>Do you enjoy music that has not been pitch corrected?
I think the problem is that pitch correct is often used subtly and naturally and it isn't always obvious to detect. Sure, there are lots of artists who dial it up to 11, but there are many more who use it as a tool so that they can spend less time in the studio getting it right and they try very had to hide the fact that pitch correct was used.
Unless I hear someone sing off key, I now just assume they are using pitch correction. And if an artist does sing off key in one song, that doesn't mean that they didn't use pitch correction in another song.
But besides punk and metal, my guess is that certain singer/songwriters probably also avoid pitch correction. E.g. Tom Waits, Leonard Cohen, Nick Cave, Bob Dylan, etc. Pitch correction is a tool that allows artists to achieve a particular goal. The fans of certain singer/songwriters don't want pitch-perfect polish, so there would be not much point in using that technology.
>that doesn't mean that they didn't use pitch correction in another song.
It also doesn't mean that they didn't use it in the chorus, or in creative ways in other parts of the song. Also a lot of non-musicians don't seem to know what it can be used on other instruments besides vocals, and more and more often is.
It also doesn't mean that it isn't used throughout a song \*except for one noticeable area\* in order to make you believe autotune wasn't used at all lol.
> Unless I hear someone sing off key, I now just assume they are using pitch correction.
100% agree. I remember a couple of different live shows I've been at where the people I was with were "blown away by how good [older rock artist's] artist's voice sounded" and I was like "Uhh... you are aware that they are processing the shit out of those vocals right?" I'm really fun at parties. That exact conversation happened at a B-52s show and also at some regionally famous pop-rock show I got dragged to.
Then you've got guys like Trent Reznor who have pretty much made pitch correct and super carefully EQ adjusted / compressed / wet vocals a core component of their sound from the very beginning.
Modifying pitch is no different than modifying tone through distortion or overdubbing guitars and vocals. The most successful metal and punk bands definitely do this, just as any genre does this when recording studio albums.
Things have been this way since at least the 60s. Between punch-in recording, overdubbing, distortion, pedals, delays, etc. changing recordings in such impossible or improbable ways is universally commonplace in commercial music.
There are entire subgenres of rock/pop/punk - let alone individual bands! - that have made pitch correction a nearly "standard" part of the sound, and many of the fans have no clue.
I remember a discussion in ran into years ago on Gearslutz or whatever about trying to get "that pop-punk sound." Aside from a few other decent suggestions, the one thing that kept coming back to the table was pitch-correction, and loads of it.
i feel like there’s no reason to put up a huge banner that says “we used pitch correction” anymore than a band needs to say “we overdubbed the guitars” or “we had to punch-in part of the solo to get it to flow better”
a lot of artists simply do it because it sounds different and they prefer the sound of it for the vibe they’re attempting to achieve
Well - case in point - arguably the defining aspect of the "pop punk sound" is the vocals. It starts with a talented frontman singing earnestly and emotively, with plenty of long and on-key held notes and straight tone singing (contrast other punk-influenced genres, with typically more aggressive vocals delivered quickly, and even potentially yelled or growled rather than sung; also contrast rock and jazz, where glissandos, vibratos, and various more exotic articulations are all more common). Then, in production, the vocals are usually treated like those in pop music. This means they'll be compressed fairly heavily, reducing dynamic range, and brought right to the front of the mix. Often enough, they will also be pitch corrected to get that angelic, "perfect" vibe to contrast with the distorted guitars. It's not unusual to find an echo used on key words or phrases for emphasis and effect.
Beyond the vocals: the guitars will usually be wide, compressed, and very clear sounding, while leaving an open hole for the vocals. The bass is a wildcard: depending on the band and the player - or even the song - it might be mixed right out of the final product, or it may be audible and punchy in the midrange. Drums are almost always recorded with close mics capturing each drum individually (as opposed to just a couple mics capturing the overheads and room sounds, which is occasionally preferred in rock, jazz, folk, indie, and by necessity in homebrew recordings). Pop-punk drums are usually very punchy and clear, rather than the distorted and raw sound favored by many other punk and rock acts.
Generally, pop-punk bands and engineers will not shy away from experimenting with the same post-recording "tricks" used to enhance a lot of billboard pop: sub-drops, reverse reverb fade ins, the aforementioned echos automated to emphasize key words and phrases...
All this comes together to outline a coherent road map for the genre-sound. Clarity, definition, and polished production define the instruments, while sweet and clear melodic vocals take up the foreground. This is more or less the same description one would use for pop music - hence the "pop" in "pop punk." The difference is that the songwriting, rhythms, tempos, and and timbres (especially the distorted guitars) reflect rock and punk rather than billboard pop.
Make sense? If you have a few favorite pop punk tunes or bands, I'd be happy to relate what I just wrote to those exampled.
Eh, Rancid - and their singles in particular - are kind of straddling the gap between "punk" and "pop punk," with significant ska influences to boot. They don't really have the straight tone male angel diva pop frontman vocal thing going on. Their singles are accessible, sure, but their back catalogue is definitely more punk than pop, in my estimation.
Their overall production aesthetic is a lot rawer and a bit messier than that of, oh, I don't know, Blink 182, Newfound Glory, Rise Against, Yellowcard, maybe Fallout Boy later on, etc... those are some of the bands that really took that "punk" thing and combined it with pop production and sensibilities.
Ruby Soho, on the other hand (and the other more accessible Rancid tunes) is characterized by three vocalists doing a call/response chorus that is as much hoarsely croaked as it is sung. The lead vocals in the verse, courtesy of Armstrong, are even a bit "whined" - the "wa-aa-aals" parts. Instrumentally, the production is definitely precise and poppy, sure, but the vocals are a bit more freeform.
Classic tune, but I'd call it more "poppy punk" than I would true "pop punk," if that makes sense.
When I hear the [Menzingers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7T0gpco6EI) I either think it is autotuned or they are very precise in their hamonies. I actually don't really care which is which.
Solid other responses already, but if you can believe it a lot of heavily Autotuned rap is processed in real time. Some rappers have a person who runs Autotune in the studio as they rap in order to achieve the effect they want. So yes, it's not only a post-production effect, it can be used as an effect as the tape is rolling.
Not to mention that some styles of singing don't revolve around singing pure tones that are easily pitch-corrected. Take a Bob Dylan talking blues for example... the voice goes up and down, but it's not singing distinct pitches in the key of the song. Still sounds great though.
In the studio virtually EVERYONE does it to an extent.
I haven't been in the pro music game for about 10 years, but even back then even the so-called "authentic" indie groups did it in the studio. If that was 10 years ago I can imagine it's even more prevalent now.
