What make us human may one day be defined not on what gifts we posses but on our virtues we lack. S. Hawkins

I started to use the Antares Autotune as an external plugins in my home recording software cubase. I was so fascinated with the power of this small software that fixes your out of tune vocal recording.

We have a recording just yesterday rather than to call the singer again and redo the problematic tracks the said program will simplify everything and the changes you have done was so perfect and almost in pristine recordings.

Then I just wonder in the future the artists who will cut their song they have to make it some point and it will be an industry standard in every recording that they have to insert some flaws or I should say humanize some of the tracks so that the listener will think human can still make mistakes even the technology is superbly make it accurate and so perfect.


Just try it if anyone of you who havent jeard this software power.

Lynman

I abused autotune on my first CD, unfortunately. When I listen to a couple of those tracks now, I just cringe. I am half joking when I say that the current style of flat pop rock singing, ie with no vibrato, was in part to make it easier for autotune to work.

I notice and appreciate when artists don't use it, actually. The latest Crowded House CD has some vocals on it that are a teeny bit pitchy, but I like the fact that they left Neil's voice alone and didn't mess with it.

Autotune is dangerous if you're not really good at using it. It definitely leaves artifacts you can hear.

I've got Melodyne Uno, which I personally like much better than autotune - it's easier to use. Both tools can easily be abused.

I like to track vocals the same way each time - first, I'll sing the song "safely," really concentrating on pitch, phrasing, etc. For the second take, since I know I've got the "safe" track done, I'll sing it with more emotion, take more chances, etc. And then for the third track I'll sing somewhere in between. What usually ends up happening is that track two becomes the vocal track, but if there are any glaring problems with it I'll paste in part of track one or track three. And I make a comp track.

Sometimes the entire thing isn't working and I'll throw away all three tracks and try it another day.

So if I really like the comp track, that's what I'll go with, and if there are a few notes in it that strike my ear wrong, I'll pull the track up in melodyne and have a look. If I can fix it and I can't hear any artifacts, ie it sounds natural, I'll fix it. If I have to fix more than a couple of notes in the thing, I'll probably just resing it a different day. If the problems are small, I'll leave them in.

In terms of humanizing tracks, yeah, it has been done and will continue to be done. Just like drum programmers will put a cymbal hit very slightly behind a bass drum hit, just like it happens in real life. Or move a snare up a few milliseconds. Anything to inject some life into the machine. The human voice is pretty flawed already, though. Yeah - some day some producer will say, "I've got a great idea... why don't we try turning OFF the pitch correction?"

I hate the thing. If you cannot keep in tune then do not sing. If you make a mistake, everyone does now and then, please do a retake do not use autotune it can be heard for miles and sounds so false. The reason I hate it most though is it has kept pop tarts and boy bands in business for years. Please do not stoop to their level.

If you are doing your own songs and producing yourself, you have lots of time to go back and fix things by punching in, etc. You still may want to tune background vocals so they are a bit sweeter, but that's your call.

Unfortunately, if you are in this business trying to pay at least some of your bills with studio income, you have to make the client sound as good as is technically possible. Otherwise, they will hire a producer who WILL make them sound better.

A few years ago, I had a 15-year-old girl and her mom hire me to produce a few vocal demos for the girl. The girl was not that good. Of course her mother was paying the studio bill. After the session, the mom told the daughter to go wait in the car. The mom came up to me and flatly stated, "Your going to fix that so it sounds good, aren;t you?". Even moms know about the tools now.

To "autotune" and to "melodyne" are now verbs. They are standard production tools for many genres. You only hear them if it's been used to fix an absolutely terrible vocal, or used by an engineer who doesn't know what he's doing, or if it was used as an effect as in the definitive "Cher effect" of some years ago.

I also prefer Melodyne over Autotune.

Neither will turn a bad singer into a good singer, but they will take a pretty good singer and make them sound very good.

Virtually every track coming out of Nashville these days has been quite thoroughly tuned. This applies to most pop & R&B as well.

Like it or not, it's a part of many modern production styles.

I also prefer Melodyne to Autotune.

The trouble with not using pitch correction is that the industry expects it any more and most in the industry will reject anything that isn't pitch perfect. It doesn't matter how moving the performance, it will still be rejected if not pitch perfect. Most of these people are just looking for any excuse to reject something to cover their butts. You don't lose your job in this industry over what you reject, only over what you promote that fails.

