@@ThundermansThunder Yeah I agree but there are masses of people who buy and eat up the counterfeit, so artistic crime pays off, especially for those who don't have much inborn creativity and personal touch.
@@YtuserSumone-rl6sw Unfortunately, what you say is true, which explains why the industry is overrun with mediocre commonness, as opposed to the unique musical and vocal creativity that should be available. The worst part of it is that the public condones this behavior with high praise, to remain "relevant" among their peers, and financially, when they buy the music and the tickets to attend concerts and other functions, not necessarily because they actually enjoy the music. It's just so bizarre!
When I was a kid, if I used "But everybody's doing it," as an argument, my mother would ask me: "If everybody was jumping off bridge, would you go, too?" Just because "everybody" is doing it is not a good reason. As a voice teacher, I would never tell a student to use autotune or pitch correction. This was an important one. Thank you, Fil!
"Just because "everybody" is doing it is not a good reason." when you're working in an industry, and it's a trend or part of what "customers" expect, then it is
As an audio engineer that was around when everyone started to use melodyne on everything I can tell you that by far the main (and often the only) reason was and is vastly reduced costs for the production and labels. Before melodyne you would have way longer recording sessions with the singers hunting for that perfect take or figuring out which takes can be edited together nicely. So you have to pay the artist, producer, engineers as well as (precious) studio time. With melodyne you only hunt for the take with the right inflection and feel and keep going even if a couple of notes are a bit off. And afterwards you only pay one guy on his home computer to do the melodyne. So once again good old greed gets us to this sad place we are in now.
100% Bang on. People went from being willing to pay $20 for an album to refusing to pay more than $0.033 Cents for a single listen of a single song. So the music industry had to go from paying up to $250,000 per album recording, to $250 per song recording. I'll never forget the day that kids were burning Metallica albums in the streets, because that was the day I knew it was over for quality music.
But in those cases, it would be understandable to me to pitch-correct a couple notes/phrases in a take. That wouldn't take the life out of the recording. But making every note 'perfect' does risk making it sound phony, with no 'feel'.
@@kcutoob I totally agree. But you have to understand that correcting just a couple of missed phrases takes a lot of more work because as an engineer you have to listen to the vocal track phrase by phrase, syllable by syllable, correct, listen again, correct, etc. If you just go over it and flatten everything out, you can do most things by eye which takes exponentially less time aka money and can be more easily done by an engineer that never heard the song before and was not part of the recording team (and is often cheaper on an hourly basis). So everything boils down to the money again.
Its a shame, that the ears of the "regular music consumer" are now only used to pitch correction. Bring back imperfection!! Im a big fan of 60s music and the imperfection of the big hits of that time is part of the magic.
Exactly…artists like Elvis and Bobby Darin (and I daresay most of them of that era and prior) did live shows and recorded albums with colds and other ailments. They were often imperfect but geez they connected with the audience. We loved that they were legendary flawed humans. Also, I recently saw Harry Connick Jnr live. He is an amazing musician who sings and sings to almost every tune that he plays. He certainly doesn’t not have a perfect voice and it has aged, but his voice holds heart soul and sincerity. He uses his voice like an instrument….it’s difficult to put into words as a non-singer. I’m sure that Fil would be able to explain why I just wanted Harry to keep on singing.
Fil @ 09:35 You just described what Elvis' said VERBATIM in his Aloha to Hawaii interview. He says what he loves & missed about performing live in concert with a big band and the audience. He says its a Live conversation, a give and take, all feeding each other. I often think back to that. As a Non-musician I always assumed he meant just the immediate response, the feedback from the crowd. He was excited for the entire world to all feel, see & hear the collective energy of the band, orchestra and him all feeding off one another - Conversing with each other. ❤
Exactly. I always use Elvis as an example. He recorded tracks on From Elvis In Memphis with a cold, and it’s an iconic album. Have you seen Fil’s videos on Elvis?
@lyallg7925 Yes! ❤️❤️ Man I LOVE Elvis. I listen to him ATLEAST once a day. I love how you can FEEL his emotions in any song he sang. Adele sings like that, not so much in concert though.
I'm a professional singer, and I HATE pitch correction! I've had to wean my producer to stop using it on my voice because it just sounds better. Am I perfect all the time? No! But the performance is better not using it. We save both a lot of time not using it. When he puts a standard "auto-tuner" pitch correction on my voice, it actually makes my voice MORE pitchy not better. He then would have to go in and namely pitch correct each individual line! Now he doesn't have to do that since I got him to stop putting the standard overlay on my voice. He started to only "correct" a few spots. And it's more now for scratch vocals at this point. I pride myself on being pitch accurate without computer help.
One of the musicians my brother plays with puts a little NO AUTOTUNE logo on all his projects. My brother himself hates it too. So do all the other musicians I know. And so would I were I a musician myself! (Actually I do anyway...)
The Evolution of sound ideals is interesting....like the Holodeck in Star Wars....we live in the internet era..everyone seems to have a virtual alter ego ( ideal version of yourself)
“Our ears have come to expect perfect pitch when it comes to music” that’s not true. Most average music listeners can not hear if a not is slightly out of tune. I appreciate this channel standing up for real voices.
Very true. I'm genetically not very musical, but my mom made sure I learned to sing. I sang in a choir for years, so I'm trained. All that to say: I'm decent, but not great. But normal people consistently tell me I'm a great singer. They can't tell the difference.
@@k.h.6991 exactly, I think a lot of people are listening for tone and emotion. I personally try to sing without autotune. I think in most cases it sounds better. Doing it this way takes way more time, but the results are sonically better in my opinion.
Fil, you hit the nail on the head. The industry wants to homogenize the musicians, and then they can profit from anyone. So if all the artists correct their pitch on their albums, can they ever perform live? It seems that the only way that they can sound like the recordings when they appear live is to lip sync. Who would pay to see that? Keep defending the cause, sir. The upcoming generations deserve to know authentic, unadulterated music.
Everything now is becoming fake. Fake nails, fake hair, fake eyelashes. Fake bodies etc... we are accepting and expecting perfections that really do not exist. Give me real every day, imperfect as it is. I want real, creative, and emotional art. EDIT for spelling error.
Kind of like plastic surgery. More often than not, the person comes out looking worse than before and some people just don't even look like their former self. However, no matter what people do in terms of appearances, nothing is going to change the date on their birth certificate. Pitch correction is like musical plastic surgery. Take it away and you have the person's real voice and there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe my analogy is a bit in left field, but there you have it.
That coach is doing her listeners a great disservice by encouraging the use of pitch correction as the default. Thanks for continuing to push back, Fil.
I am always so impressed by how careful and courteous you are in these videos. You are clearly not about talking down others, and you are clearly not pitching. You are what a teacher is meant to be. And, I (we) are grateful for you!
@@myopicautisticmetal9035Young people think it's cool to be a crummy singer and technology can make them a star and no one will care and they can achieve fame. I guess it does work if you have the proper look and fit into what is considered a money making artist/group. I guess it's up to the audience to demand real quality and see what's going on. I imagine it's quite tempting and frustrating at the same time for those who have the dream of being a successful singer.
@@heaven7360 True, they see it work for someone like Cher, for example, and assume that all bad singers will be accepted in the same manner and experience the same level of success. The reality is that, no matter what distractions she offers, she will always sound like a braying donkey with a vibrato reminiscent of a bleating goat, regardless. Like many other similar celebrities, she is very good at self promotion and diverting attention from her shortcomings, which is her true talent, as it enables her to convince her audience to treat her as a celebrity, despite her lack of talent, but her relentless persistence paid off. In this way, she has truly paved the way for those pop stars in her wake to promote themselves in like manner to their own successes, despite their lack of talent, when they are willing to invest the time and effort, and if they are noticed and helped by the right people, as was she. It is amazing how young people can so naively accept this pretense as authenticity!
I grew up with the greats: Frank Sinatra, Linda Rhondstadt, John Denver, Kenny Loggins, Barbara Streisand, Neil Diamond, Karen Carpenter, Aretha Franklin, Marilyn McCoo, (I keep remembering GREAT voices), and on and on. You completely nailed it with this video. I am not a musician or even really an "audiophile." but everybody, today sounds alike! You are spot on with you naming of "expression." As I have said in other comments on your channel, it is not simply "hitting the note" it is about the "artistic flourishes" around the notes. If it was just "hitting the note" a low grade AI would put all singers out of business. I HOPE today's "vocal artists" recognize this.
