Never should have told my client about Auto-Tune

[joel hamilton]

Up next: moral critiques of electrical amplification and multitrack recording. It's not real unless you can get it arranged around the recording horn just right in one take. Don't forget to make sure you've got the right recording stylus in your control room and that your cylinders are perfectly shaved.

--JES

Awesome.

I know some people that just ecorded at the edison museum this way!

[gregnrom]

I guess you have to determine what you find objectionable about it. In my experience (recording performers), the people who constantly correct their performances, or wish to have them corrected are hacks. They are not fully committed to their art. Not that there is anything wrong with being a hack. Some of my favorite bands are full of hacks and have hack performances on their recordings. I'm a hack trombone, and slide whistlist, and it takes me forever to get it right. Most times I don?t get it right, because I don?t care that much. However, I feel lied to when I see a band who couldn?t pull off decent show, make a pitch-perfect time-aligned record. I think to myself, they have no business making a record like that being so bad. In this application, I find the computer hands to be hard to bear. They?re like steroids.

For a band or performer that is trying to make a serious representation of their art, there is rarely a time where heavy editing and auto tuning are truly justified. Dance, and video game music. . maybe. At the very least, the performer should be able to play to their expectations within a reasonable period of time, before entering the studio. I am of the opinion that an artist has to follow through with the idea, and not just come up with it, either by doing it him/herself or getting someone to do it for them (re Boston). The argument of lack time and money forcing one?s hand is an invalid one. I can understand that even with a lot of practice, you can still fuck up in the studio, but it should be allotted for, and fixes should be straightforward.

Who are we doing a favor for when we make a record of an artist that doesn't exist? What are they going to do with that? If the artist is lacking in talent, the corrected recording is just an exercise in vanity. It will be something they play to their friends and family for years to come, but not strong enough to compensate for an inability to repeat it in front of anyone. What will they learn from that experience? Will they learn to sing/play better?

I'll do whatever my client wants, but when I do that, I feel like I'm wasting their, and my time. It might be making them happy in the short term, but it wont be good for them in the end. If they suck, the record isn't going to hide that. It will be plainly evident when he/she opens their mouth at the next show. There are plenty of people that I?ve worked with that have made use of their experience and become better at what they do, and are more confident doing it.

To me, it's like my baseball friend photo-shopping himself, as the winning pitcher, into the victory photo at the World Series. You can impress people with how good it looks, yourself with how real it looks, but he?s still a bad pitcher.

[soundguy]

I guess you have to determine what you find objectionable about it. In my experience (recording performers), the people who constantly correct their performances, or wish to have them corrected are hacks. They are not fully committed to their art. Not that there is anything wrong with being a hack. Some of my favorite bands are full of hacks and have hack performances on their recordings. I'm a hack trombone, and slide whistlist, and it takes me forever to get it right. Most times I don?t get it right, because I don?t care that much. However, I feel lied to when I see a band who couldn?t pull off decent show, make a pitch-perfect time-aligned record. I think to myself, they have no business making a record like that being so bad. In this application, I find the computer hands to be hard to bear. They?re like steroids.

For a band or performer that is trying to make a serious representation of their art, there is rarely a time where heavy editing and auto tuning are truly justified. Dance, and video game music. . maybe. At the very least, the performer should be able to play to their expectations within a reasonable period of time, before entering the studio. I am of the opinion that an artist has to follow through with the idea, and not just come up with it, either by doing it him/herself or getting someone to do it for them (re Boston). The argument of lack time and money forcing one?s hand is an invalid one. I can understand that even with a lot of practice, you can still fuck up in the studio, but it should be allotted for, and fixes should be straightforward.

Who are we doing a favor for when we make a record of an artist that doesn't exist? What are they going to do with that? If the artist is lacking in talent, the corrected recording is just an exercise in vanity. It will be something they play to their friends and family for years to come, but not strong enough to compensate for an inability to repeat it in front of anyone. What will they learn from that experience? Will they learn to sing/play better?