What is the difference between using pitch correction and singing it a hundred times until you get it right? Both are kind of fraudulent. Often in singing it a hundred times to get the pitch right, you lose the emotion.

Well if you have to sing a hundred times to get it right or have to use an autotune then you should not be let loose in a recording studio.

Today's productions are not a snapshot of a live performance 95% of the time (even "Live" CD's are tweaked a LOT). Parts are overdubbed, then punched-in to fix a spot, nudged in time, sound-replaced or re-amped, triple-tracked for fatness, stereo-widened, compressed for impact and volume, and then eq-ed to the max. It's all part of the illusion of creating a "performance".

The video/movie industry takes things MUCH more to an extreme - sometimes characters exist ONLY in the computer (a la Star Wars).

Autotune is simply one more way to make the sound better.

People who are terrible drivers shouldn't be allowed to drive either...but they do.

Larry I understand and agree with what you say. I am on a "crusade" to try and stamp out the mediocrity that has invaded our business. I do use some of the gizmos and tweakers you mention. Nowadays unfortunatly these are being used too often mostly to hide a bad performance rather than enhance a good one.
These records should carry a disclaimer/warning.... This record has been digitally enhanced and is not a true representation of how the artist actually sounds. It bears little resemblance to their actual voice or talent.

BTW do not get me started on bad drivers.....! LOL

OK, crusade away...

I have a friend who worked in a number of Nashville studios over the years. One of his main jobs was to tune the vocals on several major artist CDs. His credits only stated: "Audio Editing by..."

Not even "audio enhancement"...oh well...

I've also found that to be true. I rarely bother singing a fourth take - if I don't have it in the first three tries, like I said, I'll try another day. But if I like the vibe and there are just a few small problems, and I can fix them without the fix sounding bad, I'll do it.

But I also will leave in a lot of "non-perfect" stuff. I use my ears. If it sounds good, I don't care what melodyne says about the pitch.

Re emotion I have the same emotion every time I sing the song and if I am in a studio usually do it in one take obviously after sample balances etc have been sorted. If I do a second take it is usually just as good/bad as the first take. Messing up lines is normally the main cause for a second take. Studio time is expensive and you sometimes wonder where it went.
Before going into a studio you should know and have practiced the material and have worked out how much time to spend on each part of the process. It is professional and saves time money and heartache. It also helps you to work to a schedule.
The best recording session singers are not always the best vocalists. They are the ones who can do a good job in the time and budget given.

For vocalists, I find there is a curve on "takes" where often it's the 2nd or 3rd take that is the best, and then it starts going downhill from there.

Where that peak is, is different for everyone, but my experence says that after about take 4 or 5, it's not going to get any better in that session. If we don't nail it by then, I have the artist go home and practice, then come back in the studio.

Larry I agree and I think the same curve applies to guitarists, keyboard players, drummers and all other musicians in general. If you cannot get it right in two or three takes max then forget it you are wasting everyone's time and money. Go home and practice.

I'm no singer (no guitar player either for that matter), but I have to say a lot of this stuff that is out there to make you sound better is keeping the 'soul' (for lack of a better term) out of music. I'd much prefer the playing mistakes, finger on the strings sounds and some off pitch singing as opposed to much of the too clean sounds becoming the norm. There's no warmth to most music these days - just oversterilized production.

Steve V

Hi Steve No warmth no fret sounds and very little talent, except for the engineers.

I also find that usually the second to fourth take is the keeper. The first take almost never makes it due to timing, set up, level, or other technical problems, even if the performance is great. After four takes, my ADD kicks in, my mind wanders and I can't stay focus on the performance.

The point of my earlier post is that the industry expects perfection anymore. If they have to comp 10 Whitney Houston takes syllable by syllable as I've heard one of her producers describe doing, when you know probably every one of her takes was outstanding and the rest of us would die for, you realize how high the bar is.

I also read an interview with Bob Seger where he talks about doing 168 takes to get one of his big hits right. I don't think Seger or his band were slouches.

Hey Andy "the industry expects perfection" Yeah right. How do you explain Britney, the Spice girls, Pussycat Dolls, American Idol contestants and numerous rappers pop tarts and boy bands?