I was recently wondering what would happen if they applied it to Ella Fitzgerald. In her jazz-influenced way, she often hits and slides around notes in ways where you can't quite place what the note is supposed to be ... but it WORKS. It's what makes her brilliant, playing with those in-between microtones.
I also just remembered Paul McCartney talking about a typical John Lennon stylistic touch, relating it to the song "A Hard Day's Night". Paul said they always had a hard time trying to put out sheet music for that because on the first line -- "It's been a hard day's night ... and I've been work-ING like a dog" -- the second syllable of "working" is so bluesy that it's not actually a real note that can be played on a piano. The way John sings it, it's between two notes, and it just sounds wrong if you sing it as the note on either side. What would happen if they pitch-"corrected" the way John sang those purposely flattened bluesy notes?
I think you explained pitch correction perfectly, humans aren't perfect, but it's that human element that makes a singer a unique individual and potentially so listenable !
You are absolutely on target, Fil, with everything you're saying! Music is being dehumanized by these so-called "enhancements"! Thank you for all your excellent work, brother!
Don’t get bullied Fil. You are honest, know the technology and the pitfalls, you cerebrally explain the facts and the workings of all of this to people (like me for one) who never knew. You have opened up my ears!
I listen to my old vinyl albums from the 60s and 70s that all have no pitch corrections on them, quite a few are recorded in mono and all have scratches, crackles and hiss on them, that is what I call perfection.
I agree with you. I just watched your videos on Judy Garland / Kelly Clarkson and then happened to watch you analyze Elvis’s voice. He wasn’t pitch corrected and has one of the greatest voices of all time as is Judy Garland. They are SINGERS. They don’t need perfection. Elvis is so emotive when he sings, one can find themselves deeply affected & I hope we keep singers from years ago and just leave them alone. I hope I never see these singers corrected or auto tuned. We would really miss out on their greatness. Keep on informing and teaching us. 👍🏻😁😁🌹🌹🙋🏼♀️🙋🏼♀️
Just throwing this out there, but thank God this stuff wasn't around "back in the day", whenever that "day" is for you. Chrissie Hynde with the Pretenders comes to mind, she's bobbing and weaving around the pitch in a lot of songs and its freaking beautiful (middle part of "Kid" comes to mind). Thanks for a GREAT video explaining/analyzing all this stuff.
Have her listen to music of the 70's (golden area of recording), and even the 50-60's, and try to convince us that artists today (with auto correction/tuning) are better than earlier artists.
Great singers know, either through learning or instinctively, that you can enhance vocals by these ways. When you sing slightly sharp, you add tension and intensity to the vocal. When you sing slightly flat, you give a more relaxed vocal. When you sing slightly ahead of the note you add a hurry up let's go, anticipation to the vocal. When you sing slightly behind the note you give a more reflective and contemplative vocal
Personality in the voice can trump perfection in performance in the everyday hit song every time. There is a place for the perfect performance, but songs we love do not need perfection. After all when most of us walk around the house singing our favorite songs are we worried about perfect pitch or even staying in the same key from verse to verse.
When you pitch correct a vocal you suck the soul out of it. The reason why great singers touch something deep within us is not because they have perfect pich, its because they are able to communicate their soul to ours. Neil Young is by no strech of the imagination a technically good vocalist but he knows how to sing from his soul and we feel it. The intent behind what we do is everything.
The person in the video is comparing pitch correction to putting on lip gloss. Lip gloss is not "changing" your lips, it is just enhancing the natural look of your lips. A better comparison to pitch correction is when you go to a doctor and get lip filler injected to change the natural shape of your lips.
Outstanding video. Hopefully this will clear up that people don't need to change the way they sound. I would rather hear a natural voice then one thats being pulled to pitch.
I love that the process is so well explained, I come from an era where we had no pitch correction, I don't personally like it, I prefer the anomalies of the human voice...in saying that I like being informed
Maybe. But your era saw many technical applications to achieve something as close to perfection as possible. The obvious is EQ, compression, de-essing, mic selection, reverb, etc. We are rarely hearing anything as close to a raw unaltered performance as we may think we are. Even back in the day.
@@JohnLnycI understand what you're saying although one thing I'll say is that there was never the discrepancy between live performance,s and recordings that you have now. We used to see a lot of live performances in the 70's - 80's, you knew what you were going to get. I recall seeing the Stones around '72 and it exactly what you expected.
@@Spo-Dee-O-Dee Yes. Tape was slowed or sped up. Tedious. When digital recording came around it solved a lot of problems. It also brought unintended consequences. Few people realize what has gone into the records they like. In a way, pitch correction is only a part of a much larger discussion.
“Everybody is doing it” is the kind of argument a child makes to their parents to explain why they did something incredibly stupid. And the parents respond “if everyone jumped off a cliff would you follow them?“
My favourite middle school teacher asked me something like that..."would you just jump out of a plane?" My answer was "sure, if it was parked..." Mr Sutherland got a kick out of that.
I think the TH-camr actually made a valid point right off the bat - 'if used TASTEFULLY . . .' If that's as far as it went - if it were only used to correct the odd mistake. The problem is the fact that it's the 'industry standard'.
Further support to your orchestral point - ever heard a piano tuned so that, for example, all three of the A strings were perfectly on 440 Hz? There would be no 'chorus' effect for that note. No piano tuner would ever do that.
This was a fantastic analysis, Fil. Well done, I couldn’t agree more. I can think of so many artists growing up in the late 60’s and 70’s who wouldn’t have connected the same had their voices been corrected.
Hello Fil; this isn't just one of the most important videos you've made, it's one of the most important videos on the net! Very well explained, I feel.
Don't miss this video! It's an excellent presentation; an emphatic yet winsome argument for the superiority of genuine, un-pitch-corrected vocals which maintain expression and match the instrumentation, therefore sounding unique, and better as well!
Thanks Fil for this. I never use pitch correction when I’m recording. Partly because I hate the sound of it (I’m very sensitive to it to the point that I’ve had to walk out of places where I hear it on a song). But also, like most people who do notice, with autotune the voice then loses all sense of soul to it. If it takes a little longer to get the job done, the music only benefits from that. don’t care what’s “industry standard”.
There's a TH-cam channel which takes "classic" vocal performances and pitch corrects them. They "pitch correct" Steve Perry for example and it's kinda horrifying. Thank you so much for what you are doing, Fil.
To extend the make-up analogy, we've all seen people with make-up applied so heavily that they appear unnatural and off-putting. Pitch correction is like make-up applied to the human voice and like make-up, it hides what is natural, even when a natural voice - flaws and all - sounds more pleasing to the ear. Thank you again Fil for taking the time and effort to highlight and explain this issue that is so important to artists and listeners alike.
@paulm749 It perverts the listener's standard for flawlessness. I'm thinking of The Winner Takes It All - the imperfections in it are perfect and help make it a deeply moving song. If they had pitch-corrected them out, the song wouldn't be the winner that it is.
Appreciate your integrity. Thanks~ Too add something, the young person speaking is a child of pop culture, she's been programmed to think as she does... a justification of "it's what people expect" goes to show how insidious the programming is. Does she not see the perfection of nature. It is a sad state of affairs!
Beat quantization and vocal pitch correction are pretty much like anything else - there’s a time and a place for it and too much of a good thing is bad. I really appreciate this video, because this shows a very subtle tweak to her vocals - and she left her “pitch envelope” intact and didn’t just smash each note to the line (where we start getting into “Believe” territory). It’s kind of amazing to me that so many people really have no understanding of musicality or the human voice, so I guess the “buzz word” of autotune or pitch correction gets thrown around like some derogatory term. Kinda sucks. I agree that anyone who can actually sing should stay far away unless they had a great take with one beefed note or something (easier than punching in). But where would we be if Macy Gray, or Bob Dylan, or Lemmy used pitch correction? I wouldn’t want to live in that world.
