Do you just tune the bad notes? Or wait until they ask? Or not tune
at all? Just tell 'em to go home and practice for a few years...

Had a project with a pretty good teenage female singer. We did a
bunch of passes and spent some time comping and tuning a note here and
there. Then we got to talking about what they do on the radio these
days so, just for fun, I turned Autotune on "stun". The teenager
yelled "That's IT!!! You have to do that! No one my age will even
LISTEN to it the other way!". Me and my bright ideas.

Gantt

Laurence Payne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:44:21 +1300, "geoff" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>> Had a project with a pretty good teenage female singer. We did a
>>> bunch of passes and spent some time comping and tuning a note here and
>>> there. Then we got to talking about what they do on the radio these
>>> days so, just for fun, I turned Autotune on "stun". The teenager
>>> yelled "That's IT!!! You have to do that! No one my age will even
>>> LISTEN to it the other way!". Me and my bright ideas.
>>
>>Scary eh ?
>>
>>What aboiut the ones who actually sing with an Autotune inflection (that
>>monotone and slightly nasal honky whine) ?!
>
>Auto tune can't be THAT much worse than Melodyne? I've been through
>vocal tracks with M, manually shifting almost every note, sometimes by
>quite a few semitones. The results are remarkably good, with no
>discernable artifacts.

But that's not what the customer wants.

>I've never found any use for an auto setting. Perhaps that's where
>you're going wrong?

But that's what the the customer wants. They WANT to sound like a robot.
That's what is so scary.

Autotune can be pretty transparent if you use it judiciously, but the
kids want it over the top and plastic-sounding.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Mar 1, 4:48*pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Laurence Payne *<l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:44:21 +1300, "geoff" <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz>
> >wrote:
>
> >>> Had a project with a pretty good teenage female singer. *We did a
> >>> bunch of passes and spent some time comping and tuning a note here and
> >>> there. *Then we got to talking about what they do on the radio these
> >>> days so, just for fun, I turned Autotune on "stun". *The teenager
> >>> yelled "That's IT!!! You have to do that! *No one my age will even
> >>> LISTEN to it the other way!". *Me and my bright ideas.
>
> >>Scary eh ?
>
> >>What aboiut the ones who actually sing with an Autotune inflection *(that
> >>monotone and slightly nasal honky whine) ?!
>
> >Auto tune can't be THAT much worse than Melodyne? *I've been through
> >vocal tracks with M, manually shifting almost every note, sometimes by
> >quite a few semitones. *The results are remarkably good, with no
> >discernable artifacts.
>
> But that's not what the customer wants.
>
> >I've never found any use for an auto setting. *Perhaps that's where
> >you're going wrong?
>
> But that's what the the customer wants. *They WANT to sound like a robot.
> That's what is so scary.
>
> Autotune can be pretty transparent if you use it judiciously, but the
> kids want it over the top and plastic-sounding.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Death to "Awfultune!"

On 2010-03-01 (E-Mail Removed) said:
>> That's what is so scary.
>> Autotune can be pretty transparent if you use it judiciously, but
>>the kids want it over the top and plastic-sounding.

>Death to "Awfultune!"

I'd agree with that. I don't have any autotune anywhere in
the rig in my remote truck. IF you need awful tune then you
can add it during the mixing.

If I"m doing a broadcast and somebody "needs" awfultune for
their live performance then hopefully they can bring along a
driver for it. But then, don't ask me for a discount, the
rate's still the same, same crew comes. YOur engineer can
drive the show.
DOn't ask me in any way though to gush about the great
performance that was not given. I"m pro enough to do the
best job we can for you, but you'll have to have your
engineer drive the autotune box.




Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"geoff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> ganttmann wrote:
> > Do you just tune the bad notes? Or wait until they ask? Or not tune
> > at all? Just tell 'em to go home and practice for a few years...
> >
> > Had a project with a pretty good teenage female singer. We did a
> > bunch of passes and spent some time comping and tuning a note here and
> > there. Then we got to talking about what they do on the radio these
> > days so, just for fun, I turned Autotune on "stun". The teenager
> > yelled "That's IT!!! You have to do that! No one my age will even
> > LISTEN to it the other way!". Me and my bright ideas.
>
> Scary eh ?
>
> What aboiut the ones who actually sing with an Autotune inflection (that
> monotone and slightly nasal honky whine) ?!
>
> geoff

I'm hearing that more and more.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Laurence Payne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:44:21 +1300, "geoff" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >> Had a project with a pretty good teenage female singer. We did a
> >> bunch of passes and spent some time comping and tuning a note here and
> >> there. Then we got to talking about what they do on the radio these
> >> days so, just for fun, I turned Autotune on "stun". The teenager
> >> yelled "That's IT!!! You have to do that! No one my age will even
> >> LISTEN to it the other way!". Me and my bright ideas.
> >
> >Scary eh ?
> >
> >What aboiut the ones who actually sing with an Autotune inflection (that
> >monotone and slightly nasal honky whine) ?!
>
> Auto tune can't be THAT much worse than Melodyne? I've been through
> vocal tracks with M, manually shifting almost every note, sometimes by
> quite a few semitones.

