I’ve seen LP live in concert (and spoke to her afterwards at the merch table where she autographed her CDs) and her voice is simply amazing which makes her live performances a special experience. I even joked with her that she didn’t have to rely on any crutches to embellish her performance the way other singers might have to. A pitch corrected production does not represent her true voice and why would anyone want to hear anything but her true voice. As an aside she has an amazing ability to whistle as well.
I've read quite a few of the comments and no one including Phil has categorically said the "live" version of lost on you was pitch-corrected, and if it was, then where did Phil get his actual live version to compare with the doctored version?
I agree with your definition of live. Post produced is NOT live. And I agree it degrades the art because it's destroying the original art form. That's a great idea using a label saying NO correction. I'm glad you're speaking out about this!
Queen released an album in 1974 titled Sheer Heart Attack. A small phrase on the backside of the sleeve proudly states 'no synthesizers'. I couldn't help remembering that when you mentioned the sticker 'no pitch correction'. You are right, of course.
Hi Fil, I agree with you on your definition of what a live is! I have said in the past that pitch correction takes away the natural beauty of the singers voice, their feelings, emotions, and expressions. Id rather hear the voice that hasnt been touched with pitch correction with flaws and all. That's what makes the singers voice and song unique. Excellent analysis Fil, I believe pitch correction definitely degrades the performers voice! Congrats on getting 322k subscribers! Rock! 🎸🤘🙂
I'd never heard LP until this video so I listened to the 'natural' Live performance and WOW, what a beautiful woman with a unique and beautiful voice! Why anyone would touch her voice, I don't understand! Perfection is degrading.
Fil, another great point, and probably the best one is what about those who've worked hard to sound good, then when anyone can just make themselves sound good with the flick of a switch so to speak. It's not fair that laziness pays off and hard work is not rewarded.
Thank you Fil, I feel as though I have attended a class in music education. Thank you for allowing me to sit in on your class as a gift this day. And I know what you mean about how the sound resonates in one's mind heart and once my self picks up on the I can't get past it. Thank for explaining that point to where I can put it into words now. Many blessings to you and all you love!
I agree with you 💯 on the definition of "live". The older I get, the more important it is to me to just be genuine, and I think that is so important in both life and art. For me, art is primarily about the emotion. If I listen to a song, and it doesn't make me feel something, it isn't going to be worth much to me, and the more robotic it sounds, the less I'm going to feel (unless you count feeling annoyed, haha).
Well…I’m very naive when it comes to technical details but I know what I like to hear in a song. I wasn’t even aware of auto tune until I watched your videos. I’m just gonna put it out there…no matter how a person sounds they should keep it real/natural. Of course my opinion. Thanks for the input. Gee whiz, snap out of people 😂 😂 😂 ❤
Live is when all the performers are performing in the same space and time without overdubbing or post performance enhancements of any kind. Nothing is added or subtracted.
I absolutely agree with your definition of *_live_* . I am a huge LP fan and I think she is such a unique talent. She would be the ideal person to come out as "pitch correct free". I don't think less of her for doing it but I do wish she didn't. I have said so often and had so many discussions on how "talent" is manufactured now and I truly miss authentic music. But getting back to the "live" discussion --- since correcting music in post production is so ubiquitous, the title of these type of videos could easily be "Studio Production of the Live Performance at..." The video wouldn't get any fewer hits and at least it would be really honest.
I too am Old School and proud of it! It's not just the audio things like pitch correction, etc. I've said this before, but it also includes AI, photoshopping, any type of post-processing being audio or visual. I'm to the point with photos and videos that I have decided it's easier just to assume that everything has been manipulated and nothing is authentic. The sad part of this is I may well be hearing or seeing something untouched by technology and that is a depressing thought.
Wow, I didn't know anything about pitch correction - I'll never listen to another live video without listening for those tell tale mark (although I do watch a lot of older musical performances by preference). Thanks for covering this.
Thanks for your analysis and discussion on LP's voice and the application of pitch correction. To answer your question, I believe the application of pitch correction takes away from the natural voice--whether from the human voice or instrument. Laura is obviously a wonderful singer. I agree with you about the art of leaving the natural voice alone. I believe it goes back to the phrase: "If it isn't broke(n), don't fix it." Thanks for doing this, Fil! Rock on! 🎸
When you, at the end, said you couldn't let somebody else do your job for you, it reminded me of an episode of the old Andy Griffith Show. Andy and other town folk had a choir and of course Barney Fife wanted to join but was terrible. So, the told him to sing really quietly. And they had another guy singing backstage while Barney was thinking he was singing. Using AT & PC is cheating to me. Thanks Fil!