Pitch correction allows the "music" industry to promote a lot of semi-talented singers almost solely on the basis of their looks, their costuming and their projected persona. Of course, it wants to make pitch correction the industry standard.
Fil, I'm in stitches watching you trying to keep a straight face, when she is saying that pitch correction is an enhancement and she uses it all the time🤣
I'm convinced the Celine vocal at the Olympics was AI taken from her old recordings. It's just too clean considering the physical struggles she's reportedly going through. They did it with Randy Travis ...they could do it with her.
@@bloozedaddy yeah I've seen a video of her struggling to sing. It was sad. From that to the Olympics performance, either it's a miracle or music industry "magic".
Thank you, Fil! It's worth noting that orchestral strings are notorious for going out of tune if you look at them wrong. They are sensitive to temperature and humidity changes, and will change their shape in response because they're made of wood. Someone singing with an orchestra MUST be agile enough to meet the strings where they are at that moment, not where the "correct" pitch is. As an example, the auto-tuned Conan performance of Disturbed's Sound of Silence cover. In the last few notes, David Draiman sounds flat on the auto-tuned A4 because the orchestra is slightly sharp as their instruments have swelled up a tiny bit from the heat of the stage and the humidity from the audience. I bet he went just a touch sharp on that note to match the strings and the computer brought it down to "the correct pitch", so now he sounds flat on the note instead.
Part of the problem with pitch in an orchestra is that as a room full of musicians (and perhaps an audience) warms up, the strings go flat and the winds go sharp.
Years ago I sang with a cathedral choir, and we did a lot of unaccompanied music (because the old organ, since replaced, was pretty dreadful). One of the altos had perfect pitch, and there were plenty of times when she'd sound sharp because the rest of the choir had gone just a shade flat, but in pitch with each other, and there she was, at the original pitch.
Excellent video - it reminds me of when drum machines where first introduced into recording. in many instances the drum machine technician had to programme imperfect timing into the software in order to syncopate the 'beats' in order to make the whole drum sound natural.
What people like her don't seem to get is that the "imperfections" IS the polish on the vocals. What they are doing is the opposite of what she is claiming auto-tune/pitch correction does. Like taking sandpaper to chrome and saying it's better chrome.
I believe you and am so grateful that I came upon your channel. Keep up the good work for music art sake. I have already gone into my favourite singer's channel and wrote a comment about modern technology regarding auto tune and pitch correction. I asked that it not be used. Who knows if he will ever read my comment but it is there. Thank you again for all I learn from you. Rock On.
Its that instability in the pitch above and below 'the line' that creates the tension, which makes it feel natural and human. Great video. I remember your David Bowie video. Good one too.
Yet again, thank you! I hope all the "singing coaches", on TH-cam, react to this video. I'd be fascinated to hear their responses. I hope your followers petition their other favourite reactors to do so. I'm keen to know where people stand on this issue. Just for the record, I'm with you.
Can you imagine pitch correcting Frank Sinatra? He was the king of vocal nuance and emotive expression. You can't replace that kind of talent with technology.
The thing is, I wouldn't be surprised if future releases do the same way as Fil has shown they've been pitch correcting the Eagles.(!) on new "remasters."
@@VideoArchiveGuythere’s an iTunes Sinatra purchase of “Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered” where they cut off the first syllable of “She’s a fool and don’t I know it…”. Now it’s “He’s a fool and don’t I know it…”. Ffs. How could they miss that?Probably while trying to apply something they learned in music/sound school about hiss or sibilance.
Come to think of it, I'm gonna search if anyone's done "digicorrected" versions of Bob Dylan. That'd be hilarious and probably sucking out all life from it 😂
I hope that the commenters who complained about you picking on singers who use pitch correction give this video a watch. Not only do you explain exactly what an analysis video is and why you analyse the particular vocals that you do, but you demonstrate, in such a simple but powerful way, exactly what is lost when a voice is pitch corrected. Fantastic video!! ❤️🇨🇦
i can tell this truly is your passion as whenever she is naturally accurate you can't help but smile/laugh haha like out of sheer joy at seeing accuracy. right on. i look forward to more vids
Good point about uniqueness and authenticity; "I'm unique, but I want to sound like everyone else." I'd say the same thing for other creative arts/writing as well. Using technology to enhance something is one thing; to replace it is another.
Not all newer artists are using it. I follow a fair few (genuinely) independent 'pop' (for lack of a better term!), jazz and folk artists who would only use it for effect if at all. There are wonderful artists out there making great, authentic music - you just need to look outside of mainstream pop to find them ❤😊
Thank you for this video and all your other work, Fil. I enjoyed all your analysis videos that I watched, so far and for many years your channel has been a staple for me. I don't comment often, but this is one for the algorithm and more so, for you. I want the message you get across in this video to be heard and seen by many more people. It IS very important, I think.
I enjoy your analysis videos. I am a retired senior certified electronics tech, commercial two way radio and audio frequencies outside the 300-3000 Hertz range are used for controlling purposes and so are critical and need to be accurate. Having also been a teacher to new techs, I found sometimes you just can't move someone to the point they grasp something no matter which avenue you approach it from. Do not despair, you can't win them all.
A photograph is a perfect representation of the subject. A watercolor painting of the same subject is imperfect, but is an imperfect artistic interpretation, but much more interesting. Should we now render all paintings through AI correction software to make them perfect? Probably not. So why are we fixated with using pitch correction to "improve" vocals? Isn't imperfection an inseparable component of art?
A photograph is not a perfect representation of a subject, it is a representation of a subject. You see what the photographer wants you to see, you see the consequences of the choices they made. Tying it back into audio this view point would be akin to saying an audio recording is a perfect representation of a subject when it isn't, it depends on mic choice, placement, orientation, compressors etc, how the compressor is setup and whatever else the music engineer or artist decides.
@@ChaseDaigle You are talking of a photographer and an audio engineer who fancy themselves creative artists. But when it comes to _recording_ a performance by a real-life artist, the recordist MUST NOT BE "creative" and interfering, but skilful to serve the purpose without leaving more than an inevitable mark. When you assign a photographer the task of making pictures of a painting, a statue, a building or other creative work of art, you usually want these photos to look like the source object and not like some "creative phantasy" of the photographer, preserving the qualities of the physical object in front of the lens as honestly and faithfully as possible, with the intention of allowing the person who looks at those photos to experience the original artwork and its emotional impact as closely as it is possible this side of being face-to-face with the object. Interestingly, simple everyday people who take holiday snapshots and travel videos have the same idea: They use their cameras in an attempt to preserve fleeting views, moments in time, hoping to permanently preserve and transmit them (which of course never really works due to the technical limitations, but with some luck is good enough with massive, often unconscious help from the living memory of the real event - we all know how meaningless such amateurish images can be to those who weren't there...). Audio recording a singer performing a song is no different: The engineer's job is to get the voice on his tape (or whatever medium he uses) as it is, ideally so vividly that, when played back later, a listener can mistake the reproduction for the singer being actually present. It used to be called "High Fidelity". Anything else reduces the singer/musician to a mere tool, and his art/creativity to a base material from which the engineer builds his artificial sound. Now that's okay in a free world as long as all involved agree with this plan. But it is dishonest to present the result as a recording of someone's voice and someone's instrumental playing. Using the picture equivalent: Andy Warhol's prints of the Mona Lisa are _not_ Leonardo da Vinci's art, and his Marilyn Monroe portraits are _not_ a realistic representation of how that lady looked (and nobody pretends they are, nobody expects a framed Warhol-Marilyn print to be mistakeable for a living girl peeking through a framed hole in the wall, but everybody rightly recognizes Warhol's creativity dominating the original subjects). Likewise, a pitch-correcting, compressing, splicing, mixing, overdubbing audio engineer's "recording" is _not_ the singing of the star advertised on the record cover (yet in this case, almost everybody vigorously pretends it is, and the producer's and engineer's names are "discreetly" hidden among the small print). We have the technology to make faithful reproductions of Leonardo's paintings that are good enough to be mistaken for the real thing, even to make holograms that convincingly look like a real person. And we have the technology to make recordings of voices and instruments that are good enough to be mistaken for live performances. What is often lacking is a suitably respectful, honest mindset to use these technologies. Audio (and video) recording, properly understood, can eternalize a performer's talent and allow the whole world at all times to experience what reality only allows to happen in one room at one time. But it can also create dehumanized monsters: "Voices" and "instruments" in "performances" that NEVER happened in any room at any time. In the end, it matters little if the efforts of real humans, or electronically (with or without AI) generated sounds form the raw materials for such fakes, the result is always the same: An inartistic, inhuman, worthless music surrogate. And that's what the music industry has churned out ever since "creative" technical manipulation of recordings became a thing in the 1950s. We know quite well how Caruso sounded. We can be resonably confident how Elvis and Sinatra sounded, even the young Bob Dylan and Joan Baez before they left the sphere of human music for amplified noise. But only those select few who were present in the studio or have the opportunity to listen to unmixed session tapes ever knew how the Beatles sounded, or ABBA, or Madonna, or Michael Jackson. Because no honest, untampered-with, realistic recordings of their voices ever saw the light of day. "Live performances" transmitted via microphone, mixing desk and PA speakers don't count BTW, as the performances maybe direct and spontaneous, but the sound itself, the vocal timbre, is never guaranteed to be, given how badly instrumental timbres are deformed when played through amplifiers and speakers, in order to fill a hall or stadium far too large to be filled with their natural unamplified sound.
