As always, you rise above the fray and take the high road. You are a true gentleman. As tempting as it is to do otherwise, you force me to abstain from further showing the error in the ways of others 😊.
The use of digital pitch correction software on vocal recordings
To my mind, this practice is fraught with dishonesty.
The most obvious issue is:
- with digital pitch correction software applied to it, a vocal recording presented to the listener is done so under the pretense that it presents the human voice singing, when in fact any number of moments therein are the result of a program shoehorning the human-produced tones into a “perfect” tone” (whether it may be a Bb, C, F#, Db, or whatever), thereby negating the human expression and negating the validity of the pretense.
Much like a photo portrait of a human body post-airbrushing ceases to be a “true” presentation of that body, the viewer is not being presented with a faithful representation of that human form.
The next issue is:
- rampant apologia within the industry.
I’ve even heard an industry insider say, “pitch manipulation software does nothing we couldn’t do in the ‘70s and ‘80s. It just lets us do it for a lot less money.”
That’s a cute thing to say, but incorrect.
The finished vocal recording that was changed by the implementation of pitch correction software is, by definition, different from the finished vocal recording featuring none.
I am welcoming the thoughts of Audiogon members regarding this practice.
Showing 4 responses by frogman
Let’s bring this discussion “down to earth”. A little reality check, if you will. I am as much of a “purist” as anyone else; probably even more so. There is no question that the use of electronic processing in the music recording industry has become pervasive and excessive. It has given rise to many popular, so called “artists” that are nothing more than “product”. The product of producers who maintain a very low artistic bar. These performers are not “artists” at all. They lip-sync when performing live and when recording rely entirely on processing tools such as pitch correction. In fact, it could be argued that it is the producers who are artists…if one can find artistic merit in the ability and skill to appeal to music consumers who, themselves, maintain a very low bar in their appreciation of art. We all know who these performers are. Pretty pathetic. HOWEVER, consider the truly talented artist who on a given day, for whatever reason and on a day when the recording studio has been rented for the recording of their next album, is having trouble with that last high note note of a phrase. Maybe didn’t sleep well the night before, or maybe ate a little too much phlegm-causing ice cream the night before. A little electronic tweak can fix an otherwise wonderful performance. So terrible? So artistically objectionable? I don’t think so. |
@tylermunns , oh, please! Take a chill pill and relax, man. Obviously, I struck a chord (😊) with you. It should be obvious why I used the phrases that I used. “Pompous”? Really? Read your own words to see pomposity. I’ll make it short: The use of pitch correction and its possible attack on musical integrity is a matter of the degree to which it is used. It seemed from many of the responses (including yours) that the use of this electronic tool is considered objectionable in all instances and not only when there is a gross reliance on it by the “artist”. Used very sparingly it can be very useful and not objectionable, imo. That was my point, nothing more.
Pomposity, anyone? |
@mahgister , no need for apology. I think you missed my attempt at humor (with a bit of sarcasm which was not meant for you). All is well. Regards. |