I'll do whatever my client wants, but when I do that, I feel like I'm wasting their, and my time. It might be making them happy in the short term, but it wont be good for them in the end. If they suck, the record isn't going to hide that. It will be plainly evident when he/she opens their mouth at the next show. There are plenty of people that I?ve worked with that have made use of their experience and become better at what they do, and are more confident doing it.

To me, it's like my baseball friend photo-shopping himself, as the winning pitcher, into the victory photo at the World Series. You can impress people with how good it looks, yourself with how real it looks, but he?s still a bad pitcher.

well, that basically sums up everything Ive ever felt on this subject.

dav e

[Recycled_Brains]

i hate auto-tune. i'm the type to say that if you can't sing your part right, you shouldn't be singing it at all, or find a register that is more comfortable. but on the other hand, i agree with previous replies that making the artist happy is a priority.

i've only used it on one project (usually i work with metal bands who just scream anyway), but that was after about 30 takes of the same small line of vocals. the singer wasn't terrible, just picked notes that were out of his range.... after deciding that the fatigue was making things worse, we opted to auto-tune the part. fortunately he wasn't so far off, so it didn't get the cher effect.

[the riff]

I agree with Joel.

Let's say you have 2 vocal performances.

1 is pitch perfect but lacks emotion

2 is a little flat in areas but the singer was obviously "in the moment"


I would pick 2 and just fix it a little.

[soundguy]

I agree with Joel.

Let's say you have 2 vocal performances.

1 is pitch perfect but lacks emotion

2 is a little flat in areas but the singer was obviously "in the moment"


I would pick 2 and just fix it a little.

I would pick 2 and leave it alone. Worked for robert plant for just about everything he recorded after 1970 or so...

dave

[OM15.2]

I guess you have to determine what you find objectionable about it. In my experience (recording performers), the people who constantly correct their performances, or wish to have them corrected are hacks. They are not fully committed to their art. Not that there is anything wrong with being a hack. Some of my favorite bands are full of hacks and have hack performances on their recordings. I'm a hack trombone, and slide whistlist, and it takes me forever to get it right. Most times I don?t get it right, because I don?t care that much. However, I feel lied to when I see a band who couldn?t pull off decent show, make a pitch-perfect time-aligned record. I think to myself, they have no business making a record like that being so bad. In this application, I find the computer hands to be hard to bear. They?re like steroids.

For a band or performer that is trying to make a serious representation of their art, there is rarely a time where heavy editing and auto tuning are truly justified. Dance, and video game music. . maybe. At the very least, the performer should be able to play to their expectations within a reasonable period of time, before entering the studio. I am of the opinion that an artist has to follow through with the idea, and not just come up with it, either by doing it him/herself or getting someone to do it for them (re Boston). The argument of lack time and money forcing one?s hand is an invalid one. I can understand that even with a lot of practice, you can still fuck up in the studio, but it should be allotted for, and fixes should be straightforward.

Who are we doing a favor for when we make a record of an artist that doesn't exist? What are they going to do with that? If the artist is lacking in talent, the corrected recording is just an exercise in vanity. It will be something they play to their friends and family for years to come, but not strong enough to compensate for an inability to repeat it in front of anyone. What will they learn from that experience? Will they learn to sing/play better?

I'll do whatever my client wants, but when I do that, I feel like I'm wasting their, and my time. It might be making them happy in the short term, but it wont be good for them in the end. If they suck, the record isn't going to hide that. It will be plainly evident when he/she opens their mouth at the next show. There are plenty of people that I?ve worked with that have made use of their experience and become better at what they do, and are more confident doing it.

To me, it's like my baseball friend photo-shopping himself, as the winning pitcher, into the victory photo at the World Series. You can impress people with how good it looks, yourself with how real it looks, but he?s still a bad pitcher.

well, that basically sums up everything Ive ever felt on this subject.

dav e

I disagree. Are you a paid professional or what? a grumpy old man with an attitude?

See personally i have no idea why someone who want to have one of those professional glamour photo sessions where there is so much makeup, filters, and weird lighting that theres no way the end result could ever be mistaken for the person that will hang it in their hallway. Same with airbrushed model shots... they all become the same and boring and distasteful.