Once again Phil you are being very polite and charitable and I would expect no less from you. I am not so kind. But out of kindness to the vocal coach, I will resist commenting in detail on their failed attempt to justify the use of what is just a pathetic crutch for mediocre talentless artists and/or their record producers to turn out generic sounding dross for the tone deaf masses. This is as kind as I can get with these people.
Not sure if you were thinking it but didn't want to say it: Pitch correction was (in part) the master plan of the industry to get rid of just normally looking and ugly musicians. Now every singer looks like a model or a movie star, so it's quite easier to market them. I grew up in the 80's and I enjoyed a fair share of REALLY talented, but not especially good-looking bands and singers. Milli Vanilli was just a warning... They didn't have the technology, but now they do!
I don’t care if musicians are not pretty looking. I can’t see them through my stereo. I don’t go to concerts to look at the musicians. I go to hear them live. If they happen to look attractive, I don’t care. A balding, gap toothed pianist inspired me to learn how to play.
Bands were judged by their appearance in the 80s, too. Especially the women. The industry has always been shallow. Some men were allowed to be unattractive if they were already talented, but they weren't pop singers. And women always had to also be pretty.
@@sagittated You certainly have a point, but even for female musicians, there were more opportunities back then. Some examples (from my very subjective perspective) are the singer from The Pretenders (Chrissie Hynde), Cyndi Lauper, Annie Lennox, Kate Bush, Patty Smyth, etc. Yes, it's difficult to remember just a plainly ugly female singer, but I think that if a singer was truly good, she had at least a shot at success.
You're spot on. When I've recorded songs, I refuse to mess about with it, for all the above reasons, but also, the small intonations and blips are often the emotion and heart in the piece. I'm unlikely to ever "make it big", but when I play and sing for people, they get to connect, and that is a huge reason for any art. Also, it means that if I'm asked to sing something, I don't have to worry about "not sounding like the recorded me"!
Great point about the music industry wanting pitch correction. Soon they’ll just be able to produce their own corporate chart tracks without the need to pay artists for anything kinda like they tried to do with actors.
Pitch correction isn't like lip gloss, it's like lip injections
Which are ugly as all heck!
Spot on!
Reverb is lip gloss....
@@sallyatticum YES!
Perfect analogy. I have not seen one person with Botox injections that looked better afterwards in my opinion.
What so many of these types don't understand is that by trying to make it perfect electronically, it becomes what I call sterile, cold, and soulless
Yes!!!
It turns your voice into a synthesizer.
Digiplastic music!
Yes… soulless
Most definitely.
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."
Not Oscar Wilde, but still a good quote.
"But I already have no identity and personality. Might as well fake it till I make it."
-Hipstress 2024
@@YtuserSumone-rl6sw Anything faked is counterfeit, so be original. You are the only one who can be you.
@@ThundermansThunder Yeah I agree but there are masses of people who buy and eat up the counterfeit, so artistic crime pays off, especially for those who don't have much inborn creativity and personal touch.
@@YtuserSumone-rl6sw Unfortunately, what you say is true, which explains why the industry is overrun with mediocre commonness, as opposed to the unique musical and vocal creativity that should be available. The worst part of it is that the public condones this behavior with high praise, to remain "relevant" among their peers, and financially, when they buy the music and the tickets to attend concerts and other functions, not necessarily because they actually enjoy the music. It's just so bizarre!
We're quoting Oscar Wilde. I love it. (Ex English major)
There’s beauty in imperfection.
Leonard Cohen: “There is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in”
Wabi-sabi
And HUMANITY.
Which is imperfectly beautiful.
can you imagine auto correct on Joe Cocker's You are so Beautiful? the imperfection is the most beautiful thing in the song.
you rebutted her in the most complimentary and respectful way.
Yes, almost to a fault. At some point you can be so overpolite in insulting someone, you lose the impact of your criticism.
He’s intelligent and a professional….❤
LOL! Yeah, if that was me, I would've commented that she was full of 💩!
😅
@@GeeTrieste Insults by definition aren't polite. Criticism on the other hand can range from gentle to brutal.
She has a good voice....she doesn't even realize that she is good enough to sing without this nonsense!
When I was a kid, if I used "But everybody's doing it," as an argument, my mother would ask me: "If everybody was jumping off bridge, would you go, too?" Just because "everybody" is doing it is not a good reason. As a voice teacher, I would never tell a student to use autotune or pitch correction. This was an important one. Thank you, Fil!
You most have grown up around same time I did! My mother always used that saying to me to. Great saying by the way! Lol
It’s an analogy to lemmings. Doesn’t she understand that? She’s a horrible “vocal coach” (whoever she is).
lol I just said the same thing, before i found that you had already said it. oh well great minds think alike.
I guess the “vocal teacher“ who made that comment never was asked that. Besides that, “ everyone” does not use pitch correction.
"Just because "everybody" is doing it is not a good reason." when you're working in an industry, and it's a trend or part of what "customers" expect, then it is
As an audio engineer that was around when everyone started to use melodyne on everything I can tell you that by far the main (and often the only) reason was and is vastly reduced costs for the production and labels. Before melodyne you would have way longer recording sessions with the singers hunting for that perfect take or figuring out which takes can be edited together nicely. So you have to pay the artist, producer, engineers as well as (precious) studio time. With melodyne you only hunt for the take with the right inflection and feel and keep going even if a couple of notes are a bit off. And afterwards you only pay one guy on his home computer to do the melodyne. So once again good old greed gets us to this sad place we are in now.
100% Bang on. People went from being willing to pay $20 for an album to refusing to pay more than $0.033 Cents for a single listen of a single song. So the music industry had to go from paying up to $250,000 per album recording, to $250 per song recording. I'll never forget the day that kids were burning Metallica albums in the streets, because that was the day I knew it was over for quality music.
@@Cynical_Finch When the music's over, turn off the light
But in those cases, it would be understandable to me to pitch-correct a couple notes/phrases in a take. That wouldn't take the life out of the recording. But making every note 'perfect' does risk making it sound phony, with no 'feel'.
@@kcutoob I totally agree. But you have to understand that correcting just a couple of missed phrases takes a lot of more work because as an engineer you have to listen to the vocal track phrase by phrase, syllable by syllable, correct, listen again, correct, etc. If you just go over it and flatten everything out, you can do most things by eye which takes exponentially less time aka money and can be more easily done by an engineer that never heard the song before and was not part of the recording team (and is often cheaper on an hourly basis). So everything boils down to the money again.
Thanks very much for the insight. Next step will be to fire the engineer and use AI. :(
Music, like any art, should not be made with perfection, but with love and emotion
I agree, I like the rawness of music...especialy live
Art for art's sake...
Thank you. I couldn’t agree more!
To me perfection is combination of all the elements and the mood or emotion contributes to what makes perfection for me.