Fil, I would love to hear you do a three-part harmony with yourself. I've seen you harmonize but not 3-part. Love that you totally understand harmony and pitch perfect! They rarely teach that in school choirs anymore.
Some very interesting points are made here! Refreshing that Fil establishes his criteria. My view is once you record any performance you are in essence creating an “illusion” so “live” becomes relative. There are so many factors or variables involved. The room, microphone choice and placement, there’s mixing the sound involving EQ, reverb, echo, vocal doubling, compression, balance, comping etc etc etc. In the end, the only criteria for me? does the performance sound good?
As a singer myself, I am old school... I never apply pitch-correction on my voice. Not on recordings. Never live. I've sung many a bum note over the years, and always thought that meant I wasn't "good enough". Finding out that pitch correction is a music industry standard has made me feel proud to be one of the few remaining independent, authentic singers out there who is keeping it real :)
@wingsofpegasus - You're more than right!!! Let's start with LP - I know her for some years but not very deeply... of course I realized Lost On You, great song from very first time I heart it. During last year my daugter started to listen to her heavily and I bought tickets to her show in Prague in March 2024. I was a little bit scared if it won't be too much melancholic, sad... so I could have been bored... She started singing and it took me few tacts to get into it and it had many reasons - of course she is great singer, with original voice, own style and also very precise in tuning... and here I fully agree with you, not just the clip you played ( which is great ) but also the albums don't have the energy which you see on live shows... because they are more authentic and not artificial. Another thing is that she is so full of energy, love, happiness and she throws all of this on the people during whole show, so you leave and you're full of it for many days... it was great, unexpected, I had such a feeling just after Paul McCartney's show... and yes - if we look back, this is one of the reasons why many old records sounds better...
Music sure has changed over the years now with the use of auto tune and pitch correction. I agree that it does take away from the expression of a vocal. Great analysis Fil. 😊🎸🎵
Love this stuff, Fil! Words and concepts which are germane to the discussion include: equal temperament (the "lines", pianos); just intonation (un-tempered instruments, such as the human voice or the violin, in a given key); and quarter tones. There are bona fide, correct pitches between the "lines." The best blue notes are often quarter tones off the equal tempered "blue" note (eg a flat third). Your piece on John Denver was great. There was a note he sang which was about a quarter tone below the line (a little blue) and the lyric included the word "rain"; perfect together. Slamming everything onto equal tempered lines can remove expression. It would also be an abomination applied to, say, Indian music , which uses quarter tones all over the place. It might be fun and instructive to do an episode taking some known-to-be-great blues or Indian music and see what changes slamming everything onto equal tempered lines result in and whether it's an improvement or not.
Another facet of the “insta famous” for being famous instead of for true talent. Like the Kardashians of music. I hate that they do that to people who can actually sing. Does anyone else think perfect is boring? Thank you for educating our ears and minds.
I don't understand how people don't realise that no live performance will be flawlessly on pitch. I remember watching that "live" video a while ago and I made it ten seconds in before looking for an actual live performance.
As usual, you're so right. I would really support information supplied whether recordings are pitch corrected or autotuned, that would definitely affect my purchasing, and while I understand that autotune can be used as an artistic choice, I just hate the robotic sound of it. I want to hear voices with all their wonderful and unique imperfections. (as a very amateur singer, no autotune or pitch correction on my voice!! lol)
I could be wrong, but I think I've found what you are looking for. It's Ren. He may be the one that turns the tide on thinking you need pitch correction and autotune to have a hit record. I'm fairly certain he doesn't use either (except on songs where it's an obvious artistic choice), and currently has the No. 1 album in the UK.
