Pitch Correction Software?

Southwest_Statistic · Post by **Southwest_Statistic** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 9:36 pm

Puce wrote:
Southwest_Statistic wrote:
Puce wrote:Statistic: You have a very, very nice voice, which surprised me. Because you rely on pitch correction so heavily I assumed you had a really terrible voice, or maybe you were an inexperienced singer. Live and learn.
Thanks.
One of us is being too subtle. What I was saying is that I (and maybe other people) automatically assume you have a poor voice, or that you didn't bother doing more takes. That's not a good thing: the first assumption will cost you your street cred (if that is something that matters to you. I'm sure someone will respond with a single line post saying that a true artist wouldn't care); the second assumption will cost you votes (if that is something that matters to you. I'm sure someone will respond with a single line post saying that a true artist wouldn't care ). But if a fight comes down to you or Josh Woodward, Josh is getting my vote because I know he has a great voice (Of course, now I know you have a great voice as well, so that levels the playing field).

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Josh Woodward's vocals are pich-corrected too. Not as intensionally-synth-sounding-ly done like my vocal tracks, but none the less sent through the same process.

joshw · Post by **joshw** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 9:41 pm

Southwest_Statistic wrote:
Puce wrote: But if a fight comes down to you or Josh Woodward, Josh is getting my vote because I know he has a great voice (Of course, now I know you have a great voice as well, so that levels the playing field).
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Josh Woodward's vocals are pich-corrected too. Not as intensionally-synth-sounding-ly done like my vocal tracks, but none the less sent through the same process.

*nodnod* At least on the first verse. For the rest, I used an autotuned guide track to help me stay on pitch when I was tracking the actual take. I use that trick fairly often when I'm having trouble nailing a vocal track. I'm still not happy with what's there.. my voice has been feeling really strained lately.

Eric Y. · Post by **Eric Y.** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:22 pm

that josh woodward uses, or has used, pitch-correcting software is not being questioned here. the point is, josh has shown that he has an incredible singing talent with or without pitch-correction.

if somebody else who is newer around here only does vocal parts which make use of quite noticeable pitch-correction and auto-tuning, people will assume that you are just a lousy singer who *needs* to rely on that kind of stuff. that (i believe) is the point puce is trying to make.

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:33 pm

Southwest_Statistic wrote:
Puce wrote:Bubble.
Attempted Burst-age.

Erm... ? Check out Josh's Please the Pig: there is no question that the man can sing. The fact that he used autotune in whatever song you're talking about doesn't change my mind. If I hear two identical vocal takes, one has just a kiss of Autotune, the other has been Cher-ified, I'll always assume the guy who used less pitch correction is the better vocalist.

It might actually be best to discredit my opinion, as I've tried Autotuning my own vocals and I'm still not happy with them. Maybe I'm just bitter.

PS: That's a smile? BORTWEIN!!! *shakes fist* (Just kiddin', bort)

EDIT: Jinx. Hey, I took 11 minutes to write that? Hmm... I'm getting old.

Southwest_Statistic · Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:03 pm

After re-listening to that second example I dicided I did a really bad job processing it... So I re-did the example. The 2nd autotuned example is now much better then before.

Southwest_Statistic wrote: This is the pure, unedited vocal take sang by yours truly, and I feel it's pretty much good enough to just drop into the song as-is...

http://69.244.191.218:82/media/music/so ... rected.mp3

...but this is after editing and pitch correction have been applied...

http://69.244.191.218:82/media/music/so ... rected.mp3

Jim of Seattle · Post by **Jim of Seattle** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:45 am

I still like the first one better, though the pitch-correction-y stuff is less obvious now and would probably not be noticeable in a mix. Now I'm noticing that the higher and longer notes sound squeezed, like you're plugging your nose just on those notes. This is really interesting. Since I've never played with pitch correction, I love getting a chance to hear the before and after. Thanks.

c hack · Post by **c hack** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:51 pm

Southwest_Statistic wrote:After re-listening to that second example I dicided I did a really bad job processing it... So I re-did the example. The 2nd autotuned example is now much better then before.

I just don't think there was anything wrong with the first one.

Mostess · Post by **Mostess** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:55 pm

Give Southwest Statistic a rest; he's going for a sound, and he's getting it. Complimenting his raw voice (or insulting his tuned voice) so to help him feel confident (or ashamed) enough to sing un-auto-tuned in public, is a wee bit condescending. The man has ears enough to manage every other aspect of his recordings, and they all scream "contemporary post-grunge emotional garage band in a major studio for the first time rock." Auto-tune is a big part of that sound.

I feel the need to point out again that pitch correction is a bitch if you can't sing well. When I hear pitch correction, my only assumption is that the singer is wealthy enough to afford the software, or unscrupulous enough to pirate it. If he had a horrible voice, you'd hear it through the processing, no doubt about it. I'm beginning to dislike the "auto-tune is for wimpy singers" fallacy the way I dislike the "I like all music except country" lie.