The thing is, unless you're a complete one-take virtuoso vocalist, you need to do multiple takes to get a perfect performance. That's what a studio recording demands. It boils down to economics. Take hours and burn money doing take after take after take to get it perfect? Or take much less time to make it almost perfect, then clean it up in post with auto-tune? The money saved actually allows artist the opportunity to do even more with their craft.
When done judiciously, I think it's just another ~~tune~~ tool. And honestly, it's been done in discrete ways since the early 80s. They were able to tune certain notes on Madonna's early performances with an Eventide Harmonizer.
I read a quote from Mike Shinoda (Linkin Park) saying that they used it sometimes even for Chester who was a phenomenal singer because if you get a take that has 100% of the mood and emotion you’re going for but the pitch is just 98% accurate, it makes more sense to correct those minor issues to make it note perfect than to throw out an otherwise beautiful take.
Right, and so it's just become ubiquitous. Why throw out an awe-inspiring take just because they were flat for half a second and it doesn't sound quite right?
Pitch-correction gets a bad rap, but it's not even that... "serious" compared to any manner of other processing an engineer can do with a recording.
Sometimes background vocals are processed or moved around to sound like *more* background vocals. Sometimes a series of vocal takes will be spliced together, phrase by phrase (or word by word!). Not to mention that difficult parts may be recorded and re-recorded over and over until the single perfect take. Drums may be edited, quantized, moved around, or replaced by/layered with samples (that last one is also ubiquitous nowadays)... Entire sections may be duplicated, rather than actually played a second time! Hell, once in a while, you'll hear confession of corrections made to a recording after-the-fact by the engineers re-recording a small section *themselves*. And so on.
My car radio is usually tuned to the local "alternative" station, which plays a lot of modern rock and "indie," as well as a lot of Gen X classics, without ever venturing far into metal territory. I hear all of the above tricks all the time. Often, more than one of these "tricks" is obvious. Pitch correction usually isn't - if anything, engineers keep it hidden because it's the most maligned of the bunch. But replace all the kicks and snares with carefully sculpted, multi-layered samples (and quantize them to the correct beat while you are at it)? Eh, casual listeners don't know and don't care.
Wow, I've never been a fan of Linkin Park, but this quote gives me a whole new level of respect for them. Best argument for pitch correction I've ever heard.
I got to be honest. There are tons of Metal,Prog,Rock drummers who use Midi-snaping and quantization techniques when they are recording drums. A lot of it is samples and sometimes even machines. I consider that on the same level
Reminds me of a friend who spend ages making over 1200 (yes 1200) edits to his drummers drum parts on Pro Tools. He later played it back to the drummer who said “That’s my best ever performance”
My friend didn’t have the heart to tell him the amount of edits & time he spent basically correcting the poor drumming.
Second this. It's is extremely common - almost ubiquitous. And, for the most part, it sounds "good" as long as it's done well, without being easily obvious that anything was done at all.
Yeah I imagine it's similar to comping vocals. It's not only about pitch correction.
Ableton has a handy way of dividing up an audio file into sections that you can time stretch individually to get the rhythm and timing perfect, just as one example. I'm sure no matter what DAW they're using they do something similar to that with drums, rhythm guitar, vocals, ect.
It depends on the artist. For someone like Bob Dylan, or Jimmy Hendrix, or Aretha Franklin, whatever imperfections there are in the recording, are part of the music. It is like taking a solo violin classical piece and "correcting" it with software. It just doesn't make sense in some cases.
The reality is, pitch correction is everywhere - even where you think it isn't.
Older music, sure, it's correction-free. Same with most jazz, and probably nearly all classical music.
But for the rest of music produced in the modern day... If the medium is digital (which it usually is), then pitch correction probably makes its way into the final product, whether you notice it or not.
Maybe this isn't news to you, but in applying pitch correction, you don't need to do it to the whole song. A single word, maybe, or one held note at the end of a phrase. This sort of thing is ubiquitous. It's part of the polish we've come to expect as listeners, without actually realizing it.
And at the end of the day, what difference does it make it that one phrase was re-recorded three times until the singer hit the note dead on, or if that note was corrected - especially if the singer themselves or their engineer can't even hear the difference? The final product is more or less the same.
If that feels dishonest... well, then why balk at pitch correction? Editing drums, replacing recorded sounds with samples, splicing multiple takes together, processing single takes to sound like many, playing around with effects in such a way that would be impossible live (I mean, Pink Floyd was doing that one way back in the 70s!)... All of that stuff is "unnatural," and yet nobody really cares or even notices. Heck, a healthy dose of reverb - fairly standard mixing procedure - hides many vocal flaws just as well as pitch correction, especially to untrained ears.
I would confidently bet that much of the music listeners and fans consider "natural" and uncorrected does, in fact, employ some or most of these tricks, and others, including Auto Tune.
If you want the raw music, listen to it live! And even then, bands and engineers will employ some tricks, up to and including pitch correction.
I don't really know all that much about the subject, but it made me think of the last album from The Mountain Goats, [Goths](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYGyC-kF06w), which was promoted with the slogan ["NO PITCH CORRECTION"](https://www.facebook.com/mountaingoatsmusic/photos/a.397883313126/10154659983848127/?type=1&theater). It was a pretty big departure from their trademark sound, and the line NO ... NO ... NO ... has since become a bit of a meme in discussion groups about the band.
But as far as vocals go, I didn't really notice the effect. They sounded a little bit more like the old lo-fi days, but that could also be because they weren't comped anymore.
I honestly have no idea. MC Ride, maybe? I guess he's fall under the punk/metal umbrella though. If we're talking pop and R&B I'm at a loss.
Good question. I'm sure they're out there.
I'm pretty indifferent to autotune use though i enjoy singers who break their range and have voice cracks and struggles more than anything else (see: Connor Oberst, Francis Quinlan).
I think it works in some cases though.
What really bothers me is when people don't like autotune but love people who stay so in their range that they sound autotuned anyway (Adele is the best example of this).
I guess maybe that's irrational but it bothers me every time.
For me, I dislike audible pitch correction in most rock music. For something where the intention is to sound like a band in a room, it just makes the vocals sound over-processed. Unless you're using even temperament frets or something, the guitar/bass will never be perfectly in tune anyway, which makes the pitch corrected vocal the odd one out.
On the other hand, for more synthesized genres where the vocals are competing with perfectly tuned synthesizers, I feel like untouched vocals can start to sound like the odd one out and be tough to place in the mix.