I agree with your definition of "live", and I agree that pitch correcting a live performance degrades it in both senses of the word. And there is no other job where you could perform so badly, that someone else had to come along afterwards and correct everything you had done, and still remain employed. I used to do all the accounting, bookkeeping, banking, returns, and billing for a store I worked at. I'm trying to imagine how long I would have lasted if all that work was full of errors every day, and someone else had to be hired to correct all my mistakes. Not very long I imagine...no jobs work like that. If record labels want good singers and good musicians, they're out there. They're making a living playing in clubs and bars every night of the week! Do record labels not send out scouts anymore to find these people? Or is it easier to sign the latest Disney teen star or Tik Tok sensation, who comes with a ready-made fanbase of millions, have someone write some passable songs for them, manipulate the hell out of their voices so they sound good, and just sit back and wait for the money to roll in? When you said that even established singers with great voices are feeling pressured to use pitch correction, I'm wondering where they're feeling that pressure from. It certainly isn't from their fans, their audience, the people buying their music, and isn't that the people they should be trying to please? Aren't those the people who's opinion should count the most? I'm waiting for the first album to be released by an indie artist who makes a point of letting everyone know, right on their album cover, that no pitch correction or Autotune was used in the making of the album. Another great video on this subject. Keep on making them...people must be educated on what it is they're really listening to!! No...still can't get that image of a sprinter motorbiking to the finish line out of my head.😂😂
One thing to keep in mind and you may want to mention, Phil, is that "pitch accuracy" is misleading. What we're calling "perfect pitch" is often the wrong pitch in the context of whats happening in the music. For instance, in an ascending run a slightly sharp pitch is sometimes more correct than a so-called "perfect" pitch. That's how I was trained as a classical musician, I'm sure many others have been as well.
@michaelscriven1085 That reminds me of what a piano tuner told me once a few decades ago. The strobe tuners were just beginning to be used and he said that even though they were mathematically correct, the piano would sound out of tune because the human ear does not hear the same way that a machine does. He didn't explain all the details but that statement always stuck with me.
@@Psalm1267 yes, well you know a piano has 2 or 3 strings for every key. If you tune all the strings "perfectly" with a machine, the piano doesn't sound quite right. So professional piano tuners make them slightly "imperfect" to get the right sound. This modern imposition of machine "perfect" tuning is itself imperfect. Software tuning (and drum machines) does have "humanization" features, but then the use of such features are also subject to....human error....ultimately I don't think hardware/software tools are going to match the complexity and nuance of human ears + decades of human musical training, and in the end all this AI incursion into artistic fields, while dominating the mediocre and speeding up the tedium (as in animation) , is going to make human-made fine art more valuable.
@@BearfootBob Yeah, overtones, timbre, all this stuff that makes music great requires a professionally trained ear. Say, does anyone know whether electronic keyboards are tuned mathematically, or properly?
@@Psalm1267 I know that with acoustic sounds, modern keyboards are often using recorded samples, probably with varying degrees of post-processing. No digital piano IMO is ever going to sound the same as a giant soundboard resonating in a hall. For electronic sounds they use sound chips, and I think electronic sounds are generally supposed to be electronic-sounding, and that is "proper" within the context of those genres that use those sounds in that way. Electronic effects are cool and should be used creatively. The vocal pitch-correction issue is egregious because it is circumventing the artist's training, talent, and agency in musical contexts that make no sense to apply that particular effect. It's like putting the heavy effects John Lennon had on his voice for "Lucy in the Sky" on every recording as an industry standard regardless of genre. Vocal pitch correction sounds particularly stupid on modern Country, IMO.
I'm with you, Fil, and definitely also old school. "Live" is natural, what we hear musically, instantly. That's it. Anything that has had any layer of production, like pitch correction or auto-tune is not live: in very simple terms, it's edited. I just watched an amazing Adele "live" version of "Rolling In The Deep," and because of your videos, I found myself wondering just how "live" it actually is. No shade intended on Adele. She's a vocal powerhouse. I adore her. But I've grown to distrust a lot of "live" TH-cam performances. My ear picks up auto-tune pretty well, but not pitch correction. It's more... subtle, maybe? But it's still fake, and I don't like that. I also agree with the person you were chatting with about feeling duped. This whole issue is really unsettling for me. Some people don't care, I know. I just want transparency and authenticity.
