Pitch correction on studio albums

[nlo13]

Just wondering where you guys stood on the whole pitch correction vs. no pitch correction debate.

Specifics:
- We're talking about the use of it in producing studio albums only
- It is assumed that the use of it is virtually undetectable when the audio is heard; not robotic or digital sounding
- Forget that a good number of bands already use it. I don't want specific bands' use of it to influence your opinion; I just want to know your thoughts on the concept of using it in the first place.

Also, I know that the reasoning within the options is somewhat specific in some places, so just pick the one that is the closest match to how you feel.

[Undue Noise]

I voted no because if you're a singer you should be able to sing unaided.

[Theseventhson]

Yes.

[Cheesus]

I think what happens in a lot of cases is simply time related.. Not all bands have endless hours to burn on the money clock while in the studio. With this in consideration, it would make sense as to why some people prefer pitch correction over countless hours of tracking to fix every little error.

On the other hand though, it can get annoying so I'm slightly conflicted about it.

[flks511]

I don't mind using it on the album just to make sure everything is in the right pitch, just as long as the band can play it live.

[superichie]

First off, it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with it, its pretty much a standard in recording now. Anyone who says they used absolutely no pitch correction on their record is lying, and if they are actually telling the truth...you'll definitely hear it and wish they used pitch correction.

But I voted it depends on the band. Singers who can't at least sound decent live have absolutely no business auto correcting their voices in the studio. Everyone makes mistakes but if your singer just flat out can't sing, using auto correction on your record isn't going to help you when everyone's booing you at shows.

[BulleTheory]

it depends if its over-used or not.

[Chromefox]

Depends on the extent to which it is used. To tweak minor faults? By all means. To create an annoying vocal effect abused throughout your entire album? Hell naw.

I voted no because if you're a singer you should be able to sing unaided. Hitting the note is one thing, hitting the frequency within that note is another entirely. You may be able to hit the note, but if the frequency is off by a very minimal amount, you can hear this audibly on record, and that's where autotune comes in for the majority of studio artists. You can be able to sing excellently, and still need a touch of autotune to put that frequency in the necessary zone on album. Live, this is not particularly an issue, and hitting the note alone is likely to suffice with your audience.

[Undue Noise]

Depends on the extent to which it is used. To tweak minor faults? By all means. To create an annoying vocal effect abused throughout your entire album? Hell naw.

Hitting the note is one thing, hitting the frequency within that note is another entirely. You may be able to hit the note, but if the frequency is off by a very minimal amount, you can hear this audibly on record, and that's where autotune comes in for the majority of studio artists. You can be able to sing excellently, and still need a touch of autotune to put that frequency in the necessary zone on album. Live, this is not particularly an issue, and hitting the note alone is likely to suffice with your audience.
I do agree with this, my answer wasn't broad enough to explain my views adequately. I do not mind it if in small proportions; as you said above, for tweaking minor faults is understandable if not desireable. I have a problem with the continual and obvious use of it, which I think is allowing so many singers with no talent to become successful.

[ManicanParty49]

Depends on the extent to which it is used. To tweak minor faults? By all means. To create an annoying vocal effect abused throughout your entire album? Hell naw.

Hitting the note is one thing, hitting the frequency within that note is another entirely. You may be able to hit the note, but if the frequency is off by a very minimal amount, you can hear this audibly on record, and that's where autotune comes in for the majority of studio artists. You can be able to sing excellently, and still need a touch of autotune to put that frequency in the necessary zone on album. Live, this is not particularly an issue, and hitting the note alone is likely to suffice with your audience.

This.

People make auto-tune out to be some kind of "death of talent". It not only saves time in the studio, it allows a song to sound the way it's meant to on record.

Outside of this, I also think it can be an interesting artistic tool. Whether or not you agree, my opinion is that Kanye used it in an interesting way. He took a demonized tool, and tried to make it into something beautiful. Whether he succeeded isn't really the point, but simply that someone is able to look at it that is intriguing to me.

[roche]

I like a good quality sound on the albums I buy, so if a band uses it I'm not going to complain.

[briewer]

I like it raw. Part of the beauty of bands like Pixies and Pavement was how natural the vocals of Black Francis and Stephen Malkmus, respectively, were.

[nlo13]

This.

People make auto-tune out to be some kind of "death of talent". It not only saves time in the studio, it allows a song to sound the way it's meant to on record.