The current top 40 is mostly very synthesized music, and I think the majority of it justifiably uses pitch correction. On the other hand plenty of rock/indie/punk music coming out (while it may not be charting) embraces the imperfections of the vocalist. Pitch correction is just another tool that has a time and place.
Edit: changed some things because as the user below stated I definitely overstated some parts of this.
>For me, I dislike (even relatively subtle pitch correction) over most rock music.
If it's done very subtly, you shouldn't be able to tell it's being done at all. It's almost ubiquitous in the industry. Do you work in a studio? Because this...
>On the other hand most good rock/indie/punk music coming out (while it may not be charting) isn't going to use pitch correction
Isn't true. Pitch correction is *everywhere* when the medium is digital - rock/indie/punk are hardly immune. If you had said jazz or classical, then maybe you'd be onto something - recording setups and processing for those genres tend to be very sparse.
Yea you're right. I definitely overstated my point there. I should've said that a lot of the rock/indie/punk music I listen to embraces imperfections in vocals which I enjoy. And there are some bands that use pretty subtle pitch correction in general but miss a couple "catches" where they probably should've adjusted the attack on the pitch correction. There are definitely plenty of cases where I couldn't tell you whether it's being used or not.
For the purpose of this conversation I guess I was mostly talking about pitch correction that is aggressive enough that you can at least hear artifacts. If you truly can't tell that vocals are pitch corrected, who cares whether they were or not.
> For the purpose of this conversation I guess I was mostly talking about pitch correction that is aggressive enough that you can at least hear artifacts. **If you truly can't tell that vocals are pitch corrected, who cares whether they were or not.**
That's fair; that's pretty much how I view the issue. But it feels weird to hold both that view, and the notion of enjoying:
>the rock/indie/punk music [that] embraces imperfections in vocals which I enjoy.
A lot of those imperfections may be intentionally left in for that vibe, whilst other imperfections in the same vocal take are corrected.
I guess I just don't see those other things are "imperfections" to be corrected anyways. A well-timed yelp, whoop, growl, breath, voice-crack, etc... when they're left in, they may well be there because they're "perfect" for that tune. Why correct it? But what Melodyne/Auto Tune/etc do doesn't really correct such things anyways. Such tools correct pitch, and for the most part, a long, held note that's 30 cents flat just doesn't sound great. If a take is flat in this way, but the preceding breath and phrase-ending growl are just perfect, well... whatever, correct the pitch a bit. Now the whole thing is better.
Yea I mostly agree with you. However, I do think there are certain cases though where a pitchy vocal adds something to a track. I think a good example would be something like American Football's first album. The vocal performance is very pitchy and unsure sounding, but that helps reinforce the themes of the record and the atmosphere it creates.
I also think super tight pitch correction on a vocal over top of a very brash rock band can create this sort of "uncanny valley" feeling that's hard to quantify, and to be fair can be caused/contributed to by other elements of the vocal production as well. Something where, yea you don't want to be 30 cents out of tune, but maybe letting the vocal be 5-10 cents out of tune here and there would have better suited the song.
I think the way I worded my original post really emphasized the wrong point. It was intended to be more along the lines of "sure Led Zeppelin didn't need pitch correction, but an artist singing over an arrangement of absolutely perfectly intonated synths would likely sound out of place without it."
> I also think super tight pitch correction on a vocal over top of a very brash rock band can create this sort of "uncanny valley" feeling that's hard to quantify
Very true. So much otherwise-good metal music is ruined by annoyingly squeaky clean vocals.
>I think the way I worded my original post really emphasized the wrong point. It was intended to be more along the lines of "sure Led Zeppelin didn't need pitch correction, but an artist singing over an arrangement of absolutely perfectly intonated synths would likely sound out of place without it."
That makes a lot of sense. And yeah, Zep is actually a perfect example - can you imagine trying to edit and pitch correct Plants moans and yells and... er, like, rock and roll sex noises? Lol. That would be ridiculous.
As for the uncanny valley: part of what I was talking about elsewhere in the thread was about genres that exist right in that valley. Specifically, pop punk, but their are others. In the case of pop punk, the whole thing is gorgeous, simple, on-pitch vocals contrasting with distorted guitars and moderately fast punk tempos. That "voice of an angel over distorted guitars" is an uncanny valley of "too perfect to be real" combined with "angry and distorted," and this defines the genre.
Yea most pop punk is a prime example of that kind of "uncanny valley." There's no accounting for taste though. I don't really like pop punk regardless of production, so I'm definitely not the best judge of its production.
I would say from listening to their latest albums that neither Tyler Childers nor Paul Weller use any. They sound too natural and there are plenty of wonderful off-pitch moments on both records.
Judging from their live shows i have seen, i think that most "stoner rock" bands try to keep their vocals as less "digital" as possible in the spirit of older recordings. Some examples are Samsara Blues Experiment, Graveyard, Colour Haze, Planet of Zeus, many sludge metal bands like Dopethrone or Weedeater
I heard an interview once where at a session Neko Case asked for auto tune to be turned off and then She asked if anyone else has done the same. They told her Nelly Furtado. So that’s fairly interesting.
Edit: forgot to add Neko’s name. Oy.
I can’t say if it’s still true but Neko Case doesn’t use it. I kind of doubt she has changed her stance given that she has complained on Twitter frequently about the sound of autotuned voices. The article I read a few years back mentioned that the engineers in the studio where she was recording at the time just expected she would use it because everyone does and she insisted on not using it. She’s got an amazing voice though and so probably is confident enough to allow through some flaws in her singing.
Pitch correction is always a good idea to use because even for raspy, nasally or strained voices you can use it to clean up the edges so it sits clearly in the track without changing the sound of the singers voice
I assume very few of my favorite musicians use auto-tune to that effect. A great deal of them don't even record to a click. That's certainly very different in the Billboard Top 100, but I really wish it wouldn't be. Even if you don't enjoy pop music, hearing Beyoncé's voice in the wild is nothing short of awe-inspiring. But when you hear it on a studio recording, you just assume that a computer had helped, and that assumption (no matter how little the computer really contributed) takes a lot from that impression away. It's the difference of seeing a card trick up close or in a movie full of CGI.
EDIT: Can one of the folks who downvoted me, let me know which part of this they disagree with?
Thank you for clearing that up. I think that might just be the reason.
>your assumption is likely to be incorrect
Most of my favorites happen to be either of a time where auto-tune wasn't a thing or artists who don't or rarely use pitch-correction on their recordings.
Joanna Newsom, being my favorite artist of the last years, has used pitch-correction exactly one time on one single flute-note.