I tend to agree with your definition Fil, however I don’t mind when captures from the soundboard from a live performance are produced into a live recording such as providing stereo enhancement to add depth or correct poor venue acoustics that prevent replication of the live sound heard by humans. However, it destroys the integrity of a live performance if we alter the frequencies generated by the voices and the instruments heard by the live audience. Marketing post production overdubs or replacement of recorded tracks with pitch correction technology are fraudulent when marketed as live. The only exception I might make would be antique recording media restorations such as from Edison wax cylinders that spun at a speed that makes the entire recording misaligned in pitch. In this case, the alteration in post production of converting the 100+ year old media to preserve for modern audience essentially is an attempt to let the listener hear more closely what the audience heard at the time of the recording. It is an abomination what these alleged “audio engineers” are doing to dehumanize the vocalists’ art as rendered. It is true in this case just as it is when the same “destroyers of art” from the console ruin Art Garfunkel, Freddie Mercury, or any past recordings be they live or studio in origin. For me, I want to hear what I heard at the live performance. If I buy a live album and it is pitch corrected, then these film-flam con-artists pretending to be sound engineers have ripped me off just as if they stole cash from my wallet! There must be disclaimers on recordings and videos are altered in this way and marketed as a live recording of a specific performance. Without a disclaimer it is fraudulent as well as an insult to the performers as well as the sound engineers working the event and creating the actual recordings prior to being fundamentally transformed (i.e., ruined) in hidden, unaccountable post production. Fil, I am sure the brilliant music lovers in your audience will have additional exceptions or valid perspectives as well. The engineers and producers doing these alterations in post need to let us know, a la a disclaimer, so we can look elsewhere to purchase or consume an actual live performance of the artists. 🙏
Flat... Totally agree with your thoughts on this. It isn't just music though, it is all forms of artistic expression. I stopped joining writing groups online because people were using AI to write for them. Sure the writing was grammatically perfect, but completely lacking emotion or soul. Artists are now using AI generated art to promote their genius artistic expression. I'm going further underground where water drips to a natural rhythm and a chord is effected by the wind. New music is completely foreign to me.
I mostly agree up to the point where you say pitch correction allows people to get paid for a job they otherwise wouldn’t have the skill to do. Pitch correction isn’t that much of a miracle worker. It can fine tune notes to be easier on the ears of casual listeners. But it can’t make a singer out of nothing. There is so much more to singing than precise pitch. And artificially fine tuning a note a few cents doesn’t help in any of those areas. I know from experience. I had thought I’d just pitch correct myself and sound good. After a few minutes of disappointment, I googled signing lessons and worked on it and got pretty good.
I'm guessing the method of watching the waveforms snap might no longer work once they start using A.I. to make it natural and a bit sharp/flat here and there without any snapping?
Great presentation, Fil. There's a long list of performers using microtonality whose recordings could be "fixed up" with some auto tune. Let's start with Miles Davis.
100% agree Attending a live show,nobody cares if the singer hit the right notes or not They even didn't hear them due to the mood in that concert Then after ,you buy the cd with that performance ,you want to hear the show as it was
Even though you don't have a clue what you are talking about, I give you kudos for speaking with conviction. And you have nice hair, so you've got that going for you.
I think your videos have made me able to pick pitch correction and auto tuned vocals with ease. I guess it does help growing up listening to recordings from the 20’s up to the 70’s of excellent vocalists in different genres. I really hate hearing the stretched and distorted vocals for no good reason.
If a singer can sing , let them sing, let them sing their song their way the way they wrote it. So yes it degrades a song. Can you imagine Hendrix being auto tuned? I can't.
Yeah ... Wrote it before ... I listened to performances of the song contests ... Around 96 or 97 there seemed to be a breaking point, the singers seem to get worse, they seem to be unable to get or holding the notes correctly, maybe because they know they don't need to practise, because pitch correction will do? Recently I watched a video I stumbled upon from Eliza from the School of Rock with Jolene, of corse, it was a perfectly corrected "flat ironed" version made in the studio, then I looked to find another video from her to hear her real voice - and yes, you obviously can hear the difference with the live performance on this TV show where she sang and another young guy played guitar
To your point of it getting to the point that good or great singers are going to want to advertise the fact they don't use pitch correction or autotune of any sort, that is a scenario similar to what I told my friend awhile back. I said I'm imagining the day when it goes full circle and people are making a point of * not * having a lot of artificial things done to their voices. I hope it comes sooner than later too! I can see sometime in the future when everyone has just accepted that everyone uses pitch correction and autotune to the point it's unheard of to do anything else, and some younger folks get the crazy idea to just make music that's all natural. It will sweep the charts, this 'new' thing of just singing like one sings and doing nothing to it. I hope it doesn't come to that where it's a long time coming, but I'm afraid it will at this point.
@@cindi1313 Let's hope! This trend of wanting to make everyone sound robotic and the same is already old (for me at least). I wonder how long it's been the 'in' thing to do now. Hmm.
Auto-tune (and pitch correction too?) can be applied DURING a live performance, correct? If that is true, then live is not necessarily unaltered. I like your idea of songs/albums being labeled "Not auto-tuned or pitch corrected". You never know Fil, if enough artists do that, then maybe that will eventually end the practice altogether.
Curious to know how the waveform software looks for “tone deafness”? Someone who is tone deaf can’t hear certain frequencies and don’t realize their condition, but they compensate vocally and consequently voice a distorted creation that normal hearing can recognize.