Outside of this, I also think it can be an interesting artistic tool. Whether or not you agree, my opinion is that Kanye used it in an interesting way. He took a demonized tool, and tried to make it into something beautiful. Whether he succeeded isn't really the point, but simply that someone is able to look at it that is intriguing to me.

I generally don't like Kanye, but I agree with you; he took more of a "polishing" tool and turned it into in artistic tool. I just don't like the direction it's going; really can't stand t pain.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

I generally don't like Kanye, but I agree with you; he took more of a "polishing" tool and turned it into in artistic tool. I just don't like the direction it's going; really can't stand t pain.

i like how kanye used it, because he used it more for melody, not so much as a crutch like t-pain and others.

edit;; i know some people will say kanye can't sing live. i think he is more inconsistent than unable. i've been to multiple concerts since 808s was released, and sometimes he sounds great and others he sounds awful.

[nlo13]

i like how kanye used it, because he used it more for melody, not so much as a crutch like t-pain and others.

edit;; i know some people will say kanye can't sing live. i think he is more inconsistent than unable. i've been to multiple concerts since 808s was released, and sometimes he sounds great and others he sounds awful.

sorry , bro, basically what your edit said haha. I would actually argue that Kanye is the one who is using it more like a crutch than T-Pain. Don't get me wrong, I can't stand T-Pain, but he's not trying to insinuate that he can sing, that voice is just his style of songwriting. Kanye West actually thinks he can sing... yeah you can see where this arguement is going haha.

[Neo Cassady]

Only in small doses, and if it's used for effect, not because the singer has no talent. And dear god, in NO way shape or form should it EVER be used live.

[zaron5551]

i like the rawness of not using autotune, but i'm cool if a band does it.

[nlo13]

I'm surprised that the results are pretty evenly distributed right now

[Theseventhson]

sorry , bro, basically what your edit said haha. I would actually argue that Kanye is the one who is using it more like a crutch than T-Pain. Don't get me wrong, I can't stand T-Pain, but he's not trying to insinuate that he can sing, that voice is just his style of songwriting. Kanye West actually thinks he can sing... yeah you can see where this arguement is going haha.
T-Pain actually can sing well, that's the thing that gets me.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

sorry , bro, basically what your edit said haha. I would actually argue that Kanye is the one who is using it more like a crutch than T-Pain. Don't get me wrong, I can't stand T-Pain, but he's not trying to insinuate that he can sing, that voice is just his style of songwriting. Kanye West actually thinks he can sing... yeah you can see where this arguement is going haha.

i don't think he is a good singer, but i've been to shows where his voice is pretty decent, as well as shows where it's terrible. but thats because live he doesn't use the autotune (or at least not as heavily). t-pain is non-stop, 100% autotune. so, in my opinion, kanye west used it to make an album that was melody heavy, and t-pain did it to get famous. but, i'm biased because i really liked kanye even before the new style, so i guess i was always going to defend him lol

agree to disagree i guess.

[Shin Akuma]

autotune foreva!

[Toothache]

just saying, nearly every band uses pitch correction to some degree because noones voice is flawless all the time. it makes the recording process quicker and cheaper to use pitch correction for small imperfections.

[Hull]

On studio albums, I want whatever it is I'm listening to to be the best possible.
If pitch correction is necessary, then it should be used.

[recall reality]

"Small imperfections" are part of the character of someone's voice. I think back to my favorite tunes from the 50's and 60's, songs that really move me, and they aren't perfectly in tune on every note.

I strongly disagree with the notion that there is some perfect imagining of a song that people keep referencing. I had no idea this was popular opinion... it just reinforces its use.

Given the current musical climate, I get the need for time and money saving... so I understand limited use. This technology can also be used artfully, not in correcting vocals, but no differently than an effect on a guitar... but that's getting off subject. It is really overused as a singing crutch. I have a lot more respect for those that minimize the use.

[nlo13]

As said above me, I have a lot more respect for those who minimize the use of it, but in certain situations when it is used sparingly, it can make a good album great. That being said, it should NEVER, EVER be used during a live performance,

[darkmartheight]

In general, it doesn't bother me. It would bother me if it was used constantly and the band couldn't put on a decent live performance. Imperfections often give an album (or song) its own character (example: "Enjoy Your Day" by Alkaline Trio).

