And we strive for..... what ?

Thanx for the link - I have to admit that my preferred state of ignorance concerning the current 'music scene' had included the existence of these specific devices, though I always knew there was a lot of electronic manipulation going on, 'cause you can hear it. As for the 'live' performances of someone like a Britney (who can't sing to save her life), I just assumed they were getting a lot of help from taped 'backing' tracks, in addition to digital 'enhancements' like harmonizers and harmonic overtone generators.

As to the appropriateness of their usage, when music is mostly synthetic and/or sampled anyway, and songwriting means so little compared to video-worthiness, media hype, and concerts that take Vegas as their model, well, why not?

BTW, I got a kick out of the article quoting Brendan McGuire and crediting him as producing several LP's by the Canadian pop-rock band Sloan (he said he disfavors the use of autotuners). Sloan are one of the most talented bands around, with all four members contributing both lead and backing vocals, songwriting, and they even swap instruments around in concert. But despite their welcome penchant for harmonized backing vocals shared by few bands of their generation, none of them actually has what you'd describe as a great lead singing voice, and listening to any of their records, which can be fairly polished yet engagingly off-the-cuff at the same time, it's easy to believe McGuire's claim - ragged, but usually right.

Onhwy61, while I don't disagree with you in theory at all, there is one other alternatinve you don't mention: Drop the 'requirement' for 'perfect' performances altogether. Put the human element back in record-making, and the accidental element too. To me, the best rock/pop was made in the days before the use of such digital 'correctives', or even the click track for that matter. I generally find only negative correlation between the artistic quality of work and the 'correctness' of its execution and recording. A lot of the interest and distinctiveness is in the 'flaws' - imagine how reduced the impact of anything from "Rock Around The Clock" to "I Want To Hold Your Hand" to "Papa's Got A Brand New Bag" to "Whole Lotta Love" to "Anarchy In The UK" would be if were laid down in the anal, boring, souless manner of today's corporate product.

Did I claim they played the tracks live in the studio? (Actually, they did, at least much more so than is common practice these days, but I digress.)

Onhwy61, I think you miss my point - my first sentence above was supposed to be a disclaimer regarding my opinion of the exploitation of available technology in the making of pop records: I'm all for it, inasmuch as it can be deployed in an artistically productive way. I'm not arguing against the use of the autotuner, and didn't in my first post. And even if I were, I see no real analogy between the use of an autotuner, and the use of mutlitrack capability, or being fanatical about rehearsing one's band.

What I am arguing against is the present-day requirement of the marketplace that pop music be created in such a way as to be totally devoid of all human variation and spontaneity. Modern pop recordings do not have the individualistic 'flavor' of those by the artists I mentioned, or many of the other ones you did.

The Beatles are a great example, because their productions pushed the boundaries of their times so far, yet I am dead certain that if the most important rock band ever were to come out today, their records wouldn't be allowed on radio, simply because they're too human. Which is f***ed up, because I subscribe to the theory that the one of the reasons why people still like to hear 'flawed' old performances that radio will play (due to the songs' entrenched position in our culture), is to receive some of that very feeling they can't get from today's 'perfect', but ultimately unsatisfying, recordings.