Hi Fil, This was an interesting video. I am not a fan of pitch correction. A live performance to me means no outside processing. The artist or group playing and singing their songs without “help”. Laura has a unique vocal and singing style that works for her. The unprocessed vocal sounded better, as you noted, she was hitting the notes, and it’s her particular vocal expression and interpretation that makes the song great. Thanks for an awesome and informative video! Debbie☮️
For anyone out there who enjoys Americana/alt country music, I just questioned the channel Western AF ("Documenting authentic modern singers and songwriters for the archives of history") as to whether they apply pitch correction/auto-tune to any of their artists' performances and I got back the most welcome and happy answer: "Nope.".
Fascinating comment about somber emotions naturally falling into a flat note. Makes sense. Pitch correction of a live concert is an insult to everyone, but especially to those who attended. Imagine listening to the "post production" recording because you want to relive the experience, and then you realize that the soul of the music is missing.
That original "live" performance was kind of a breakthrough performance nevertheless I think. It was definitely how I discovered her (actually, seeing a thumbnail with ukulele got me onto her, when I clicked on the video I was blown away). Laura is such a boss musically and vocally, I reckon it was not her decision to correct, but the "big label's". Regarding the athelete analogy. Pitch correction is like doping for singers, lol.
let's look at autotune/pitch correction this way: if everyone could paint the mona lisa, that would cheapen the original to the point of worthlessness. if you like an "artist" who uses technology to make their voice "palatable", then, you don't actually like their art as much as their image. yuck.
Pitch Correction and Auto tune especially unless it's intentional like Cher's Believe where its used for effect by a known to be great singer. Putting a sticker on the album is a brilliant idea. It would cause others who don't to leave well enough (better really) alone. Music isn't supposed to be perfect outside of emoting .
It's ultimately personal preference whether recordings a recording is equalized, tweaked whatever. The logical conclusion of this thought process would a multi-track live recording that's even been mixed isn't actually live as it went down. Versus a soundboard recording that can't be remixed later. And an audience recording is true to what the sound in the room was (but you also get all the noise). Even then the recording position can make a huge difference. That's one nice thing about live streaming music, you're basically doing everything on the fly and can only edit for length etc., unless you're doing a multi-track recording at the same time. I don't have an issue with pitch or note correction, I think it's best when it's just limited to one bum note or whatever. Anyhow, it's not going away. I do more improvisational music, so I have an obvious bias. And many of my favorite artists were old school musicians who didn't have these tools (e.g. Elton John). I actually loathe quantization even more than pitch correction. Humans aren't perfect. The imperfections, that's where the good stuff is!!!!
Delbert McClinton - a really great vocalist sums it up: "Autotune is BS." You should feature him- active since 1957 and toured with bluesmen like Jimmy Reed, Sonny Boy II and Gatemouth Brown as a young man- and there are plenty of great performances from him on YT. Delbert gave John Lennon some tips on harmonica playing back in 1962.
I agree that a pitch corrected or auto-tuned "live" performance is not really live, it at least needs an asterisk after it. In this case the truly live performance is so much better. She has so much emotion in her voice which is lost with the pitch correction, and that just takes so much away from the performance. When you first were playing the pitch corrected version, I thought, "oh, I don't know if I like her voice". Then when you played the live version, it was like, "Woah!" Very different vibe. I think nearly everyone is doing either pitch correction or autotune now because they are afraid if they don't, they won't sound "modern". This kind of processed, somewhat automaton vocal quality is kind of the modern way, it seems.
Degradation, yes technically as you explained. But otherwise it's subjective. Did see an Indie artist promote his release over year ago as not using Auto-tune. You explained once, "live" performance can mean the vocalists or musicians merely were present before audience. Several meanings of live now.
If I’m told a performance was “pitch-corrected”, it wouldn’t effect my overall enjoyment of that performance; but it definitely would effect the regard I have of that singer’s vocal capabilities.
To me call such an altered performance live is similar to telecommunications companies promoting their VoIP as a "landline". A landline is the original analog copper wire Public Switched Telephone Network, not a VoIP alternative.
I recall when the photography world was having these same discussions, only it was about the authenticity of a photograph after it has been photoshopped. Photoshop won.
Yes, sadly, you can't accept anything as real in most photography anymore. I don't do a lot of photoshopping myself, because I'm old school, but it's bad.