You said.. ... IT! YEAH!
Its a shame, that the ears of the "regular music consumer" are now only used to pitch correction. Bring back imperfection!! Im a big fan of 60s music and the imperfection of the big hits of that time is part of the magic.
Exactly…artists like Elvis and Bobby Darin (and I daresay most of them of that era and prior) did live shows and recorded albums with colds and other ailments. They were often imperfect but geez they connected with the audience. We loved that they were legendary flawed humans.
Also, I recently saw Harry Connick Jnr live. He is an amazing musician who sings and sings to almost every tune that he plays. He certainly doesn’t not have a perfect voice and it has aged, but his voice holds heart soul and sincerity. He uses his voice like an instrument….it’s difficult to put into words as a non-singer. I’m sure that Fil would be able to explain why I just wanted Harry to keep on singing.
Amen
Oh they NOTICE. It's why KIDS are STILL blown away by Cadh, Elvis, Jerry Lee, Woodstock, 70's & Grunge.
@@lyallg7925LOVE Bobby Darrin & Connie Francis was another one who just made you FEEL love & heartache. Even Loretta & George!! Wow.
@@kelliintexas3575 ….yes! And there is a strong connection between Connie Francis and Bobby D.
Fil @ 09:35 You just described what Elvis' said VERBATIM in his Aloha to Hawaii interview. He says what he loves & missed about performing live in concert with a big band and the audience. He says its a Live conversation, a give and take, all feeding each other. I often think back to that. As a Non-musician I always assumed he meant just the immediate response, the feedback from the crowd. He was excited for the entire world to all feel, see & hear the collective energy of the band, orchestra and him all feeding off one another - Conversing with each other. ❤
Exactly. I always use Elvis as an example. He recorded tracks on From Elvis In Memphis with a cold, and it’s an iconic album.
Have you seen Fil’s videos on Elvis?
Well said. 😎
@lyallg7925 Yes! ❤️❤️ Man I LOVE Elvis. I listen to him ATLEAST once a day. I love how you can FEEL his emotions in any song he sang. Adele sings like that, not so much in concert though.
@@kadiummusic TY 😊
I'm a professional singer, and I HATE pitch correction! I've had to wean my producer to stop using it on my voice because it just sounds better. Am I perfect all the time? No! But the performance is better not using it. We save both a lot of time not using it. When he puts a standard "auto-tuner" pitch correction on my voice, it actually makes my voice MORE pitchy not better. He then would have to go in and namely pitch correct each individual line! Now he doesn't have to do that since I got him to stop putting the standard overlay on my voice. He started to only "correct" a few spots. And it's more now for scratch vocals at this point. I pride myself on being pitch accurate without computer help.
One of the musicians my brother plays with puts a little NO AUTOTUNE logo on all his projects. My brother himself hates it too. So do all the other musicians I know. And so would I were I a musician myself! (Actually I do anyway...)
@@stevetournay6103 love this!
I think what you meant to say is that, "Am I perfect all the time? No! But that is a Performance. Pitch Correction is Not a performance."
@@myopicautisticmetal9035 yes, that's pretty much what I meant.
@@stevetournay6103It might become the musical version of "organic".
If people expected this robot perfect pitch then all old tracks would sound dreadful
But they sound BETTER.
The Evolution of sound ideals is interesting....like the Holodeck in Star Wars....we live in the internet era..everyone seems to have a virtual alter ego ( ideal version of yourself)
@@idankoos4156yes, Idan Koos no avatar. We all saw the bait in this one, too.
@@Spo-Dee-O-Dee"Stickman" no avatar
@@Spo-Dee-O-Deeyeah, it's what the ear gets used to. We're becoming conditioned to "perfection " kinda sad really.
@@pixie3760How many sockpuppets do you have?
Fil is a master of his craft but also a principled man.
Fil, you are much appreciated not only in the states but all over the world. Class act and all about the music. Thank you man!!!
“Our ears have come to expect perfect pitch when it comes to music” that’s not true. Most average music listeners can not hear if a not is slightly out of tune.
I appreciate this channel standing up for real voices.
I'd almost say most of them can't hear even if it is somewhat grossly out of tune... Rick Beato complains about this quite often.
Very true. I'm genetically not very musical, but my mom made sure I learned to sing. I sang in a choir for years, so I'm trained. All that to say: I'm decent, but not great. But normal people consistently tell me I'm a great singer. They can't tell the difference.
@@k.h.6991 exactly, I think a lot of people are listening for tone and emotion. I personally try to sing without autotune. I think in most cases it sounds better. Doing it this way takes way more time, but the results are sonically better in my opinion.
Fil, you hit the nail on the head. The industry wants to homogenize the musicians, and then they can profit from anyone. So if all the artists correct their pitch on their albums, can they ever perform live? It seems that the only way that they can sound like the recordings when they appear live is to lip sync. Who would pay to see that? Keep defending the cause, sir. The upcoming generations deserve to know authentic, unadulterated music.
Lip syncing. Tell that to Don Henley of the remnants of The Eagles.
Everything now is becoming fake. Fake nails, fake hair, fake eyelashes. Fake bodies etc... we are accepting and expecting perfections that really do not exist. Give me real every day, imperfect as it is. I want real, creative, and emotional art.
EDIT for spelling error.
@Diamond
Well said and exactly my thoughts.
I blame the male gaze and porn for having driven women to such grotesque lengths to appear attractive.
Great points, I agree.
Fake perfection has become the norm. I’m proud to be a grandmother and look like one
Kind of like plastic surgery. More often than not, the person comes out looking worse than before and some people just don't even look like their former self. However, no matter what people do in terms of appearances, nothing is going to change the date on their birth certificate. Pitch correction is like musical plastic surgery. Take it away and you have the person's real voice and there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe my analogy is a bit in left field, but there you have it.
When I play basketball, I use "shot correction" so that all my misses are now swishes. My mates complain but I tell them it is the industry standard.
👍👍💯🙏
I was wondering hunters have something like that yet. No more wasted bullets.
@@ShiddyFinkelstein Yes. And when I play snooker, I always get 147. Why is that wrong?
In my social media profiles, I use someone else's picture. I call it "body correction". Nothing wrong with that. LOL
Nailed it! Great analogy. 😁
That coach is doing her listeners a great disservice by encouraging the use of pitch correction as the default. Thanks for continuing to push back, Fil.
I'm not sure.. Because it's probably good for a lot of people who don't have great voices.
I am always so impressed by how careful and courteous you are in these videos. You are clearly not about talking down others, and you are clearly not pitching. You are what a teacher is meant to be. And, I (we) are grateful for you!
In the words of Hall and Oats at the end of Method of Love "Don't mess with imperfection!"
Some make art
Some make a living
Few do both
I wanna hear how someone actually sounds with their own voice. They're changing what their voice actually sounds like. IT IS ARTIFICIAL.
Industry standard - yes. Musical standard - no way!
Very well put!
Industry standard is hate speech to me.
That's the comment that just sent me over the edge. It's the reason popular music is a mess.
@@myopicautisticmetal9035Young people think it's cool to be a crummy singer and technology can make them a star and no one will care and they can achieve fame. I guess it does work if you have the proper look and fit into what is considered a money making artist/group. I guess it's up to the audience to demand real quality and see what's going on. I imagine it's quite tempting and frustrating at the same time for those who have the dream of being a successful singer.
@@heaven7360 True, they see it work for someone like Cher, for example, and assume that all bad singers will be accepted in the same manner and experience the same level of success. The reality is that, no matter what distractions she offers, she will always sound like a braying donkey with a vibrato reminiscent of a bleating goat, regardless. Like many other similar celebrities, she is very good at self promotion and diverting attention from her shortcomings, which is her true talent, as it enables her to convince her audience to treat her as a celebrity, despite her lack of talent, but her relentless persistence paid off. In this way, she has truly paved the way for those pop stars in her wake to promote themselves in like manner to their own successes, despite their lack of talent, when they are willing to invest the time and effort, and if they are noticed and helped by the right people, as was she. It is amazing how young people can so naively accept this pretense as authenticity!