BUT it's the photographers job to flatter the client and use every tool available if that's what the client wants. The person will payup & proudly hang the frame and have this record of "how beautiful they looked" and everyone goes home happy. Not my thing, but it's not right or wrong. There is no real concept that a photo should only be a serious representation of the subject, no concept of that at all. And no reason why as a professional recording engineer things should be any different.

I mean sure, if you think a band sucks but what they want is a no frills recording of their performance, then track it, mix it and everyone goes home happy. But if they ask for 'help' and are paying for it in terms of extra hours spent in the mix then you're unprofessional if you don't use any tools you have available and do the best job you can.

sometimes an artist has no concept of 'making it' and just like a glamour photo shoot they want to look/sound perfect just for he thrill and future memories. If you don't like it that's fine, don't do it. Only take sessions from people that meet your talent standard criteria and that only want a true representation of themselves.

But man if you're there behind the glass getting paid by the hour but hating the band or singer but taking their money and not doing anything & everything you can to improve things then that's really sad.

[allbaldo]

I would just make it sound good, and not even think twice about what I was using to get it there.

I bet the guy will be ten times happier with the final product. That is important.

The word "ethics" gets tossed around a lot when it comes to pitch correction.

I look at it this way:

If a person has something wrong (pitch, the flu, a limp, pain, a headache), and I have something that can make it better (medicine, auto tune, a hand up the stairs, a ride to work, a smile, aspirin): I will use it.

Fu**in a.

[allbaldo]

A lot of artists...though certainly not all of them...would like a recording they make to be not just a document of a live performance, but as ultimate rendition of the song as they are capable of making, with the time/equipment/knowledge they posess at that time. They may be trying to capture an idea in their head that is beyond their current abilities. What's wrong with trying to help get them there? With whatever tools available? If it gets them closer to that goal, isn't it worth using anything available to make that happen?

I wish I had the time available to help teach every musician that came through my place as much as I could to improve their recordings, or performances, but I rarely have much time with them. Leaving their final product even further from their ultimate vision of the song just because I want to impose my ideals on them would be doing them a huge dis-service.

IMO

There are countless examples of great recordings whose final product was much larger than just a document of a given performance. I'm sure often these sounds were made with techniques beyond simply placing mics and mashing red.

[soundguy]

I disagree. Are you a paid professional or what? a grumpy old man with an attitude?

See personally i have no idea why someone who want to have one of those professional glamour photo sessions where there is so much makeup, filters, and weird lighting that theres no way the end result could ever be mistaken for the person that will hang it in their hallway. Same with airbrushed model shots... they all become the same and boring and distasteful.

BUT it's the photographers job to flatter the client and use every tool available if that's what the client wants. The person will payup & proudly hang the frame and have this record of "how beautiful they looked" and everyone goes home happy. Not my thing, but it's not right or wrong. There is no real concept that a photo should only be a serious representation of the subject, no concept of that at all. And no reason why as a professional recording engineer things should be any different.

I mean sure, if you think a band sucks but what they want is a no frills recording of their performance, then track it, mix it and everyone goes home happy. But if they ask for 'help' and are paying for it in terms of extra hours spent in the mix then you're unprofessional if you don't use any tools you have available and do the best job you can.

sometimes an artist has no concept of 'making it' and just like a glamour photo shoot they want to look/sound perfect just for he thrill and future memories. If you don't like it that's fine, don't do it. Only take sessions from people that meet your talent standard criteria and that only want a true representation of themselves.