I commented on the video and got this reply: "@collierlandry 3 hours ago (edited) I'm the guy that directed, shot, edited and recorded this and we tracked everything live. Yup, zero auto tune! LP is an UNBELIEVABLE talent and a really great human being to collaborate with. The band was so tight is was like they were playing to a click. One of my favorite shoots of my career thus far! "
Last few live shows I saw, Cats in Space, Wishbone Ash, Steve Vai, John Hackett Band, Steve Hackett, Tiger Moth Tales, Charlotte Carpenter. Pretty sure no Auto Tune whatsoever in those shows. Steve Vai was instrumental so does not count despite being the biggest artist of those.
A live performance is when you are there listening to it yourself and the performers are playing their instruments through amps and the singer is singing into a microphone. Isn't that how it used to be?
Great question: does a pitch corrected voice still have the same "value" as a natural voice? Coming from the history-of-art-corner, I have asked myself this question MANY TIMES about artists who, in the Renaissance, used the Camera Obscura and produced some extraorandinary natural, almost photographic, paintings thanks to this technical tool (like an overhead-projector). Is this cheating? And if so, does this disgrade the painting? 🤷 Is anybody out there who has some opinion on this question?
Agreed Live is live..any electronic trickery is not live. And pitch correction should not be used ever. If a singer is good it isn't needed and if a singer isn't...they shouldn't be a singer
I agree with Fil's definition of live. Post-produced ("doctored") performances are not inherently bad, but the post-production should be disclosed. I've had to stop watching videos of live performances of songs I like by the artist I like because the singing was so far off pitch that I couldn't stand listening. Those performances might have been enjoyable if the singer had been pitch corrected. However, not disclosing pitch correction in a supposedly live performance is essentially false advertising.
I see Auto-Tune launched in 1997. Do you know of any situations where pre-1997 performers went back and vocally processed their early recordings for re-release/remaster?
Yeah, I agree, the pitch corrected one is degraded, it actually sounds unnatural. I like your analogies with racing, playing football, etc.--I also think about suggesting that all paintings have to look a certain way, or all fiction writing has to have the same storyline/formula. There's no creativity in that. Or--suggesting that there's one standard for beauty, and all men have to look a certain way, or all women, because that's the standard of "perfection". But perfection is dead (the word it comes from literally means "finished"). Imperfections are what make something alive.
A question can you trust any music any more if there using pitch correction everywhere do they use on something like later with jools holland if they do I think I will lose my trust in music. Do you think music show and albums should said pitch correction used and as computer get better people will be able to do pitch correction at home?
An artist can paint a picture a street and it is beautiful, but if you look real close there is little 'accurate' detail in any of it, just suggestions of lamp posts, people, trees, etc.. You could then take a photo of that street with super high resolution camera and lens and it looks awful compared to the painting, but it is super accurate. It is the artistic quality of a great singer's voice that matters. If the song, emotion and performance is great, no one cares if this or that note was bang on or not.
Meh. Sometimes it seems to me like artists today are trying too hard to have a “unique”voice than just singing. I like post production tricks that serve the music ( I’m not saying this doesn’t) like Gotye’s hit.
They're in the process of tuning our ears and brains to crave robotic machine-produced absolute "perfection". They can take any warm body and make a star out of them, in exchange for the "artist's" soul. The next step will be "music" without a real warm body, made by AI and holographic images. (Remember the recent ABBA tour?) It will cost them a lot le$$ and they think they will make $ anyway. Sports will follow because they're all already choreographed anyway.
IMHO: If an artist produces a finished piece that employs pitch correction as part of the artistic choice because they want that type of sound, then that is using the tools at their disposal to make the piece the way they want it to be. I probably wont listen to that artist because I don't like the auto tune sound, and so it goes. If an artist does not use pitch correction in their original piece, then pitch correction is like slashing the paintings in a museum - a destructive violation of the artistic intent. I think it should all start getting labeled either way - I'd want to know what Im getting before spending money or time on an artist. If pitch correction is part of the experience I'd probably pass. I want the thrill and emotion of unadulterated skill and sound.
Why, as a producer or live sound specialist, you would want to cheapen the skill of talented artists who can sing, by making them appear like they can't is beyond me. I think you're right it's mostly industry standards to get to what is seen as the sellable pro - and peer pressure induced insecurity but it's very sad that adult professionals, who willingly chose an artistic pathway, can't resist that. Backbones in short supply it seems.
