutely, and I hope that's what you're doing.
I'm not totally against the mild use of technology to polish a really bad note, or adjust the effects of production (i.e. pitch shifting from editing etc.). Just don't auto tune you're whole recording. That's just lying to anyone that listens to it. If you can't reproduce it live, don't bother doing it at all.
(after re-reading that, it sounds harsh, and I mean no offense to Troy specifically, it's just a topic that get's me riled up)
I think it can sound cheesy, but on garageband you can use it in percentages like tune 10% or 50% or even 100% (which will get you the sound you associate with auto tune). The benefit is the ability to get a particular track in tune or in key like say a vocal/guitar track that has a couple of flat or sharp notes throughout can be smoothed out by using auto tune. It rounds the sour notes up or down to the key being used and If used subtly it definitely is effective.
Auto-tune devices don't make music so sterile and boring, people who use auto-tune devices make music sterile and boring.
Don't like it.
I'm not sure I get the point of "transparent" autotune, you could just punch in the out of tune note... it seems to me that it's more of an effect than a corrective tool... and as an effect, if you choose to use it, it should noticeable... that's the point. You don't need auto tune to correct the occasional sour note. Everyone does that all the time, on every instrument, not just voice. You have a few mistakes on an otherwise good take, you just punch in and fix them. No "studio trickery" or anything like that, just a better take.
I'll avoid totally getting on my recording industry soap box, but I don't really take offense to any particular studio technique. Evaluate the song for the song. If you don't like it and it's too sterile/compressed/whatever, it's probably because the song sucks, auto tune or any other effect(s) didn't make it that way. Everyone has preferences on which effects sound cool and which don't, but I don't think there's any moral high ground in avoiding something out of the sake of some "purity." It's whatever, the studio is an instrument, use it the way you want.
Strummerson had an interesting idea in one thread about how he sees himself appreciating old technological advances (in guitars) and sort of scoffing at news ones (I hope that's a fair summary) and I think that's at play here. The Beatles know a thing or two about deviating from "pure" recording techniques... with hindsight, old innovations are brilliant but the new ones are sacrilege or something... pop-filters, de-essers, in-the-box reverb, whatever... all okay, auto-tune not? Line seems pretty arbitrary.
If I cant hit the note, I dont sing it
Good point Bob Howard. I guess I can't blame the tools when I should blame the fools.
@Matt - Pretty much. I wouldn't say scoff, but I don't think I give newer tech enough of a shot. And I think I probably wouldn't be all that interested if I did, but there may be useful things I'm missing.
My problem with auto-tune is actually not so different from my concern with tuners, strobe and otherwise. My first instrument is violin. Ear training, pitch training, is part of the game. A small number of people are simply tone deaf, and a smaller number is born with perfect pitch. The vast majority of us are somewhere in between. Ears learn if you teach them. I use a tuner when I'm in the studio and if I were gigging, I'd use one on stage b/c no one wants to keep the audience waiting and watching while they tune audibly. But other than that, I tune my guitar by ear. Tuning fork and then string to string. If you don't use your ears, you lose precision.
Likewise with auto-tune, I can imagine situations in which it's useful. But using it regularly would impede growing as a singer. As an effect, it's not to my taste, but it's as interesting as any effect. Also, in certain cases, imprecision in pitch can be aesthetically effective. Ringo Starr famously often hits just under his notes. But I wouldn't want anyone else singing With a Little Help From My Friends or It Don't Come Easy. It's charming and part of his performance persona.
I was at a friend's studio here in Las Vegas about 1982. A well-known recording star was doing a commercial. After a day of spending a ton of money, there were two or three bad notes in the tracks. She said watch this and walaa it was fixed. Long before auto-tune, they knew how to fix stuff. So, instead of another day and big bucks... I don't think it is all bad.
I don't plan to abuse it. I think in certain spots of certain tunes, it wouldn't be a crime. I may not like it at all. Might love it.
