smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Frank Padellaro" <kingradio@pumpingstation.com> |
| Subject | Re: the protools debate |
| Date | Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:57:18 -0600 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (3.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
As a DAW user and auto-tune user I have to chime in.
This technology pretty much pervades every recording in the top 40 and most that aren't, including everything from classical to blues. I don't like over-editing. I don't like auto tune. But I have done both and continue to do so. Sometimes, as someone else so eloquently said, it is just plain necessary. People aren't as good at singing or playing their instruments now as the people who called themselves professional musicians 25 years ago. The bar is set a lot lower (or higher if you're a limbo fan) today for performers, and some singers can't get by without pitch correction and some musicians can't play a solo without editing and comping. All of these techniques have their uses. It seems like Antares auto-tune has become a matter of course for pop music, now, though, and that has become kind of a bummer. I don't want every song to have the same laser beam vocal, but everyone seems to figure that auto-tune is what it takes to have a hit record. The etc. which is alluded to in the original email seems to suggest all of the other trickery available with digital editing. While much of this is the same as it has always been (editing taking the place of multi-track comping) it is certainly easier and more transparent than ever. This digital editing is a part of all current pop music, not just the ones Jamie listed. I think it is safe to say that there isn't a current hit record that wasn't tracked to a click and rhythm corrected, comped and edited with pro-tools or something like it. This can be done with varying amounts of taste, creativity and integrity. This editing makes certain effects possible (see radiohead, wilco, etc.) that wouldn't have been previously. Even auto-tune, as Jamie pointed out, has been used to creative effect. I thought that Cher song was really cool till everyone did it.
So, predjudices aside, I think the rules remain the same as always. Does a record pass your sniff test? Does it seem like a creative endeavor? Do the songs move you in some way? Do the performances seem inspired (no matter how corrected they might be)? These have always been my litmus for what I enjoy and consume in music, and while DAW gives more and more ways to make me hate a record, it has brought some records to life that I'm really glad exist (mine own included).
Frank.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Jaimie Vernon" <bullseyecanada@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: audities@smoe.org
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:35:52 -0500
>AT Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:36:04 Kevin wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm pretty sure I've figured out when someone is using protools for
>>pitch correction/etc. My question is can someone give me a song where
>>the singer is definitely using it to correct his/her voice?
>
>Any N'Sync, Britney or CHER recording released in the last 5 years. The
>vocal effect on CHER's "Do You Believe" is a pitch control used as a vocal
>effect...rather than pitch "correcting" her voice, she's pitch
>bending...giving it a cool effect that became so over-used that it's become
>a complete cliche.
>
>Jaimie Vernon,
>Bullseye
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
>
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.