I would love to know if Andrea Bocelli uses auto tune or pitch correction software. I love his voice, and will admit I'd be disappointed to learn he's fallen in line with the majority.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 91 | คู่เอก "คมอาวุธ vs อเล็กเซย์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/V0RkEfYFsgM/mqdefault.jpg)
I’ve seen LP live in concert (and spoke to her afterwards at the merch table where she autographed her CDs) and her voice is simply amazing which makes her live performances a special experience. I even joked with her that she didn’t have to rely on any crutches to embellish her performance the way other singers might have to. A pitch corrected production does not represent her true voice and why would anyone want to hear anything but her true voice. As an aside she has an amazing ability to whistle as well.
I've read quite a few of the comments and no one including Phil has categorically said the "live" version of lost on you was pitch-corrected, and if it was, then where did Phil get his actual live version to compare with the doctored version?
I agree with your definition of live. Post produced is NOT live. And I agree it degrades the art because it's destroying the original art form. That's a great idea using a label saying NO correction. I'm glad you're speaking out about this!
Queen released an album in 1974 titled Sheer Heart Attack. A small phrase on the backside of the sleeve proudly states 'no synthesizers'.
I couldn't help remembering that when you mentioned the sticker 'no pitch correction'. You are right, of course.
It's ironic that many of their later songs use the synths a lot
@@alessandrosummer in the 70s they were into the prog rock scene
@@ICRA95 yeah but in the 80's they changed a lot their style (and still sounded amazing!)
Hi Fil, I agree with you on your definition of what a live is! I have said in the past that pitch correction takes away the natural beauty of the singers voice, their feelings, emotions, and expressions. Id rather hear the voice that hasnt been touched with pitch correction with flaws and all. That's what makes the singers voice and song unique. Excellent analysis Fil, I believe pitch correction definitely degrades the performers voice! Congrats on getting 322k subscribers! Rock! 🎸🤘🙂
Thanks!
Producers want all singers to fit the grid of notes...
Her vibrato is so much more compelling live, with an occasional emotional hiccup -sometimes the “going flat” is like a little sigh-very touching
I'd never heard LP until this video so I listened to the 'natural' Live performance and WOW, what a beautiful woman with a unique and beautiful voice! Why anyone would touch her voice, I don't understand! Perfection is degrading.
Fil, another great point, and probably the best one is what about those who've worked hard to sound good, then when anyone can just make themselves sound good with the flick of a switch so to speak. It's not fair that laziness pays off and hard work is not rewarded.
Thank you Fil, I feel as though I have attended a class in music education. Thank you for allowing me to sit in on your class as a gift this day. And I know what you mean about how the sound resonates in one's mind heart and once my self picks up on the I can't get past it. Thank for explaining that point to where I can put it into words now. Many blessings to you and all you love!
I agree with you 💯 on the definition of "live". The older I get, the more important it is to me to just be genuine, and I think that is so important in both life and art. For me, art is primarily about the emotion. If I listen to a song, and it doesn't make me feel something, it isn't going to be worth much to me, and the more robotic it sounds, the less I'm going to feel (unless you count feeling annoyed, haha).
Well…I’m very naive when it comes to technical details but I know what I like to hear in a song. I wasn’t even aware of auto tune until I watched your videos. I’m just gonna put it out there…no matter how a person sounds they should keep it real/natural. Of course my opinion. Thanks for the input. Gee whiz, snap out of people 😂 😂 😂 ❤
Live = unaltered to me. I love seeing an in person performance that sounds the same as the recording. I'm impressed when it's their true voice. ❤
Live is when all the performers are performing in the same space and time without overdubbing or post performance enhancements of any kind. Nothing is added or subtracted.
I absolutely agree with your definition of *_live_* . I am a huge LP fan and I think she is such a unique talent. She would be the ideal person to come out as "pitch correct free". I don't think less of her for doing it but I do wish she didn't. I have said so often and had so many discussions on how "talent" is manufactured now and I truly miss authentic music. But getting back to the "live" discussion --- since correcting music in post production is so ubiquitous, the title of these type of videos could easily be "Studio Production of the Live Performance at..." The video wouldn't get any fewer hits and at least it would be really honest.
"Honest", we are dealing with the egos of music producers.
I too am Old School and proud of it! It's not just the audio things like pitch correction, etc. I've said this before, but it also includes AI, photoshopping, any type of post-processing being audio or visual. I'm to the point with photos and videos that I have decided it's easier just to assume that everything has been manipulated and nothing is authentic. The sad part of this is I may well be hearing or seeing something untouched by technology and that is a depressing thought.
Wow, I didn't know anything about pitch correction - I'll never listen to another live video without listening for those tell tale mark (although I do watch a lot of older musical performances by preference). Thanks for covering this.
Yes, pitch correction degrades performances in any genre that auto-tune is not a characteristic of.