Quite a few semitones? Like changing an A to a F?

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:19:17 +1300, "geoff" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>> Auto tune can't be THAT much worse than Melodyne? I've been through
>>> vocal tracks with M, manually shifting almost every note, sometimes by
>>> quite a few semitones. The results are remarkably good, with no
>>> discernable artifacts.
>> Sometimes it's better to sing it again, maybe ?
>
> Sometimes. Other times it's best to praise the performance, accept
> that it's at least delivered with conviction and fix the pitches
> afterwards. Recording sessions aren't singing lessons.


Next thing you know they'll be intentionally distorting
electric guitars.

C'mon. Les Paul's "The New Sound" was complete artificiality.

it'd be different if the listeners actually knew anything
about who was singing - as it is, it is like the music is
extruded music product/snack food.

Hell, I thought the soundtrack to "Sound of Music" sounded
pretty darned natural when I was a kid. The grownups seemed
to like it, and the melodies were good.

FWIW, I've recorded eight or ten vocalists, only *one*
who inspired me to invoke pitch correction, and she just
had really bad habits, but sounded quite good outside of
pitch. The bad habits were her edge.

--
Les Cargill

Jenn wrote:

>> Auto tune can't be THAT much worse than Melodyne? I've been through
>> vocal tracks with M, manually shifting almost every note, sometimes by
>> quite a few semitones.
>
> Quite a few semitones? Like changing an A to a F?

If you don't like the melody or harmony, you can rearrange it - as long
as you aren't too
fussy about what the actual voice sounds like.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson

On Mar 2, 11:26*am, Frank Stearns <franks.pacifier....@pacifier.net>
wrote:
> Laurence Payne <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> writes:
> >On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:32:05 -0500, Les Cargill
> ><lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>FWIW, I've recorded eight or ten vocalists, only *one*
> >>who inspired me to invoke pitch correction, and she just
> >>had really bad habits, but sounded quite good outside of
> >>pitch. The bad habits were her edge.
> >The worst I find are "classical" female singers, some of who have
> >found a way to force the harmonics of their voice upwards, giving a
> >brighter sound that cuts better through an orchestra. *But every note
> >becomes inherently out-of-tune with itself, and it's just about
> >impossible to fix. * The same singers will sometimes have got into a
> >habit of merely "marking" notes in the lower range, throwing * them
> >away with very approximate pitch and timing, saving their efforts for
> >the "money notes". *
>
> I know what you mean. Mostly bad training and/or technique, it seems.
>
> Sadly, many of these folks are damaging their voices. By the nature of the genre,
> pop folks do it all the time with their complete lack of underlying technique
> (listen what happened to Joni Mitchell or Mary Travers over 30 years -- smoking
> didn't help either), whereas a properly trained and maintained classical voice
> should last a lifetime.
>
> There are exceptions, of course, but often a steep price is paid to belt through
> one's throat with little or incorrect diaphragm support.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audo
> --
> *.

the orignal question asked by the op is a good one..

if you just tracked a performance that "needs a little help" how do
you bring up the subject..

1) suggest we try autotune and review the results with the singer
2) don't say anything critical but use autotune later during mixing to
fix it up
3) don't say or do anything unless the 'talent' asks for it
4) other?

We routinly use compressors to improve dynamics after the fact without
mentioning it. That is a simlar situation ...but not exactly the
same.....

After writing this and thinking for a minute, my guess is that "it's
the producers job" to decide/discuss the use of autotune with the
talent...

Mark

geoff <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Mark wrote:
>> We routinly use compressors to improve dynamics after the fact without
>> mentioning it. That is a simlar situation ...but not exactly the
>> same.....
>
>That's somewhat different - that is more often than not simply manipulating
>an otherwise competent vocal to fit in well with other musical parts that
>may not be sympathetically-played, rather than covering up a basic vocal
>inability (with exceptions !).

The issue here isn't covering up a basic vocal inability but abusive use
of a processing tool for stylistic reasons, to make music less natural.

Folks do that with compresstion too.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."