[Yeahhitslindsey]

I totally think that using pitch correction is exceptable. The song/album in question needs to be as good as it can be, in order for the fans to be happy. You cant expect every band member to be perfect, and that includes the person taking care of the vocals. As long as the fans are happy with the sound, and the band doesnt do anything to change the vocals at a live show there is no reason for people to disagree. If you like the sound on the album, great, they have done their job.
Fans cant expect a live show to be exactly like the album... it is live for crying out loud. There is obviously going to be some vocal differences no matter who the band is. But that is the beauty of seeing a band live. You get to see them making the music you love, before your eyes. No pitch correction.. nothing but pure talent.
If anyone has a problem with the pitch correction, buy a live album, or just go see a show. It will be the just the imperfection you are looking for.

[SLoT]

There's nothing wrong with auto tune. When you over do it to the ultimate though, it gets a little wearing. For production purposes though, there's nothing wrong with using it, just like there's nothing wrong with tuning your guitar. Your throat is an instrument too.

[TKTKrob]

I like it raw. Part of the beauty of bands like Pixies and Pavement was how natural the vocals of Black Francis and Stephen Malkmus, respectively, were.This makes sense, but also Francis and Malkmus' raw vocal work mesh well with their raw recording style (more so Pavement but still applies to the Pixies). For bands who focus on a more produced sound, these raw type vocal stylings would sound off in the final recording.

[briewer]

This makes sense, but also Francis and Malkmus' raw vocal work mesh well with their raw recording style (more so Pavement but still applies to the Pixies). For bands who focus on a more produced sound, these raw type vocal stylings would sound off in the final recording.
Meh. I should have mentioned that I hate that 'more produced' sound. It just sounds so awkward and fake.

[xrider105]

I view auto tune and pitch correction as two different things as auto tune is being used more as an effect than a correction tool.

That aside, I think pitch correction is a very good producing tool. Here's just one example where I agree with the use of pitch correction: Say a singer begins tracking vocals and they are super into it and are hitting the emotion and power, but not the notes. Hmmm.... well, we just keep trying. Over and over and over. By the time they actually hit the right melody and notes perfect they maybe lacking the emotion and power they once had earlier. So in this instance they could just use one of the better, closest earlier takes and pitch correct it. Also vocals as an instrument as tricky. You could sound perfect, but when actually looking at the pitch and frequencies see that you are off by maybe just a quarter step. Unfortunately that is enough to be noticable. So every note sung on an album these days are checked over with pitch correction to make the vocals absolutely PERFECTLY in tune.

You tune your guitars when you record correct? Why can't you tune your vocals as well?

[Alex DiVincenzo]

I'm indifferent. If it's tasteful and unrecognizable, I don't really see the harm in it, though it's a shame if the bands can't hit the notes on their own.

[recall reality]

I view auto tune and pitch correction as two different things as auto tune is being used more as an effect than a correction tool.

That aside, I think pitch correction is a very good producing tool. Here's just one example where I agree with the use of pitch correction: Say a singer begins tracking vocals and they are super into it and are hitting the emotion and power, but not the notes. Hmmm.... well, we just keep trying. Over and over and over. By the time they actually hit the right melody and notes perfect they maybe lacking the emotion and power they once had earlier. So in this instance they could just use one of the better, closest earlier takes and pitch correct it. Also vocals as an instrument as tricky. You could sound perfect, but when actually looking at the pitch and frequencies see that you are off by maybe just a quarter step. Unfortunately that is enough to be noticable. So every note sung on an album these days are checked over with pitch correction to make the vocals absolutely PERFECTLY in tune.

You tune your guitars when you record correct? Why can't you tune your vocals as well?

I'm not sure the two are really comparable... and something about pitch correcting emotion and power seems contradictory to me.

"The thing with protools is it's a great form, it's a great medium for recording music because it allows you to do so many things... but so many people abuse it. If you put everything on the grid and just line everything up and make everything perfect, every note in tune, you're taking all the humanity out of it." - Matt Embree

[thespearkid]

the people in this thread who say no probably don't realize that their favorite band uses autotune.

[futilespider]

people that sing well don't always constantly sing well. people make mistakes whether they are good singers or not. i like raw vocals, but i think that when you put out a cd you should make it the best possible thing it can be. bands don't have to have the exact same sound live and on a cd, using a little pitch correction doesnt hurt it. just my opinion.

[nlo13]

bump.

/selfishness.