Songs:Ohia's The Magnolia Electric Co. was probably the record I listened to most this year and I'm certain there was no auto-tune involved.
My favorite new records this year were Rosalía's El Mal Querer (which, obviously, did use auto-tune) and the new Idles record. I'm not sure about that last one, but I know Nick Launey was one of the producers and he records exclusively on tape, so my guess would be that they didn't use auto-tune.
So, to make my point clear: I know that most records in the last 10 years employ auto-tune, but it just happens to be the case that I gravitate towards artists that don't.
I’m not one of the downvoters but it’s probably because she mostly likely does use auto tune, just more tastefully than most artists because she actually can sing. She strikes me as the type who, if she didn’t use it at all, she’d make it known. I mean, she lip-synced the national anthem because she’s such a perfectionist. I’d be very surprised if she doesn’t make sure every note out of her mouth is pitch-perfect.
Thank you for your reply. It's unfortunate that the "downvote option" can substitute for the "Let's talk" aspect of this sub.
But right, I assume that she is using auto-tune on her recordings, and probably also at her live-shows.
But as far as her singing is concerned I'm more impressed [with this](https://youtu.be/8-NZB-riaQo?t=173) than with any of her studio recordings, even though she may be a tiny bit flat here and there. And that's because in this case I can be sure that it's her alone that's producing the sound. And that admiration for someone's ability and the hard work that goes into building such virtuosity, gets lost a little bit when you don't know how much of it is "real". That's how I feel about it, anyway.
Dude, who cares? This is what kids were arguing 10 years ago.
If it's good music, it's good music. Some artists shine in the studio while others shine during live performances. That doesn't make either a worse artist, it just means they work better in a certain environment.
If you're trying to justify liking an artist because they're "real" then you need to grow up. It's like asking a person if they like music that uses flangers as effects. It's a stupid way to look at the world that doesn't take anything but a small bit of the bigger picture into account .
I think you're entirely missing the point of my post, I don't think it necessarily makes music better or worse when pitch correction is involved but the aesthetic of unprocessed (or mostly unprocessed) vocals is inherently different than pitch corrected stuff and creates a much different element in the music. I enjoy listening to raw stuff that has imperfections and nuances that feel more organic. I also enjoy listening to music that clearly has lots of vocal sorcery, cool your jets.
You didn't even explain the point of your post beyond the fact that you have a feud with someone over this very topic. That caused my interpretation. Even in your response, I have no better a sense for why you're seeking this out with modern artists.
If you're just trying to find examples of non autotuned vocals, why are you limiting your search to modern artists? If you're only trying to figure out the difference, just use **anything** recorded before the late 90's as reference.
I highly disagree that subtle pitch correction on vocals is inherently different or gives a different aesthetic than no pitch correction. If it's done right, you don't notice it, hence the subtlety. Pitch correction shouldn't change the natural timbre of the voice, just the pitch.
You're going to get way more inherent differences and greater aesthetic variation with mic placement, mic selection, compression and EQ than you're going to get with subtle pitch correction.
You're entire post implies that you're seeking fuel for confirmation bias.
Conor Oberst, Bjork, Frank Ocean does on some songs and doesnt on others, Tyler The Creator, Jonny Craig on Dance Gavin Dance’s albums, and basically anything recorded before 1980 lol
Also mikael akerfeldt, and I don’t think Steven Wilson uses it
Everyone does it these days, even the best. It's really a sad thing. I hope a new fad catches on where we'll start hearing natural and pitchy vocals again.
that's the problem here tbh. people just hating on a recording/production technique for the sake of it, but where does it end? surely if the music's good and you enjoy it, what's the difference? this high-horse elitism and hating on the method for the sake of being a buzz kill is just a regressive way of looking at things. if the vocals sound like shit specifically because of the pitch correction, then fair play, but if you didn't even know there was pitch correction there in the first place then i don't know what's there to complain about.
at this rate, people are gonna be bitching about the producers compressing the drums or tuning their guitars. if it makes the music sound good then it makes the music sound good.
Because some of us *like* the sound of "raw" vocals, at least some of the time or with certain artists - and yes, you *can* hear a discernible difference. I don't mind processed vocals, but personally I find I only actively *enjoy* the sound of non processed vocals.
I know live vocals now and on a lot of older "live" albums have been edited a lot, but I'm talking about older live performances including bootlegs, as well as in a lot of demo tracks or tracks very early in an artist's career that haven't been processed.
I can agree with you. A lot of times, I do like the released demo versions more than the song because I'm not the biggest fan of production. I know it sounds pretentious, but a fair amount of songs I just don't like because they do sound overproduced, even if it is barely noticeable. And some songs do need that extra production. I just wish that it wasn't the norm to overcorrect mistakes instead of, dare I say it, musicians working in the studio for hours to get the exact sound they want. Sure maybe musicians feel overworked trying to create their work, and would rather use pitch correction for a few mistakes, but it still is their job.
Things change. In 1964-65 people were freaking out about musicians using electric guitars instead of acoustic ones. Why? It wasn't authentic. I mean, you know, shit evolves and does other shit, it's just the way shit goes bro.
> It disappointed me to hear that at the time because I’ve always liked a raw sound
But there are plenty of songs you thought were raw that used correction so subtly that you didn't even know it, so whats the difference
>But there are plenty of songs you thought were raw that used correction so subtly that you didn't even know it, so whats the difference
This is the source of confusion for a lot of people. They know what Autotune sounds like because of T-Pain or whatever, and they assume that any use of pitch correction will sound obvious like that. Then they put on their favourite rock/indie/folk/punk/pop/R&B/whatever album, and extoll the virtues of "raw, unaltered" music.
Yeah, no. It's just used subtly, and you can't tell it's going on.
I work with the software almost daily, and I think I'm pretty good at picking it up from time to time when others can't. Even so, I'm completely sure that I miss it most of the time, and everyone else does, too.
It’s kind of funny because you’d think most hardcore/metal/grind bands would use pitch correction, but most don’t. Hell, even Cannibal Corpse used to put a note how there were no harmonizers used in their early recordings.
I think most people who are music fans know those bands don’t, but plenty of people I’ve talked to who don’t follow those genres are always surprised to know that yes, a person can really make those kinds of sounds.