Perhaps Edith Piaf summed it up well "use your faults, use your defects then you'll be a star" 😊
Good point about singers "singing with the instrumentation". Pitch correction means separating the singer from the orchestra.
Fil -- you are definitely one of the classiest people on TH-cam
Thanks!
And the best amateur soliciter and detective! As logical and can build a case as good as a Vulcan attorney!😆
He really is!
Agreed. Fil is a class act and talented.
I grew up with the greats: Frank Sinatra, Linda Rhondstadt, John Denver, Kenny Loggins, Barbara Streisand, Neil Diamond, Karen Carpenter, Aretha Franklin, Marilyn McCoo, (I keep remembering GREAT voices), and on and on. You completely nailed it with this video. I am not a musician or even really an "audiophile." but everybody, today sounds alike! You are spot on with you naming of "expression." As I have said in other comments on your channel, it is not simply "hitting the note" it is about the "artistic flourishes" around the notes. If it was just "hitting the note" a low grade AI would put all singers out of business. I HOPE today's "vocal artists" recognize this.
I am with you on this. You can also add the more unique voices such as Jon Anderson of Yes.
YES! Expression! That was exactly it.
I was recently wondering what would happen if they applied it to Ella Fitzgerald. In her jazz-influenced way, she often hits and slides around notes in ways where you can't quite place what the note is supposed to be ... but it WORKS. It's what makes her brilliant, playing with those in-between microtones.
I also just remembered Paul McCartney talking about a typical John Lennon stylistic touch, relating it to the song "A Hard Day's Night". Paul said they always had a hard time trying to put out sheet music for that because on the first line -- "It's been a hard day's night ... and I've been work-ING like a dog" -- the second syllable of "working" is so bluesy that it's not actually a real note that can be played on a piano. The way John sings it, it's between two notes, and it just sounds wrong if you sing it as the note on either side. What would happen if they pitch-"corrected" the way John sang those purposely flattened bluesy notes?
Elvis
I think you explained pitch correction perfectly, humans aren't perfect, but it's that human element that makes a singer a unique individual and potentially so listenable !
You are absolutely on target, Fil, with everything you're saying! Music is being dehumanized by these so-called "enhancements"! Thank you for all your excellent work, brother!
Don’t get bullied Fil. You are honest, know the technology and the pitfalls, you cerebrally explain the facts and the workings of all of this to people (like me for one) who never knew. You have opened up my ears!
I love that: "Buy my plug-in, you won't be able to hear any difference!"
Our ears have come to expect it, but we can't hear the difference... 🤔
@@mattmckeon1688 Scratching my head on that one also......
It's all part of the current decline in logic, sadly. Cognitive dissonance is hip and sexy now.
Don't lose faith. You're doing good work
I listen to my old vinyl albums from the 60s and 70s that all have no pitch corrections on them, quite a few are recorded in mono and all have scratches, crackles and hiss on them, that is what I call perfection.
I agree with you. I just watched your videos on Judy Garland / Kelly Clarkson and then happened to watch you analyze Elvis’s voice. He wasn’t pitch corrected and has one of the greatest voices of all time as is Judy Garland. They are SINGERS. They don’t need perfection. Elvis is so emotive when he sings, one can find themselves deeply affected & I hope we keep singers from years ago and just leave them alone. I hope I never see these singers corrected or auto tuned. We would really miss out on their greatness. Keep on informing and teaching us. 👍🏻😁😁🌹🌹🙋🏼♀️🙋🏼♀️
This is the first time I've heard Elvis having been described as having one of the greatest voices. One of the most recognizable, sure
Just throwing this out there, but thank God this stuff wasn't around "back in the day", whenever that "day" is for you. Chrissie Hynde with the Pretenders comes to mind, she's bobbing and weaving around the pitch in a lot of songs and its freaking beautiful (middle part of "Kid" comes to mind). Thanks for a GREAT video explaining/analyzing all this stuff.
Have her listen to music of the 70's (golden area of recording), and even the 50-60's, and try to convince us that artists today (with auto correction/tuning) are better than earlier artists.
Great singers know, either through learning or instinctively, that you can enhance vocals by these ways.
When you sing slightly sharp, you add tension and intensity to the vocal.
When you sing slightly flat, you give a more relaxed vocal.
When you sing slightly ahead of the note you add a hurry up let's go, anticipation to the vocal.
When you sing slightly behind the note you give a more reflective and contemplative vocal
It's lovely that the example to disagree with her about the use of auto tune is her own beautiful singing voice
Personality in the voice can trump perfection in performance in the everyday hit song every time. There is a place for the perfect performance, but songs we love do not need perfection. After all when most of us walk around the house singing our favorite songs are we worried about perfect pitch or even staying in the same key from verse to verse.
When you pitch correct a vocal you suck the soul out of it. The reason why great singers touch something deep within us is not because they have perfect pich, its because they are able to communicate their soul to ours. Neil Young is by no strech of the imagination a technically good vocalist but he knows how to sing from his soul and we feel it. The intent behind what we do is everything.
Good explanation. People not only sing with their voices but their heart and soul. So, we can feel the music of the artist.
Please just keep your one in a million honesty. Thank you.
Fil knows what he’s talking about. Thanks so much.
The person in the video is comparing pitch correction to putting on lip gloss. Lip gloss is not "changing" your lips, it is just enhancing the natural look of your lips. A better comparison to pitch correction is when you go to a doctor and get lip filler injected to change the natural shape of your lips.
Outstanding video. Hopefully this will clear up that people don't need to change the way they sound. I would rather hear a natural voice then one thats being pulled to pitch.
__
As a writer who isn't particularly musical, Fil's words are music to my ears. He's describing subtlety and nuance.
I love that the process is so well explained, I come from an era where we had no pitch correction, I don't personally like it, I prefer the anomalies of the human voice...in saying that I like being informed
Because the feel, the emotion evaporates
@@garyneilson3075you're so right!
Maybe. But your era saw many technical applications to achieve something as close to perfection as possible. The obvious is EQ, compression, de-essing, mic selection, reverb, etc.
We are rarely hearing anything as close to a raw unaltered performance as we may think we are. Even back in the day.
@@JohnLnycI understand what you're saying although one thing I'll say is that there was never the discrepancy between live performance,s and recordings that you have now. We used to see a lot of live performances in the 70's - 80's, you knew what you were going to get. I recall seeing the Stones around '72 and it exactly what you expected.
@@Spo-Dee-O-Dee Yes. Tape was slowed or sped up. Tedious. When digital recording came around it solved a lot of problems. It also brought unintended consequences. Few people realize what has gone into the records they like.
In a way, pitch correction is only a part of a much larger discussion.
You’re really a gifted educator. Thanks for the clarity you’ve brought to this topic; the crutch of pitch correction seems out of control lately.
“Everybody is doing it” is the kind of argument a child makes to their parents to explain why they did something incredibly stupid. And the parents respond “if everyone jumped off a cliff would you follow them?“
My favourite middle school teacher asked me something like that..."would you just jump out of a plane?" My answer was "sure, if it was parked..." Mr Sutherland got a kick out of that.
Well, not again!
Exactly. It's such a lame excuse. Drug cheats in sport say the same thing
I think the TH-camr actually made a valid point right off the bat - 'if used TASTEFULLY . . .'
If that's as far as it went - if it were only used to correct the odd mistake.
The problem is the fact that it's the 'industry standard'.
Further support to your orchestral point - ever heard a piano tuned so that, for example, all three of the A strings were perfectly on 440 Hz? There would be no 'chorus' effect for that note. No piano tuner would ever do that.
This was a fantastic analysis, Fil. Well done, I couldn’t agree more. I can think of so many artists growing up in the late 60’s and 70’s who wouldn’t have connected the same had their voices been corrected.
Hello Fil; this isn't just one of the most important videos you've made, it's one of the most important videos on the net! Very well explained, I feel.
Your followers are trickling in Fil. Please keep posting this.
Don't miss this video! It's an excellent presentation; an emphatic yet winsome argument for the superiority of genuine, un-pitch-corrected vocals which maintain expression and match the instrumentation, therefore sounding unique, and better as well!