There is plenty of music out there that has all the soul you need. Just don't look for it on mainstream radio. They are hopeless.

You have to go looking, but it's there, and the rewards can be worth the time and trouble.

I can assure you all that you have heard many records that have been tuned and you are not aware of it. When this tool is used in a subtle way, it is inaudible.

I have heard people swear that a live drum track was sequenced and sampled, and I have heard people swear that a midi drumtrack was real. The technology is making it very difficult to trust your ears.

...and prior to autotune, we simply recorded the vocal track into a sampler and used the pitch wheel to nudge the bad note(s) and "flew" it back to the tape. Sometimes you'd have to try a few times to get the punch-in timing right, but that was the earliest "auto-tune".

As Truman points out, done right, you'd never know it was tuned.

I agree. There's so much audio correction and has been for years. We sometime have no clue which performances were slightly touched up. If a singer was only slightly off, you'll never hear the correction. If they were way off... that's usually when you hear the artifacts.

I draw the line, though, and using autotune type devices LIVE. A record is supposed to be a big production will all the i's dotted and t's crossed. It's understood that some trickery will be used. A live performance is supposed to be REAL. Autotune live to me is definitely totally cheating. That's where I'd agree with Big Jim. If you can't sing decently live, get your ass off the stage.

Richard ssshoosh do not let Britney or the Spice Girls hear ya. On second thoughts tell them they might give up the business.

I hardly ever listen to the radio today....the stuff I listen to will rarely be found on the radio dials - and it's a shame.

And I'm sure plenty of 'tools' are being used, I just hate it when folks lose sight of the music (and some human traits) because of the tools.

Steve V

If you had to choose between two evils, which would it be?

1. Autotune used Live
2. Lip syncing

Actually, I think I'll withdraw the question. I wouldn't feel good choosing either one, so I'll say "#3": Change the channel or leave the concert.

Are we getting old if we say..."In the OLD days, people used to actually perform their music live"?

I think the "kids" today are so used to lip sync'ed and/or autotuned live gigs, that they don't see it as much different from hearing it on the CD (or the mp3), or watching the MTV video.

I used to love seeing bands live to see how close they could come to the sound on the record, and certain compromises were expected, but the reason I went to see them was to get bowled over by the awesome talent - not to have them perform a perfect concert complements of modern technology.

Just my $.02...

This kinda comes from the whole thing of picking out pretty girls & boys and making them into 'bands'. There's no process, and no artistry in that. But back to autotune - in a 3 minute take, with an expressive vocal, that is slightly dull on one or two pitches, then I think it's acceptable to adjust those one or two pitches.

However, I think if more is necessary then the singer isn't doing their job. Part of the problem is, the majority of 'professional' singers don't have the training to stay on the bright side of the pitch, nor the training to understand how poor diction can make them sound off pitch even when singing the right note. Or perhaps they don't care enough to prepare for recording. So they pay producers to fix up their recordings.... and disappoint the audience when they sing live.

~Hummin'bird

Hey Larry I was watching a very old Top Of the Pops from early sixties and everybody was lip sync. The Move, Amen Corner, Status Quo, Small Faces, Animals and Manfred Mann were all doing it.

No kidding...at least they make them play live at the Grammys.

For that show, wasn't that the equivalent of today's MTV? For a video, I expect it to be a production: tweaked to perfection.

When it was mentioned above that some performers use A/T in their live concerts, someone also mentioned that some also lip sync during live gigs. Both are rather pitiful, IMHO.

Larry The reason is quite simple. Technology back then was not very good and Top of the Pops was a live program. It was really very difficult to have a dozen or so different acts playing only one song live one after the other. Miming or as you say lip sync on TOTP was the done thing for everybody. It was practical and easy to produce.

Well, in our studio, we have to use the auto-tune all the time in our mixing of both vocals and instruments. It's been a life- saver in that we don't always have a singer or a player for more than an hour or so at a time to record parts we need for a piece of music for a stage show or soundtrack. So, if we can get close to what we need before they have to leave, we can always go back and fix the tuning later. It has really been a big help, especially when the music we are recording is in a key that is not good for one or more of the hired talent. It is too much work to change the key of an entire track to suit a particular singer or instrument. So, auto-tune is the next best thing to assist if the song falls in a natural break or something like that.