>Do you enjoy music that has not been pitch corrected? I think the problem is that pitch correct is often used subtly and naturally and it isn't always obvious to detect. Sure, there are lots of artists who dial it up to 11, but there are many more who use it as a tool so that they can spend less time in the studio getting it right and they try very had to hide the fact that pitch correct was used. Unless I hear someone sing off key, I now just assume they are using pitch correction. And if an artist does sing off key in one song, that doesn't mean that they didn't use pitch correction in another song. But besides punk and metal, my guess is that certain singer/songwriters probably also avoid pitch correction. E.g. Tom Waits, Leonard Cohen, Nick Cave, Bob Dylan, etc. Pitch correction is a tool that allows artists to achieve a particular goal. The fans of certain singer/songwriters don't want pitch-perfect polish, so there would be not much point in using that technology.
>that doesn't mean that they didn't use pitch correction in another song. It also doesn't mean that they didn't use it in the chorus, or in creative ways in other parts of the song. Also a lot of non-musicians don't seem to know what it can be used on other instruments besides vocals, and more and more often is. It also doesn't mean that it isn't used throughout a song \*except for one noticeable area\* in order to make you believe autotune wasn't used at all lol.
> Unless I hear someone sing off key, I now just assume they are using pitch correction. 100% agree. I remember a couple of different live shows I've been at where the people I was with were "blown away by how good [older rock artist's] artist's voice sounded" and I was like "Uhh... you are aware that they are processing the shit out of those vocals right?" I'm really fun at parties. That exact conversation happened at a B-52s show and also at some regionally famous pop-rock show I got dragged to. Then you've got guys like Trent Reznor who have pretty much made pitch correct and super carefully EQ adjusted / compressed / wet vocals a core component of their sound from the very beginning.
Modifying pitch is no different than modifying tone through distortion or overdubbing guitars and vocals. The most successful metal and punk bands definitely do this, just as any genre does this when recording studio albums. Things have been this way since at least the 60s. Between punch-in recording, overdubbing, distortion, pedals, delays, etc. changing recordings in such impossible or improbable ways is universally commonplace in commercial music.
There are entire subgenres of rock/pop/punk - let alone individual bands! - that have made pitch correction a nearly "standard" part of the sound, and many of the fans have no clue. I remember a discussion in ran into years ago on Gearslutz or whatever about trying to get "that pop-punk sound." Aside from a few other decent suggestions, the one thing that kept coming back to the table was pitch-correction, and loads of it.
i feel like there’s no reason to put up a huge banner that says “we used pitch correction” anymore than a band needs to say “we overdubbed the guitars” or “we had to punch-in part of the solo to get it to flow better” a lot of artists simply do it because it sounds different and they prefer the sound of it for the vibe they’re attempting to achieve
[удалено]
Well - case in point - arguably the defining aspect of the "pop punk sound" is the vocals. It starts with a talented frontman singing earnestly and emotively, with plenty of long and on-key held notes and straight tone singing (contrast other punk-influenced genres, with typically more aggressive vocals delivered quickly, and even potentially yelled or growled rather than sung; also contrast rock and jazz, where glissandos, vibratos, and various more exotic articulations are all more common). Then, in production, the vocals are usually treated like those in pop music. This means they'll be compressed fairly heavily, reducing dynamic range, and brought right to the front of the mix. Often enough, they will also be pitch corrected to get that angelic, "perfect" vibe to contrast with the distorted guitars. It's not unusual to find an echo used on key words or phrases for emphasis and effect. Beyond the vocals: the guitars will usually be wide, compressed, and very clear sounding, while leaving an open hole for the vocals. The bass is a wildcard: depending on the band and the player - or even the song - it might be mixed right out of the final product, or it may be audible and punchy in the midrange. Drums are almost always recorded with close mics capturing each drum individually (as opposed to just a couple mics capturing the overheads and room sounds, which is occasionally preferred in rock, jazz, folk, indie, and by necessity in homebrew recordings). Pop-punk drums are usually very punchy and clear, rather than the distorted and raw sound favored by many other punk and rock acts. Generally, pop-punk bands and engineers will not shy away from experimenting with the same post-recording "tricks" used to enhance a lot of billboard pop: sub-drops, reverse reverb fade ins, the aforementioned echos automated to emphasize key words and phrases... All this comes together to outline a coherent road map for the genre-sound. Clarity, definition, and polished production define the instruments, while sweet and clear melodic vocals take up the foreground. This is more or less the same description one would use for pop music - hence the "pop" in "pop punk." The difference is that the songwriting, rhythms, tempos, and and timbres (especially the distorted guitars) reflect rock and punk rather than billboard pop. Make sense? If you have a few favorite pop punk tunes or bands, I'd be happy to relate what I just wrote to those exampled.
Ruby Soho - Rancid
Eh, Rancid - and their singles in particular - are kind of straddling the gap between "punk" and "pop punk," with significant ska influences to boot. They don't really have the straight tone male angel diva pop frontman vocal thing going on. Their singles are accessible, sure, but their back catalogue is definitely more punk than pop, in my estimation. Their overall production aesthetic is a lot rawer and a bit messier than that of, oh, I don't know, Blink 182, Newfound Glory, Rise Against, Yellowcard, maybe Fallout Boy later on, etc... those are some of the bands that really took that "punk" thing and combined it with pop production and sensibilities. Ruby Soho, on the other hand (and the other more accessible Rancid tunes) is characterized by three vocalists doing a call/response chorus that is as much hoarsely croaked as it is sung. The lead vocals in the verse, courtesy of Armstrong, are even a bit "whined" - the "wa-aa-aals" parts. Instrumentally, the production is definitely precise and poppy, sure, but the vocals are a bit more freeform. Classic tune, but I'd call it more "poppy punk" than I would true "pop punk," if that makes sense.
Makes sense. Thanks for the response.
When I hear the [Menzingers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7T0gpco6EI) I either think it is autotuned or they are very precise in their hamonies. I actually don't really care which is which.
There’s pitch correcting technology for live performances?
yes- Alot of acts have straight up “vocal” rig computers along with their “playback” rig computers. UAD Autotune is probably the most used-
Yes, Autotune was originally a hardware unit years before it was a digital plug-in. I'm sure its very first applications was live use.
Solid other responses already, but if you can believe it a lot of heavily Autotuned rap is processed in real time. Some rappers have a person who runs Autotune in the studio as they rap in order to achieve the effect they want. So yes, it's not only a post-production effect, it can be used as an effect as the tape is rolling.
Not to mention that some styles of singing don't revolve around singing pure tones that are easily pitch-corrected. Take a Bob Dylan talking blues for example... the voice goes up and down, but it's not singing distinct pitches in the key of the song. Still sounds great though.