Thanks Fil for this. I never use pitch correction when I’m recording. Partly because I hate the sound of it (I’m very sensitive to it to the point that I’ve had to walk out of places where I hear it on a song). But also, like most people who do notice, with autotune the voice then loses all sense of soul to it. If it takes a little longer to get the job done, the music only benefits from that. don’t care what’s “industry standard”.
There's a TH-cam channel which takes "classic" vocal performances and pitch corrects them. They "pitch correct" Steve Perry for example and it's kinda horrifying. Thank you so much for what you are doing, Fil.
I see your prominent disclaimer/explainer at the start now. 👍 Thanks for what you do. Keeping it REAL!
That was the kindest, most generous rebuttal I've heard in a while. Great analysis, Fil !
To extend the make-up analogy, we've all seen people with make-up applied so heavily that they appear unnatural and off-putting. Pitch correction is like make-up applied to the human voice and like make-up, it hides what is natural, even when a natural voice - flaws and all - sounds more pleasing to the ear.
Thank you again Fil for taking the time and effort to highlight and explain this issue that is so important to artists and listeners alike.
@paulm749
It perverts the listener's standard for flawlessness. I'm thinking of The Winner Takes It All - the imperfections in it are perfect and help make it a deeply moving song. If they had pitch-corrected them out, the song wouldn't be the winner that it is.
Appreciate your integrity. Thanks~ Too add something, the young person speaking is a child of pop culture, she's been programmed to think as she does... a justification of "it's what people expect" goes to show how insidious the programming is. Does she not see the perfection of nature. It is a sad state of affairs!
Beat quantization and vocal pitch correction are pretty much like anything else - there’s a time and a place for it and too much of a good thing is bad.
I really appreciate this video, because this shows a very subtle tweak to her vocals - and she left her “pitch envelope” intact and didn’t just smash each note to the line (where we start getting into “Believe” territory).
It’s kind of amazing to me that so many people really have no understanding of musicality or the human voice, so I guess the “buzz word” of autotune or pitch correction gets thrown around like some derogatory term.
Kinda sucks.
I agree that anyone who can actually sing should stay far away unless they had a great take with one beefed note or something (easier than punching in). But where would we be if Macy Gray, or Bob Dylan, or Lemmy used pitch correction? I wouldn’t want to live in that world.
You continually amaze me. Thank you for alllll you do for music and musicians who are real and complete on their own. You are a gift to music today.
Pitch correction allows the "music" industry to promote a lot of semi-talented singers almost solely on the basis of their looks, their costuming and their projected persona. Of course, it wants to make pitch correction the industry standard.
Bingo.
Fil, I'm in stitches watching you trying to keep a straight face, when she is saying that pitch correction is an enhancement and she uses it all the time🤣
"Everybody does it, so everybody HAS to do it. So it must be OK. Besides, you can't really tell. Shut up and do as you're told!"
Since the beginning of music,pitch correction wasn't necessary. Now, on the radio,I feel like I'm listening to machines rather than people!
I absolutely agree! Thanks for standing for authenticity in music.
With everyone acclimatized to pitch-corrected singing, it will be easy for the industry to replace the singers with AI.
Right!
EXACTLY
And for humans to stand out via reinvention 🙏🏻
I'm convinced the Celine vocal at the Olympics was AI taken from her old recordings. It's just too clean considering the physical struggles she's reportedly going through. They did it with Randy Travis ...they could do it with her.
@@bloozedaddy yeah I've seen a video of her struggling to sing. It was sad. From that to the Olympics performance, either it's a miracle or music industry "magic".
Thank you, Fil! It's worth noting that orchestral strings are notorious for going out of tune if you look at them wrong. They are sensitive to temperature and humidity changes, and will change their shape in response because they're made of wood. Someone singing with an orchestra MUST be agile enough to meet the strings where they are at that moment, not where the "correct" pitch is. As an example, the auto-tuned Conan performance of Disturbed's Sound of Silence cover. In the last few notes, David Draiman sounds flat on the auto-tuned A4 because the orchestra is slightly sharp as their instruments have swelled up a tiny bit from the heat of the stage and the humidity from the audience. I bet he went just a touch sharp on that note to match the strings and the computer brought it down to "the correct pitch", so now he sounds flat on the note instead.
Part of the problem with pitch in an orchestra is that as a room full of musicians (and perhaps an audience) warms up, the strings go flat and the winds go sharp.
Years ago I sang with a cathedral choir, and we did a lot of unaccompanied music (because the old organ, since replaced, was pretty dreadful). One of the altos had perfect pitch, and there were plenty of times when she'd sound sharp because the rest of the choir had gone just a shade flat, but in pitch with each other, and there she was, at the original pitch.
Just heard him sing it live in concert and yes, he had a number of flat areas on that and other songs. And I expected that. Likely many didn’t.
Excellent video - it reminds me of when drum machines where first introduced into recording. in many instances the drum machine technician had to programme imperfect timing into the software in order to syncopate the 'beats' in order to make the whole drum sound natural.
Good call and a damn good analysis Fil.
Thankyou Fil! I think many modern singers are addicted to fake.
Not much depth of those singers I think.
What people like her don't seem to get is that the "imperfections" IS the polish on the vocals. What they are doing is the opposite of what she is claiming auto-tune/pitch correction does. Like taking sandpaper to chrome and saying it's better chrome.
I believe you and am so grateful that I came upon your channel. Keep up the good work for music art sake. I have already gone into my favourite singer's channel and wrote a comment about modern technology regarding auto tune and pitch correction. I asked that it not be used. Who knows if he will ever read my comment but it is there. Thank you again for all I learn from you. Rock On.
Its that instability in the pitch above and below 'the line' that creates the tension, which makes it feel natural and human. Great video. I remember your David Bowie video. Good one too.
I am with you all the way on this subject Phil !
Yet again, thank you! I hope all the "singing coaches", on TH-cam, react to this video. I'd be fascinated to hear their responses. I hope your followers petition their other favourite reactors to do so. I'm keen to know where people stand on this issue.
Just for the record, I'm with you.
@@veramilton833I've collected music for almost 70 years and stopped buying music thanks to auto-tune.
Can you imagine pitch correcting Frank Sinatra? He was the king of vocal nuance and emotive expression. You can't replace that kind of talent with technology.
Heh. From what I know of Frank Sinatra, bad things would've happened pretty damn quick to anybody who tried pulling a stunt like that on him...😁
The thing is, I wouldn't be surprised if future releases do the same way as Fil has shown they've been pitch correcting the Eagles.(!) on new "remasters."
@@VideoArchiveGuythere’s an iTunes Sinatra purchase of “Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered” where they cut off the first syllable of “She’s a fool and don’t I know it…”.
Now it’s “He’s a fool and don’t I know it…”. Ffs.
How could they miss that?Probably while trying to apply something they learned in music/sound school about hiss or sibilance.
Come to think of it, I'm gonna search if anyone's done "digicorrected" versions of Bob Dylan. That'd be hilarious and probably sucking out all life from it 😂
I always thought Sinatra was constantly pitch correcting himself...
I hope that the commenters who complained about you picking on singers who use pitch correction give this video a watch. Not only do you explain exactly what an analysis video is and why you analyse the particular vocals that you do, but you demonstrate, in such a simple but powerful way, exactly what is lost when a voice is pitch corrected. Fantastic video!! ❤️🇨🇦
Fil, I always love your detailed analysis..you are amazing.
i can tell this truly is your passion as whenever she is naturally accurate you can't help but smile/laugh haha like out of sheer joy at seeing accuracy. right on. i look forward to more vids
Good point about uniqueness and authenticity; "I'm unique, but I want to sound like everyone else." I'd say the same thing for other creative arts/writing as well. Using technology to enhance something is one thing; to replace it is another.
I have most of “the oldies” original version. You have single handily give me another HUGE reason why I don’t want newer music.
I think most indie artists aren't using it. Some do it for effect, but that's not the same as using it every song.
Not all newer artists are using it. I follow a fair few (genuinely) independent 'pop' (for lack of a better term!), jazz and folk artists who would only use it for effect if at all. There are wonderful artists out there making great, authentic music - you just need to look outside of mainstream pop to find them ❤😊
I hate being lied too, thanks for the exposure. Great video - thank you
Love your channel and comments! I’m a voice teacher/vocal coach and think you are always spot on! 🎶🎶🎶
Thanks!