But man if you're there behind the glass getting paid by the hour but hating the band or singer but taking their money and not doing anything & everything you can to improve things then that's really sad.

the photographer analogy is really quite perfect. Just as every "photographer" is not the portrait guy at the mall, not every "recording engineer" is doing demos for $10 and hour or reording grammy winning artists. Your post sort of charges that all recording engineers have the same responsibilities and its just not the case. Some of us dont even use computers or have the physical gear necessary to autotune no matter how much a client wants it. Shit, if someone comes to my studio and wants autotune, they don't get it because Im grumpy, they dont get it because it doesnt physically exist in the building, they came to the wrong studio to work the type of job they needed to do. If an 80 piece orchestra showed up to track, they'd be shit out of luck too, not because I dont want to do the work but because I couldnt fit them in the space... Plenty of recording engineers turn down work on a daily or weekly basis that isnt right for them. If you arent into or cant accomodate a project, you dont sit behind the glass and take the money and grind your teeth, you just turn the job down in the first place. You hire monet to paint a pretty picture, not to paint your house. There's all different types of engineers out there, shit, some of the best and I mean most amazing recording engineers I have ever seen or ever will see work dont even record music and wouldnt know the first place to start if they had to.

There is in fact no concept that a photo should only be a serious representation of a subject, but for some photographers, thats the only thing they are interested in and thats the only thing they are good at and guys like that would surely find another career before screwing on the haze filter and opening the shop at the mall. Those guys arent trying to get booked on a bar mitzvah, they are all clawing to get creditation to go to war, seems ridiculous to judge them for wanting to shoot under fire instead of shooting suburban conundrum.

we are all on different paths, we all have different career goals, we are all in different markets and most importantly we are all different people. Everyone shouldnt be judged to the same standard and most importantly not everyone who says things like "Id rather change careers than autotune" is insinuating that someone else is an ass for using autotune. Sure, some are, but many arent.

dave

[OM15.2]

don't think i disagree with you.

[Mr. Dipity]

Is it just me, or is autotune nothing like a transparent effect at this stage?

It seems that I hear it ALL THE TIME, and it is always blatantly obvious that it is there. Is this on purpose ("ooh, look see how we can sound like that wretched Cher song"), or is it just the nature of the beast?

You are far from alone.

I was in the car with my sister, flipping through radio channels we hit one of those 'pop country' stations, and she made me stop and asked me what 'that robot sound' was on the vocals, every time it 'hit a loud bit'. She said she'd heard it before on cds and wanted to know why it was there. We kept listening for it, and heard something certain in every song until we got tired of listening.

So, when a non-musical person, listening on a car's factory installed FM radio can pick out when autotune triggers, you can be damn sure that its use is being driven by arrogance and complaceny.

[JGriffin]

just to be anal for a moment: the "Cher effect" is a fine colloquialism for the overuse of Autotune, but it should be noted that on the Cher record, that effect was produced with a vocoder, not Autotune.

Carry on with the same old debate we always have around here.

[Mark Alan Miller]

I maintain that both vocoding and autotune were used on "Believe" although there are several articles on-line that adamantly deny it. I have never, ever, once heard a vocoder do that particular effect, and it is so simple to do with autotune. What I am referring to: The line "do you believe in life after love" sounds to me like it could only be done with autotune, and the vocal bit that answers it sounds exactly like vocoding (or some digitech vocalist-style vocoding-esque.) I know several people who agree with me that this seems to be the actual truth about that track, despite documented claims.... I have always stated my thought that they denied the use of autotune at all on that song (or with Cher in general) for one of many possible reasons... (Cher would 'never need autotuning', so there was never one on her sessions, or to keep their 'production trick' a secret, for starters...)


And yes, as many people say, it is quite audible on many, many recordings these days. My wife has grown to recognise it when we hear it on the radio...
I will also maintain, that when used well, with caution and care, it can be inaudible other than the intonation being better. Just my experience - YMMV.

[drumsound]

I worked in a music store when Autotune was first available. The rep claimed to know the engineer from the Cher "Believe" session. As the rep told it Antares had brought a rack Autotune tune to the engineer to try. There were some 'issues' on a take so the engineer decided to try the box during a break to see if it could in face tune the vocal. AS most of us know if Autotune is set to fast the pitch will jump around and 'sound like a robot.' Cher walked into the control room and heard the Autotune set too fast and thought it sounded cool and wanted the effect on the record.

Could be a true story, could be marketing BS. Either way, Autotune was used on that track.