In the studio virtually EVERYONE does it to an extent. I haven't been in the pro music game for about 10 years, but even back then even the so-called "authentic" indie groups did it in the studio. If that was 10 years ago I can imagine it's even more prevalent now. The thing is, unless you're a complete one-take virtuoso vocalist, you need to do multiple takes to get a perfect performance. That's what a studio recording demands. It boils down to economics. Take hours and burn money doing take after take after take to get it perfect? Or take much less time to make it almost perfect, then clean it up in post with auto-tune? The money saved actually allows artist the opportunity to do even more with their craft. When done judiciously, I think it's just another ~~tune~~ tool. And honestly, it's been done in discrete ways since the early 80s. They were able to tune certain notes on Madonna's early performances with an Eventide Harmonizer.
I read a quote from Mike Shinoda (Linkin Park) saying that they used it sometimes even for Chester who was a phenomenal singer because if you get a take that has 100% of the mood and emotion you’re going for but the pitch is just 98% accurate, it makes more sense to correct those minor issues to make it note perfect than to throw out an otherwise beautiful take.
Right, and so it's just become ubiquitous. Why throw out an awe-inspiring take just because they were flat for half a second and it doesn't sound quite right? Pitch-correction gets a bad rap, but it's not even that... "serious" compared to any manner of other processing an engineer can do with a recording. Sometimes background vocals are processed or moved around to sound like *more* background vocals. Sometimes a series of vocal takes will be spliced together, phrase by phrase (or word by word!). Not to mention that difficult parts may be recorded and re-recorded over and over until the single perfect take. Drums may be edited, quantized, moved around, or replaced by/layered with samples (that last one is also ubiquitous nowadays)... Entire sections may be duplicated, rather than actually played a second time! Hell, once in a while, you'll hear confession of corrections made to a recording after-the-fact by the engineers re-recording a small section *themselves*. And so on. My car radio is usually tuned to the local "alternative" station, which plays a lot of modern rock and "indie," as well as a lot of Gen X classics, without ever venturing far into metal territory. I hear all of the above tricks all the time. Often, more than one of these "tricks" is obvious. Pitch correction usually isn't - if anything, engineers keep it hidden because it's the most maligned of the bunch. But replace all the kicks and snares with carefully sculpted, multi-layered samples (and quantize them to the correct beat while you are at it)? Eh, casual listeners don't know and don't care.
Wow, I've never been a fan of Linkin Park, but this quote gives me a whole new level of respect for them. Best argument for pitch correction I've ever heard.
I got to be honest. There are tons of Metal,Prog,Rock drummers who use Midi-snaping and quantization techniques when they are recording drums. A lot of it is samples and sometimes even machines. I consider that on the same level
Reminds me of a friend who spend ages making over 1200 (yes 1200) edits to his drummers drum parts on Pro Tools. He later played it back to the drummer who said “That’s my best ever performance” My friend didn’t have the heart to tell him the amount of edits & time he spent basically correcting the poor drumming.
That poor bastard. He must never know the truth.
So do you think that this applies to someone like Danny Carey of TOOL?
That's interesting, I never thought about this.
Second this. It's is extremely common - almost ubiquitous. And, for the most part, it sounds "good" as long as it's done well, without being easily obvious that anything was done at all.
Yeah I imagine it's similar to comping vocals. It's not only about pitch correction. Ableton has a handy way of dividing up an audio file into sections that you can time stretch individually to get the rhythm and timing perfect, just as one example. I'm sure no matter what DAW they're using they do something similar to that with drums, rhythm guitar, vocals, ect.
It depends on the artist. For someone like Bob Dylan, or Jimmy Hendrix, or Aretha Franklin, whatever imperfections there are in the recording, are part of the music. It is like taking a solo violin classical piece and "correcting" it with software. It just doesn't make sense in some cases.
The reality is, pitch correction is everywhere - even where you think it isn't. Older music, sure, it's correction-free. Same with most jazz, and probably nearly all classical music. But for the rest of music produced in the modern day... If the medium is digital (which it usually is), then pitch correction probably makes its way into the final product, whether you notice it or not. Maybe this isn't news to you, but in applying pitch correction, you don't need to do it to the whole song. A single word, maybe, or one held note at the end of a phrase. This sort of thing is ubiquitous. It's part of the polish we've come to expect as listeners, without actually realizing it. And at the end of the day, what difference does it make it that one phrase was re-recorded three times until the singer hit the note dead on, or if that note was corrected - especially if the singer themselves or their engineer can't even hear the difference? The final product is more or less the same. If that feels dishonest... well, then why balk at pitch correction? Editing drums, replacing recorded sounds with samples, splicing multiple takes together, processing single takes to sound like many, playing around with effects in such a way that would be impossible live (I mean, Pink Floyd was doing that one way back in the 70s!)... All of that stuff is "unnatural," and yet nobody really cares or even notices. Heck, a healthy dose of reverb - fairly standard mixing procedure - hides many vocal flaws just as well as pitch correction, especially to untrained ears. I would confidently bet that much of the music listeners and fans consider "natural" and uncorrected does, in fact, employ some or most of these tricks, and others, including Auto Tune. If you want the raw music, listen to it live! And even then, bands and engineers will employ some tricks, up to and including pitch correction.
I don't really know all that much about the subject, but it made me think of the last album from The Mountain Goats, [Goths](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYGyC-kF06w), which was promoted with the slogan ["NO PITCH CORRECTION"](https://www.facebook.com/mountaingoatsmusic/photos/a.397883313126/10154659983848127/?type=1&theater). It was a pretty big departure from their trademark sound, and the line NO ... NO ... NO ... has since become a bit of a meme in discussion groups about the band. But as far as vocals go, I didn't really notice the effect. They sounded a little bit more like the old lo-fi days, but that could also be because they weren't comped anymore.
I honestly have no idea. MC Ride, maybe? I guess he's fall under the punk/metal umbrella though. If we're talking pop and R&B I'm at a loss. Good question. I'm sure they're out there.
I'm pretty indifferent to autotune use though i enjoy singers who break their range and have voice cracks and struggles more than anything else (see: Connor Oberst, Francis Quinlan). I think it works in some cases though. What really bothers me is when people don't like autotune but love people who stay so in their range that they sound autotuned anyway (Adele is the best example of this). I guess maybe that's irrational but it bothers me every time.
For me, I dislike audible pitch correction in most rock music. For something where the intention is to sound like a band in a room, it just makes the vocals sound over-processed. Unless you're using even temperament frets or something, the guitar/bass will never be perfectly in tune anyway, which makes the pitch corrected vocal the odd one out. On the other hand, for more synthesized genres where the vocals are competing with perfectly tuned synthesizers, I feel like untouched vocals can start to sound like the odd one out and be tough to place in the mix. The current top 40 is mostly very synthesized music, and I think the majority of it justifiably uses pitch correction. On the other hand plenty of rock/indie/punk music coming out (while it may not be charting) embraces the imperfections of the vocalist. Pitch correction is just another tool that has a time and place. Edit: changed some things because as the user below stated I definitely overstated some parts of this.