However, when it is abused by those who cannot stay in tune, then it becomes a tool to enable those who are not capable. I guess all tools are only as good as those who use them.

Heidi

All DAW has this autotune but in my opinion nothing surpasses the Antares. I remember when im recording my tracks I dont know about this. SO I warrant to use the resident autotune in my DAW. When Im out of tune I repeat it all over again and it gave me a sore throat and it looses my energy delivering my vocals in my demo. Thanks to my friend mentor here when he introduce me to this plugins. Everything now is so easy. Its now my security blanket and im dependent on this plugins like an alcoholic. HELP!!! I should enroll in Antares Anonymous... LOL

Lynman

Hi Lynman maybe you should. Any dependant will start to use more and more until it takes over your life. LOL
Call me old fashioned but I prefer studio recordings to sound like the real LIVE thing with the minimum of fx and corrections.
"Sometimes less is more"

Big Jim

Yes I agree. The old dictum of recording engineer. Less is more.

I think I read some article about this that some artist are claiming that they dont use any corrective and fx measures. Dont worry I will start to go back in my old ways. SO I have my lozengges ready.

Lynman

Hi Lynman I think you are referring to the "back to basics" trend that a lot of musicians are currently experimenting with. More live acoustic sets and more natural sounds rather than using electronic gizmos and studio techniques.

Lynman,

I hope you are kidding about depending on auto-tune like a crutch. How are you going to improve your singing if you don't learn how to do it right? I beleive that this thread has pointed out the need and proper uses of auto-tune, but using it "just" so you can sound in pitch (or turn a "bad" vocal into a "good" one) seems to be self-defeating in the long run.

As for myself, If I had it, I would probably use it and abuse it, so I probably won't get it for awhile!

Kevin

Kevin
This is my testimonials..

Its really our crutch. During our production this autotune really help us a lot especially the bands who recorded the instruments live. Instead to call them to redo some minor flaw in some tracks. We just pull this plug ins and wella we hit the right notes.

Actually theres some limitations in this autotune where you cannot pull the right note especially when it is 1-2 notes higher bacause it will sounds not good and even ordinary listener will notice it.

When I learned this plug ins capability I was so dependent thinking this plugins can correct all the pitch flaw especially in one song were producing the band songwriter opted to sing the song but on the part where he deliver the hook he cannot reach the right note it so I told him its okey we can corrrect it. And I was wrong so instead recording it again we look for another vocalist that can deliver the song without using the autotune.

On my previous post what I meant is for me to go to the basics of recording where how the old sound engineer painstakingly doing it without the gadgets and during mixing from there I can lock and load with present technology can offer. Of course with certain level of limitation not to overdo the whole song.

Lynman

By the way Vikki you do not need training to sing in pitch just a good "ear" and a good natural voice. Bad "ear" all the training in the world won't make you sing in pitch. Re perfect diction it depends on the style and genre. Most genres including rock, country, soul and R&B rely heavily on bad diction for effect. To change would make the singer sound false and lose credibility.

This seems like a reasonable use of auto-tune.

And this seems like an abuse!

However, if your business is recording and you have to use it to keep clients happy, well that sort of over-rides everything.

Kevin

Wow, if you have to use it to pull up notes that are 1/2 step or whole step off, you should either practice the part more, or re-arrange the part (lower the key, perhaps?).

Also, I used Autotune for several years and have recently switched to Melodyne. With Melodyne, you can not only correct the pitch, but the timing as well. You can actually stretch notes that are too short or shorten ones that are too long. It's pretty scary how much you can manipulate that original track.

I think for the most part, most producers and artists (who want to make a living with their art) and most consumers want a good product and don't care about the finer details of it all.

Then there are the purists among them who want not only a great product but they want it to be genuine. I personally like it to be genuine. Well. Usually.

If I were trying to be a great singer songwriter, I would not want software enhancements. However, if what I am trying to do is to get people to appreciate the songs rather than my singing and out of necessity I had no choice but to do the singing, it would not bother me to use enhancements.

It's the same thing with the notation software I use. I can't play all the instruments I compose for. I can't afford to hire musicians to play it either, but I can use software to produce the audio I need so others can hear the compositions. It isn't musicianship I am promoting but rather the composition.

