smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Brian Curtis <brioohs@sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject | Re: vocoder (was "the pro tools debate") |
| Date | Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:04:29 -0600 |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (1.7 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
on 1/20/04 7:00 AM, audities-owner@smoe.org at audities-owner@smoe.org
wrote:
> I think they used a Vocoder on those robotic sounding parts. It was a major
> "hook" for that song. Cher doesnt need auto-tune, she can be a great singer
> when she gets the right material.
Nah, that's simply the Auto-Tune cranked up beyond reason. I've worked with
vocoders, and it would be unlikely to get so pure a speech characteristic to
stand out beyond the synth sound regardless of how many frequency bands the
vocoder may span.
Agreed, Cher doesn't need Auto-Tune, but obviously her producers felt she
did. I dislike Auto-Tune, and thankfully do not have a copy or else I may
be seduced into trying it. I have, on the other hand, used the pitch tuning
capability of Pro Tools to fix simple things - there was a track that had a
deadline for delivery, and a singer that was ill and sang some peak notes
flat. Any other instance I would have insisted upon working to do it
naturally, but with time and circumstance I "cheated." However, unlike
Auto-Tune, what I did did not create a computer's perception of perfect. I
still left plenty of human imperfection, and only corrected those notes that
were sourly detrimental to the performance.
Auto-Tune has unfortunately been abused, similar to many other tools made
available over the past couple of decades (drum machines, sampling). The
very things that supposedly make it easier for the discerning user to create
art also make it easier for any schlockmeister to create crap.
Brioohs
--
THE OOHS HOME PAGE at http://www.theoohs.com
Album #3 now in production!!
Both CDs available at NOT LAME, CD BABY, JAM, TR BAZAAR or KOOL KAT MUSIK!
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.