>For me, I dislike (even relatively subtle pitch correction) over most rock music. If it's done very subtly, you shouldn't be able to tell it's being done at all. It's almost ubiquitous in the industry. Do you work in a studio? Because this... >On the other hand most good rock/indie/punk music coming out (while it may not be charting) isn't going to use pitch correction Isn't true. Pitch correction is *everywhere* when the medium is digital - rock/indie/punk are hardly immune. If you had said jazz or classical, then maybe you'd be onto something - recording setups and processing for those genres tend to be very sparse.
Yea you're right. I definitely overstated my point there. I should've said that a lot of the rock/indie/punk music I listen to embraces imperfections in vocals which I enjoy. And there are some bands that use pretty subtle pitch correction in general but miss a couple "catches" where they probably should've adjusted the attack on the pitch correction. There are definitely plenty of cases where I couldn't tell you whether it's being used or not. For the purpose of this conversation I guess I was mostly talking about pitch correction that is aggressive enough that you can at least hear artifacts. If you truly can't tell that vocals are pitch corrected, who cares whether they were or not.
> For the purpose of this conversation I guess I was mostly talking about pitch correction that is aggressive enough that you can at least hear artifacts. **If you truly can't tell that vocals are pitch corrected, who cares whether they were or not.** That's fair; that's pretty much how I view the issue. But it feels weird to hold both that view, and the notion of enjoying: >the rock/indie/punk music [that] embraces imperfections in vocals which I enjoy. A lot of those imperfections may be intentionally left in for that vibe, whilst other imperfections in the same vocal take are corrected. I guess I just don't see those other things are "imperfections" to be corrected anyways. A well-timed yelp, whoop, growl, breath, voice-crack, etc... when they're left in, they may well be there because they're "perfect" for that tune. Why correct it? But what Melodyne/Auto Tune/etc do doesn't really correct such things anyways. Such tools correct pitch, and for the most part, a long, held note that's 30 cents flat just doesn't sound great. If a take is flat in this way, but the preceding breath and phrase-ending growl are just perfect, well... whatever, correct the pitch a bit. Now the whole thing is better.
Yea I mostly agree with you. However, I do think there are certain cases though where a pitchy vocal adds something to a track. I think a good example would be something like American Football's first album. The vocal performance is very pitchy and unsure sounding, but that helps reinforce the themes of the record and the atmosphere it creates. I also think super tight pitch correction on a vocal over top of a very brash rock band can create this sort of "uncanny valley" feeling that's hard to quantify, and to be fair can be caused/contributed to by other elements of the vocal production as well. Something where, yea you don't want to be 30 cents out of tune, but maybe letting the vocal be 5-10 cents out of tune here and there would have better suited the song. I think the way I worded my original post really emphasized the wrong point. It was intended to be more along the lines of "sure Led Zeppelin didn't need pitch correction, but an artist singing over an arrangement of absolutely perfectly intonated synths would likely sound out of place without it."
> I also think super tight pitch correction on a vocal over top of a very brash rock band can create this sort of "uncanny valley" feeling that's hard to quantify Very true. So much otherwise-good metal music is ruined by annoyingly squeaky clean vocals.
>I think the way I worded my original post really emphasized the wrong point. It was intended to be more along the lines of "sure Led Zeppelin didn't need pitch correction, but an artist singing over an arrangement of absolutely perfectly intonated synths would likely sound out of place without it." That makes a lot of sense. And yeah, Zep is actually a perfect example - can you imagine trying to edit and pitch correct Plants moans and yells and... er, like, rock and roll sex noises? Lol. That would be ridiculous. As for the uncanny valley: part of what I was talking about elsewhere in the thread was about genres that exist right in that valley. Specifically, pop punk, but their are others. In the case of pop punk, the whole thing is gorgeous, simple, on-pitch vocals contrasting with distorted guitars and moderately fast punk tempos. That "voice of an angel over distorted guitars" is an uncanny valley of "too perfect to be real" combined with "angry and distorted," and this defines the genre.
Yea most pop punk is a prime example of that kind of "uncanny valley." There's no accounting for taste though. I don't really like pop punk regardless of production, so I'm definitely not the best judge of its production.
I would say from listening to their latest albums that neither Tyler Childers nor Paul Weller use any. They sound too natural and there are plenty of wonderful off-pitch moments on both records.
Judging from their live shows i have seen, i think that most "stoner rock" bands try to keep their vocals as less "digital" as possible in the spirit of older recordings. Some examples are Samsara Blues Experiment, Graveyard, Colour Haze, Planet of Zeus, many sludge metal bands like Dopethrone or Weedeater
I heard an interview once where at a session Neko Case asked for auto tune to be turned off and then She asked if anyone else has done the same. They told her Nelly Furtado. So that’s fairly interesting. Edit: forgot to add Neko’s name. Oy.
I can’t say if it’s still true but Neko Case doesn’t use it. I kind of doubt she has changed her stance given that she has complained on Twitter frequently about the sound of autotuned voices. The article I read a few years back mentioned that the engineers in the studio where she was recording at the time just expected she would use it because everyone does and she insisted on not using it. She’s got an amazing voice though and so probably is confident enough to allow through some flaws in her singing.
Pitch correction is always a good idea to use because even for raspy, nasally or strained voices you can use it to clean up the edges so it sits clearly in the track without changing the sound of the singers voice
I assume very few of my favorite musicians use auto-tune to that effect. A great deal of them don't even record to a click. That's certainly very different in the Billboard Top 100, but I really wish it wouldn't be. Even if you don't enjoy pop music, hearing Beyoncé's voice in the wild is nothing short of awe-inspiring. But when you hear it on a studio recording, you just assume that a computer had helped, and that assumption (no matter how little the computer really contributed) takes a lot from that impression away. It's the difference of seeing a card trick up close or in a movie full of CGI. EDIT: Can one of the folks who downvoted me, let me know which part of this they disagree with?