Also, suppose someone wants everything to be genuine, and most of it is but there are a few notes slightly off and time and/or financial constraints won't allow a remake, would it be wrong to use the software to fix a few notes?

I think it's important that anyone who uses this type of software develop good ears for how to use it, like any other processing effect. If you go full throttle, you're going to end up with something that sounds perfect and mechanical and boring. The end result of the recording process, for me at least, is to end up with the best sounding song possible. The best sounding song possible does not have robot perfect vocals... though lots of "alternative" music do exactly that.

Side note - Alternative started out as a rebellious "real music" alternative to big hair metal, and look what's happened to it... a bunch of whiney twenty year old pretty boys who don't sing with vibrato because it might mess up the Autotune.

I think, too, that we ought to be careful about being high and mighty. I've talked to guys who swear they'd never use any pitch correction on voice because it's cheating, but then they quantize their keyboard parts. Hmm...

And quantizing a keyboard track has the exact same problem - stiff and robotic. A little fixing goes a long way. You can quantize 80% instead of 100%...

As I said Richard it is a tool and should only be used to enhance a good performance not hide a poor one. Some pop starts use it so much it should also be on the stage with a spotlight on it.

DEATH TO AUTOTUNE

jesus, people and industry yes now they're picky if it doesn't sound like a robot, but i'm sort of rebellious about that... I have not used it in my entire album and I do not intend to do it in my following. It's fine for string instruments or some wind, in case you have to fix a note and you can't hire again the musicians, but for VOICE.. nooooooo!!!!

Yes Autotune has its place. Sadly some people take it from that place and put it in a recording studio.

Hey all,
A method I use at home is to record 3-4 vocal tracks one after another and then slice and dice the best parts together to make a single track. Most times pitch is not a problem for me because I know well my own limitations vocally. Having said that, when I work with other people and they can't be available for a redux I will correct minor flaws using pitch and time controls in my old cool edit pro program. Used too much it will produce artifacts that can ruin a vocal such as out of phase sounds and tonal changes. I agree with the consensus here that melodyne and autotune are valuable tools but I liken it to using a sledge hammer on brad nails. Hit it as softly as you can.
Rick
Ps. The most abused tool there is is reverb. Reverb has ruined more vocals than anything else.

Hi Argo I agree. That is the way I work in the studios I use. It is pretty common practice throughout the industry to do three takes and cut them up to get the best bits. Most people tend to get bored, go stale, and lose the performance after three. You really can hear the difference.

After recording the three takes I listen to each take in turn sit with a b it papaer and clipboard and put ticks and crosses against each line on the three versions taking a note of any errors out of tune bits or parts I want to especially keep.
Funny thing is the vast majority of stuff used in the final mix always seems to come from the first version. It is just an odd line or word that comes from version two and hardly any from the third take.

Pick your trick, I guess. Comp a selection of the best takes for an illusion of a flawless performance, or autotune a vocal. It's all okay in my book.

I hate the "Autotune Sound" of perfectly flattened harmonies in so many commercial releases, but I don't resent it. To me it's the same as distortion or stereo chorus or flange...it's another soundshaping tool.

I just did a song, "Mystery Tree" where I recorded a fairly difficult new guitar track. And then I realized I didn't want to sing it that high. So I used Cubase's Pitch Shift effect to lower the entire guitar track two semitones down. Viola! A nice deep-sounding guitar...what was DADGAD became CGCAGC. Magic tricks are okay by me.

I agree. However as I said before these tools should be used to enhance a good performance not hide a bad one. Too many "stars" are getting away with bad performances being cleverly hidden.

True. Unfortunately, these cleverly hidden bad performances are often times also the measuring stick by which real performers are judged.

I have no qualms about using these tools to level the playing field.

Just to add insult to injury too many "stars" are getting away with bad performances even with Autotune and all the other voice enhancing gizmos.

I was watching Conan O'Brien the other night commenting on Kanye West's imfamous "I am the voice of this generation" quote.

Conan: "Voice of this generation"? Kanye abuses Autotune so much, he's lucky if he's "the voice of his own records"!

autotune is for people who can't sing!I've heard people make autotune even sound bad,now that's just wrong.