But in the interest of science, I propose an experiment: Find a bunch of singers, some good, some not. Record each singing something short and moderately tricky (part of Star Spangled Banner, or Cole Porter "It's Alright With Me" or something). Keep each original, and make an auto-tuned version of each one. Post the auto-tuned ones, and let folks rate the quality of each singer. Post the originals, and let different folks rate the quality of each singer. I volunteer to eat at Hardees if the ratings don't correlate very highly. Put this myth to rest.

joshw · Post by **joshw** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:04 pm

Mostess hit the nail on the head. SWS uses autotune as an effect. It's an effect that makes sense with his style of music - it's hard to find an example of the genre that doesn't have hard autotuning. Whether or not you're a fan of the genre, it compliments the music. If he does a folk song with autotune next week, then I'd be a little concerned. :)

Also, one thing I learned from my "Waiting Takes Time" is that it takes a lot of effort to record with hard autotuning. It's almost harder to sing in a way that doesn't cause autotune to thrash around between notes than it is to nail a take without autotune.

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:28 pm

Mostess wrote:I'm beginning to dislike the "auto-tune is for wimpy singers" fallacy the way I dislike the "I like all music except country" lie.

I don't think anyone is claiming only wimpy singers use autotune (all though that sounds more like a heuristic than a fallacy to me). If I hear someone's vocals for the first time and they are intentionally hard autotuned then I have no idea how good they are or how many takes they did. Not a clue. If I hear someone who is pitch perfect and isn't using autotune, then I know. Every fight I find myself with 5 or so potential winners, and I have to find small reasons to help me decide who gets the vote; obvious vocal talent is one of my criteria.

Not tryin' to be hard on SWS; he has top notch production and consistently produces enjoyable catchy music, and the autotuned sound fits nicely. I think Chack, JoS and myself were all referring to the two samples he provided.

Also: yeah, why does everyone I know seem to have a hate-on for country?

Kapitano · Post by **Kapitano** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:31 pm

TheHipCola wrote:there is so totally nothing wrong with Ayn Rand

"Kapitano laughed"

<Kapitano shrugs>

Southwest_Statistic · Post by **Southwest_Statistic** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:55 pm

Puce wrote: Also: yeah, why does everyone I know seem to have a hate-on for country?

I personally hate "Crappy Pop" (Usher, Brittney Spears, N*Sync just to name a few), not country. The problem is that nowadays one of the biggest "Crappy Pop" market is Country. I see to much similarity between Shania Twain and Madonna, Toby Keith and Usher (in the sense that other people play/write/produce the music and all they really do is sing).

Not to mention the production/editing innocence the country music scene gets away with. Terrible *fake* sounding casio-synth-banjo, crappy programmed drums, and crappy flatline vocal harmony editing jobs seem to fly just fine in country music simply because the listening audience is typically so technologically un-questioning.

Now, ask me how much I like Johnny Cash, or the Dixie Chicks... I like music by talented people with well written songs, regardless of genre.

Mostess · Post by **Mostess** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:08 pm

Southwest_Statistic wrote:[...]I like music by talented people with well written songs, regardless of genre.

Say it ain't so!

Poor June · Post by **Poor June** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 6:40 am

Mostess wrote:
Southwest_Statistic wrote:[...]I like music by talented people with well written songs, regardless of genre.
Say it ain't so!

well damn that counts me out :'(

haha nah just messin'... yea i feel pretty much the sameway...

however i have heard some tracks of you not doin' anything to your vocals... and you really do have an amazing voice anyways... so i don't mind you using them so much... cause i know you just like the effect...

(i wished my voice was that nice) my voice sucks... but ehhh it was what i was givin'... and i'm tryin' to work with it...

Mogosagatai · Post by **Mogosagatai** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 4:42 pm

SWS has a good point. When I say I don't like most country music, I'm referring to all this modern country-pop bullshit. Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, and the like totally kick ass.

Eric Y. · Post by **Eric Y.** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 6:49 pm

so i went to the american legion with the girl i'm seeing to check out this country band she likes a lot. they were pretty great and i ended up shocking the hell out of her by buying a cd. "but you hate country music" she told me. "nonono you're mistaken" i replied, "i just hate country music that they play on the radio."

thehipcola · Post by **thehipcola** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:18 am

I think it was Puce who suggested using AT as an insert with low latency to track with, which I tried this weekend. Wow...it was pretty cool. While I like the improved tonal accuracy of my voice which resulted from singing with AT in my headphones and trying to keep the pitch warble at a minimum, I found that it created a quality on those takes that sounds just slightly left of centre in that there is this "feel" to my vocals like they are stressed a little, I figure from always trying to subtley shift my pitch to get closer to what AT is telling me.

So I'm not sure if I'm going to keep those or not, I think I'll have to listen for a week to see if I like how they sound. For doubling, it's amazing...my takes are almost identical pitch-wise, maybe too much so. I think I'll redo everything without using that "training" technique and see what sounds best...

Anyhow..just wanted to comment on that tracking technique which I scooped up in this thread. Thanks for the tip~

Cheers!

Pitch Correction Software?

Pitch correction Software?