If I do use it, I would hope no one would even notice it. Seems like a good tool to have handy.
Autotune eh? So what you could do is just sample all the words to "overkill" by Motorhead from King of the Hill episodes, sequence it properly, then autotune pitch it to what... f#?, put some cyberpunk guitars and filthy synthesizers, minstry-like beats underneath it for some industrial strength Overk(ing of theh)ill mayhem.
:D Troy, are you in?
Hey Troy, can you post your cover of Cher's "Life After Love" when you're done with the autotune?
i just hate HEARING autotune. much like other studio stuff, if i don't notice it, i don't care. If I do hear, it bugs me.
I don't like using stuff like that but I'm from the Analog days where you had to get the take right or do it again. That being said, there is a perfectly good application for tech things like auto-tune. If you are a Songwriter that is seriously trying to demo your material to pitch to industry reps and publishers then that's a different story. Then you are not trying to sell the performance, you are trying to give a good example of what the song can sound like with good vocals and if you don't have the voice then you have to find someone to sing on your demo's which can cut into your budget. I think it's a fine tool to use for that application.
Autotune don't have to sound like vocoders. If you want a vocoder sound, then get a vocoder, because you'll have greater sound options and textures than you will with autotune. But of course you can use it for that passe sound if you want.
I have 2 x Antares rack models, plus the software, and many times they have got me out of trouble with clients. I have never used them on my own voice (yet) but I might try one day. I have used them on guitar solos to good effect and sometimes on bass as well. Sax also. Tastefully used, they can sound invisible but pull everything tightly into tune.
If you have a bad tracking room, with standing waves or reinforced nodes, where people struggle to sing in tune, they are great.
I have also used them a lot with an old Roland analogue synth which kept drifting out of tune. We tried digital synths and the sounds didn't work. With the Roland going through Antares, the results were perfect and musical, and saved the sessions.
Exactly! I also use a tuning fork, and nothing else. It's a choice I made years ago because I wanted to train my ear. It worked.
This is the nut here, folks. Auto-Tune, at a certain level, is almost unavoidable. The trick is to use it correctly, and so that the average person cannot perceive it.
My Ex did her first album with T-bone Burnett, and there were MANY arguments over the (admittedly light) usage of Auto-Tune on her vocals. T-Bone's placation to her was, "If this one ever gets anywhere near Grammy territory, the folks who are listening and make decisions are listening closely for a hint of Auto-Tune. To them, it's like a badge that says, 'This track was professionally Produced and Mastered.' They assume that if they can't hear a bit of Auto-Tune anywhere, that there simply MUST be pitch errors, and they vote accordingly."
This is a terrible and unavoidable truth. Thanks to the many hours of listening to tiny adjustments to my (at the time) lover's voice, I can now distinguish it in most of my favorite singles from the past 20 years. It's depressing. Most tracks these days (especially something meant for the radio,) I can't NOT hear the Auto-Tune!
About a year ago I got a Digitec Volcalist for messing around and doing some solo gigging. It has pitch correction built into it. While I sing pretty good, I can hit a clanger every once in awhile and having it set to a low setting can be a lifesaver especially if I'm tired. The harmony feature has a "human touch" setting so you can dial up anything from perfect pitch (which sounds real wierd) to way out in left field flat. I've used it on a few solo gigs and it's fun to lauch into Turn Turn Turn with a Rick 360 and 3-part harmony and see the looks on everyones faces as thay think "where did everyone else hiding".
Does Digitech's gender control allow you to change the gender of the primary vocal, or just the harmony?
If you ask me, this is all it's good for... best use of auto tune
Bieber. Just sayin'.....
I would rather have a red hot poker stuck in my eye than use auto tune.
Bob Howard said: "Auto-tune devices don't make music so sterile and boring, people who use auto-tune devices make music sterile and boring. "
I assume this is directed at me. Really? Jeez. For starting a thread asking if anyone would happen to have any experience with a product I bought? Seems a little harsh, to me.