Here's a question about autotuning. You wouldn't stop a guitar player from tuning their guitar with an electronic tuner before tracking would you? So why stop a vocalist from intonating their voice with computer technology after the fact?
The emphasis kind of answers the question, doesn't it?
I think the argument is the vocalist should tune themselves up, before the performance.
Originally Posted By: Justin
Is it really a question of altering their performance or simply making something good a little better. You're not against comping (editing together the best of multiple takes) are you? People were doing this long before computers came around by splicing tape with a razor. And what about bands that overdub, autotune etc. who listen back to their own recordings and actually DO learn to perform them better as a result? Lots of people use recording as a way to compose. What exactly is wrong with that?
I don't think anyone is against the learning from computer tuning, or even making great recordings using it. I think the argument is that if it is available - and more importantly, used all-too-frequently - then it allows performers to relax on learning the craft of the art. The craft of simply creating great perfromances, when necessary.
Just like multitracking and splicing and comping did.
I once had a very successful and storied A&R guy ask me (rhetorically): "What person or invention has done more damage to music than any other?"
His answer was: "Les Paul and the multitrack recording technique. " Because that allowed artists and engineers to use technology as a crutch in order to create "performances" that the artists were incapable of performing, in reality, as true artists.
Before that, all you could do was "sweeten" a recording of a performance with things like mic placement, EQ and reverb. The core, underlying performance had to be performed in real-time.
An interesting view, to be certain.
_________________________ Obama sucked. I wish I were up there instead of Obama. ~ Nick Batzdorf
Previous Topic
Index