Thank you for this video and all your other work, Fil. I enjoyed all your analysis videos that I watched, so far and for many years your channel has been a staple for me.
I don't comment often, but this is one for the algorithm and more so, for you. I want the message you get across in this video to be heard and seen by many more people. It IS very important, I think.
I enjoy your analysis videos. I am a retired senior certified electronics tech, commercial two way radio and audio frequencies outside the 300-3000 Hertz range are used for controlling purposes and so are critical and need to be accurate. Having also been a teacher to new techs, I found sometimes you just can't move someone to the point they grasp something no matter which avenue you approach it from. Do not despair, you can't win them all.
Well said Fil. Own what you have, and be proud of it. Warts and all. At least it's honest.
A photograph is a perfect representation of the subject. A watercolor painting of the same subject is imperfect, but is an imperfect artistic interpretation, but much more interesting. Should we now render all paintings through AI correction software to make them perfect? Probably not. So why are we fixated with using pitch correction to "improve" vocals? Isn't imperfection an inseparable component of art?
Soooo well said! That's exactly it!!!!
but even that photograph is ephemeral. The next second time moves on.
A photograph is not a perfect representation of a subject, it is a representation of a subject. You see what the photographer wants you to see, you see the consequences of the choices they made. Tying it back into audio this view point would be akin to saying an audio recording is a perfect representation of a subject when it isn't, it depends on mic choice, placement, orientation, compressors etc, how the compressor is setup and whatever else the music engineer or artist decides.
@@ChaseDaigle You are talking of a photographer and an audio engineer who fancy themselves creative artists. But when it comes to _recording_ a performance by a real-life artist, the recordist MUST NOT BE "creative" and interfering, but skilful to serve the purpose without leaving more than an inevitable mark. When you assign a photographer the task of making pictures of a painting, a statue, a building or other creative work of art, you usually want these photos to look like the source object and not like some "creative phantasy" of the photographer, preserving the qualities of the physical object in front of the lens as honestly and faithfully as possible, with the intention of allowing the person who looks at those photos to experience the original artwork and its emotional impact as closely as it is possible this side of being face-to-face with the object. Interestingly, simple everyday people who take holiday snapshots and travel videos have the same idea: They use their cameras in an attempt to preserve fleeting views, moments in time, hoping to permanently preserve and transmit them (which of course never really works due to the technical limitations, but with some luck is good enough with massive, often unconscious help from the living memory of the real event - we all know how meaningless such amateurish images can be to those who weren't there...). Audio recording a singer performing a song is no different: The engineer's job is to get the voice on his tape (or whatever medium he uses) as it is, ideally so vividly that, when played back later, a listener can mistake the reproduction for the singer being actually present. It used to be called "High Fidelity". Anything else reduces the singer/musician to a mere tool, and his art/creativity to a base material from which the engineer builds his artificial sound. Now that's okay in a free world as long as all involved agree with this plan. But it is dishonest to present the result as a recording of someone's voice and someone's instrumental playing. Using the picture equivalent: Andy Warhol's prints of the Mona Lisa are _not_ Leonardo da Vinci's art, and his Marilyn Monroe portraits are _not_ a realistic representation of how that lady looked (and nobody pretends they are, nobody expects a framed Warhol-Marilyn print to be mistakeable for a living girl peeking through a framed hole in the wall, but everybody rightly recognizes Warhol's creativity dominating the original subjects). Likewise, a pitch-correcting, compressing, splicing, mixing, overdubbing audio engineer's "recording" is _not_ the singing of the star advertised on the record cover (yet in this case, almost everybody vigorously pretends it is, and the producer's and engineer's names are "discreetly" hidden among the small print). We have the technology to make faithful reproductions of Leonardo's paintings that are good enough to be mistaken for the real thing, even to make holograms that convincingly look like a real person. And we have the technology to make recordings of voices and instruments that are good enough to be mistaken for live performances. What is often lacking is a suitably respectful, honest mindset to use these technologies. Audio (and video) recording, properly understood, can eternalize a performer's talent and allow the whole world at all times to experience what reality only allows to happen in one room at one time. But it can also create dehumanized monsters: "Voices" and "instruments" in "performances" that NEVER happened in any room at any time. In the end, it matters little if the efforts of real humans, or electronically (with or without AI) generated sounds form the raw materials for such fakes, the result is always the same: An inartistic, inhuman, worthless music surrogate. And that's what the music industry has churned out ever since "creative" technical manipulation of recordings became a thing in the 1950s. We know quite well how Caruso sounded. We can be resonably confident how Elvis and Sinatra sounded, even the young Bob Dylan and Joan Baez before they left the sphere of human music for amplified noise. But only those select few who were present in the studio or have the opportunity to listen to unmixed session tapes ever knew how the Beatles sounded, or ABBA, or Madonna, or Michael Jackson. Because no honest, untampered-with, realistic recordings of their voices ever saw the light of day. "Live performances" transmitted via microphone, mixing desk and PA speakers don't count BTW, as the performances maybe direct and spontaneous, but the sound itself, the vocal timbre, is never guaranteed to be, given how badly instrumental timbres are deformed when played through amplifiers and speakers, in order to fill a hall or stadium far too large to be filled with their natural unamplified sound.
Always keep it as human as possible! Another great analysis! As the saying goes..."If it works, don't fix it!"
Fil is not only talented but musically brilliant. Great analyses.
Once again Phil you are being very polite and charitable and I would expect no less from you. I am not so kind. But out of kindness to the vocal coach, I will resist commenting in detail on their failed attempt to justify the use of what is just a pathetic crutch for mediocre talentless artists and/or their record producers to turn out generic sounding dross for the tone deaf masses. This is as kind as I can get with these people.
It seems Fil may have become a lightning rod.......
Stand strong Fil!
Not sure if you were thinking it but didn't want to say it: Pitch correction was (in part) the master plan of the industry to get rid of just normally looking and ugly musicians. Now every singer looks like a model or a movie star, so it's quite easier to market them.
I grew up in the 80's and I enjoyed a fair share of REALLY talented, but not especially good-looking bands and singers. Milli Vanilli was just a warning... They didn't have the technology, but now they do!
Oh yea!
Yes. But everyone I know wants the real thing, not the fakery, and some of them are young 'uns. So there is perhaps some hope.
I don’t care if musicians are not pretty looking. I can’t see them through my stereo. I don’t go to concerts to look at the musicians. I go to hear them live. If they happen to look attractive, I don’t care.
A balding, gap toothed pianist inspired me to learn how to play.
Bands were judged by their appearance in the 80s, too. Especially the women. The industry has always been shallow. Some men were allowed to be unattractive if they were already talented, but they weren't pop singers. And women always had to also be pretty.
@@sagittated You certainly have a point, but even for female musicians, there were more opportunities back then. Some examples (from my very subjective perspective) are the singer from The Pretenders (Chrissie Hynde), Cyndi Lauper, Annie Lennox, Kate Bush, Patty Smyth, etc. Yes, it's difficult to remember just a plainly ugly female singer, but I think that if a singer was truly good, she had at least a shot at success.
You're spot on.
When I've recorded songs, I refuse to mess about with it, for all the above reasons, but also, the small intonations and blips are often the emotion and heart in the piece.
I'm unlikely to ever "make it big", but when I play and sing for people, they get to connect, and that is a huge reason for any art.
Also, it means that if I'm asked to sing something, I don't have to worry about "not sounding like the recorded me"!
Great point about the music industry wanting pitch correction. Soon they’ll just be able to produce their own corporate chart tracks without the need to pay artists for anything kinda like they tried to do with actors.
IMO the point made at the end of this video sums it up. The industry wants to have full control and not be dependent on the artists.
Thanks Fil. As always, I appreciate the in-depth commentary that is the hallmark of your channel.
Spot on, it's not about pitch, it's about emotion.
Please, keep speaking and proving the truth, it is of the up most importance. The truth is always the truth !
Your ability to explain concepts is first class. Very interesting, and I hope singers take note of your wisdom. Thank you. Xx