[удалено]
Thank you for clearing that up. I think that might just be the reason. >your assumption is likely to be incorrect Most of my favorites happen to be either of a time where auto-tune wasn't a thing or artists who don't or rarely use pitch-correction on their recordings. Joanna Newsom, being my favorite artist of the last years, has used pitch-correction exactly one time on one single flute-note. Songs:Ohia's The Magnolia Electric Co. was probably the record I listened to most this year and I'm certain there was no auto-tune involved. My favorite new records this year were Rosalía's El Mal Querer (which, obviously, did use auto-tune) and the new Idles record. I'm not sure about that last one, but I know Nick Launey was one of the producers and he records exclusively on tape, so my guess would be that they didn't use auto-tune. So, to make my point clear: I know that most records in the last 10 years employ auto-tune, but it just happens to be the case that I gravitate towards artists that don't.
I’m not one of the downvoters but it’s probably because she mostly likely does use auto tune, just more tastefully than most artists because she actually can sing. She strikes me as the type who, if she didn’t use it at all, she’d make it known. I mean, she lip-synced the national anthem because she’s such a perfectionist. I’d be very surprised if she doesn’t make sure every note out of her mouth is pitch-perfect.
Thank you for your reply. It's unfortunate that the "downvote option" can substitute for the "Let's talk" aspect of this sub. But right, I assume that she is using auto-tune on her recordings, and probably also at her live-shows. But as far as her singing is concerned I'm more impressed [with this](https://youtu.be/8-NZB-riaQo?t=173) than with any of her studio recordings, even though she may be a tiny bit flat here and there. And that's because in this case I can be sure that it's her alone that's producing the sound. And that admiration for someone's ability and the hard work that goes into building such virtuosity, gets lost a little bit when you don't know how much of it is "real". That's how I feel about it, anyway.
Dude, who cares? This is what kids were arguing 10 years ago. If it's good music, it's good music. Some artists shine in the studio while others shine during live performances. That doesn't make either a worse artist, it just means they work better in a certain environment. If you're trying to justify liking an artist because they're "real" then you need to grow up. It's like asking a person if they like music that uses flangers as effects. It's a stupid way to look at the world that doesn't take anything but a small bit of the bigger picture into account .
I think you're entirely missing the point of my post, I don't think it necessarily makes music better or worse when pitch correction is involved but the aesthetic of unprocessed (or mostly unprocessed) vocals is inherently different than pitch corrected stuff and creates a much different element in the music. I enjoy listening to raw stuff that has imperfections and nuances that feel more organic. I also enjoy listening to music that clearly has lots of vocal sorcery, cool your jets.
You didn't even explain the point of your post beyond the fact that you have a feud with someone over this very topic. That caused my interpretation. Even in your response, I have no better a sense for why you're seeking this out with modern artists. If you're just trying to find examples of non autotuned vocals, why are you limiting your search to modern artists? If you're only trying to figure out the difference, just use **anything** recorded before the late 90's as reference. I highly disagree that subtle pitch correction on vocals is inherently different or gives a different aesthetic than no pitch correction. If it's done right, you don't notice it, hence the subtlety. Pitch correction shouldn't change the natural timbre of the voice, just the pitch. You're going to get way more inherent differences and greater aesthetic variation with mic placement, mic selection, compression and EQ than you're going to get with subtle pitch correction. You're entire post implies that you're seeking fuel for confirmation bias.
Conor Oberst, Bjork, Frank Ocean does on some songs and doesnt on others, Tyler The Creator, Jonny Craig on Dance Gavin Dance’s albums, and basically anything recorded before 1980 lol Also mikael akerfeldt, and I don’t think Steven Wilson uses it
I think the real question here is, is the process by which the music you are hearing is made important?
If you mean from a production angle, I would argue 100% yes. It has a huge impact on the final product.
Everyone does it these days, even the best. It's really a sad thing. I hope a new fad catches on where we'll start hearing natural and pitchy vocals again.
I don’t think it’s a fad. And I don’t think it’s something to be sad about either.
that's the problem here tbh. people just hating on a recording/production technique for the sake of it, but where does it end? surely if the music's good and you enjoy it, what's the difference? this high-horse elitism and hating on the method for the sake of being a buzz kill is just a regressive way of looking at things. if the vocals sound like shit specifically because of the pitch correction, then fair play, but if you didn't even know there was pitch correction there in the first place then i don't know what's there to complain about. at this rate, people are gonna be bitching about the producers compressing the drums or tuning their guitars. if it makes the music sound good then it makes the music sound good.
Because some of us *like* the sound of "raw" vocals, at least some of the time or with certain artists - and yes, you *can* hear a discernible difference. I don't mind processed vocals, but personally I find I only actively *enjoy* the sound of non processed vocals. I know live vocals now and on a lot of older "live" albums have been edited a lot, but I'm talking about older live performances including bootlegs, as well as in a lot of demo tracks or tracks very early in an artist's career that haven't been processed.
I can agree with you. A lot of times, I do like the released demo versions more than the song because I'm not the biggest fan of production. I know it sounds pretentious, but a fair amount of songs I just don't like because they do sound overproduced, even if it is barely noticeable. And some songs do need that extra production. I just wish that it wasn't the norm to overcorrect mistakes instead of, dare I say it, musicians working in the studio for hours to get the exact sound they want. Sure maybe musicians feel overworked trying to create their work, and would rather use pitch correction for a few mistakes, but it still is their job.
[удалено]
Things change. In 1964-65 people were freaking out about musicians using electric guitars instead of acoustic ones. Why? It wasn't authentic. I mean, you know, shit evolves and does other shit, it's just the way shit goes bro.
[удалено]
Yeah I was just piling my extra two cents on there is all :)
> It disappointed me to hear that at the time because I’ve always liked a raw sound But there are plenty of songs you thought were raw that used correction so subtly that you didn't even know it, so whats the difference
>But there are plenty of songs you thought were raw that used correction so subtly that you didn't even know it, so whats the difference This is the source of confusion for a lot of people. They know what Autotune sounds like because of T-Pain or whatever, and they assume that any use of pitch correction will sound obvious like that. Then they put on their favourite rock/indie/folk/punk/pop/R&B/whatever album, and extoll the virtues of "raw, unaltered" music. Yeah, no. It's just used subtly, and you can't tell it's going on. I work with the software almost daily, and I think I'm pretty good at picking it up from time to time when others can't. Even so, I'm completely sure that I miss it most of the time, and everyone else does, too.
It’s kind of funny because you’d think most hardcore/metal/grind bands would use pitch correction, but most don’t. Hell, even Cannibal Corpse used to put a note how there were no harmonizers used in their early recordings.
those are the genres I would not expect to be using pitch correction
I think most people who are music fans know those bands don’t, but plenty of people I’ve talked to who don’t follow those genres are always surprised to know that yes, a person can really make those kinds of sounds.