Great analysis Fil. I agree. You are truly an asset to Music. Thank you.
Thanks for your analysis and discussion on LP's voice and the application of pitch correction. To answer your question, I believe the application of pitch correction takes away from the natural voice--whether from the human voice or instrument. Laura is obviously a wonderful singer. I agree with you about the art of leaving the natural voice alone. I believe it goes back to the phrase: "If it isn't broke(n), don't fix it." Thanks for doing this, Fil! Rock on! 🎸
When you, at the end, said you couldn't let somebody else do your job for you, it reminded me of an episode of the old Andy Griffith Show. Andy and other town folk had a choir and of course Barney Fife wanted to join but was terrible. So, the told him to sing really quietly. And they had another guy singing backstage while Barney was thinking he was singing. Using AT & PC is cheating to me. Thanks Fil!
I remember that episode 😊
Fil, I would love to hear you do a three-part harmony with yourself. I've seen you harmonize but not 3-part. Love that you totally understand harmony and pitch perfect! They rarely teach that in school choirs anymore.
Fil is not a great singer. I’ll take a pass on that.
@@alexnutcasio936 You're not a polite or uplifting and positive person who spreads love and joy then?
@@StratMatt777 I like Fil, but some people just aren’t great singers. Put him on the pitch software.
Some very interesting points are made here!
Refreshing that Fil establishes his criteria. My view is once you record any performance you are in essence creating an “illusion” so “live” becomes relative.
There are so many factors or variables involved. The room, microphone choice and placement, there’s mixing the sound involving EQ, reverb, echo, vocal doubling, compression, balance, comping etc etc etc.
In the end, the only criteria for me? does the performance sound good?
As a singer myself, I am old school... I never apply pitch-correction on my voice. Not on recordings. Never live. I've sung many a bum note over the years, and always thought that meant I wasn't "good enough". Finding out that pitch correction is a music industry standard has made me feel proud to be one of the few remaining independent, authentic singers out there who is keeping it real :)
@wingsofpegasus - You're more than right!!! Let's start with LP - I know her for some years but not very deeply... of course I realized Lost On You, great song from very first time I heart it. During last year my daugter started to listen to her heavily and I bought tickets to her show in Prague in March 2024. I was a little bit scared if it won't be too much melancholic, sad... so I could have been bored... She started singing and it took me few tacts to get into it and it had many reasons - of course she is great singer, with original voice, own style and also very precise in tuning... and here I fully agree with you, not just the clip you played ( which is great ) but also the albums don't have the energy which you see on live shows... because they are more authentic and not artificial. Another thing is that she is so full of energy, love, happiness and she throws all of this on the people during whole show, so you leave and you're full of it for many days... it was great, unexpected, I had such a feeling just after Paul McCartney's show... and yes - if we look back, this is one of the reasons why many old records sounds better...
Very interesting analysis. I prefer the "live" performance, flaws and all.
Music sure has changed over the years now with the use of auto tune and pitch correction. I agree that it does take away from the expression of a vocal. Great analysis Fil. 😊🎸🎵
Love this stuff, Fil! Words and concepts which are germane to the discussion include: equal temperament (the "lines", pianos); just intonation (un-tempered instruments, such as the human voice or the violin, in a given key); and quarter tones. There are bona fide, correct pitches between the "lines." The best blue notes are often quarter tones off the equal tempered "blue" note (eg a flat third). Your piece on John Denver was great. There was a note he sang which was about a quarter tone below the line (a little blue) and the lyric included the word "rain"; perfect together. Slamming everything onto equal tempered lines can remove expression. It would also be an abomination applied to, say, Indian music , which uses quarter tones all over the place. It might be fun and instructive to do an episode taking some known-to-be-great blues or Indian music and see what changes slamming everything onto equal tempered lines result in and whether it's an improvement or not.
Great explanation of the deterioration of vocal integrity within the music industry and society in general.
Another facet of the “insta famous” for being famous instead of for true talent. Like the Kardashians of music. I hate that they do that to people who can actually sing. Does anyone else think perfect is boring? Thank you for educating our ears and minds.
I want to experience the performance un-Febrezed.
Great work as always, Fil❤️
Another great vid Fil. Fight the good fight...
I don't understand how people don't realise that no live performance will be flawlessly on pitch. I remember watching that "live" video a while ago and I made it ten seconds in before looking for an actual live performance.
Hi Fil, all I can say is "Give Me That Old Time Rock And Roll" when singers voices weren't pitch corrected or auto-tuned.
As usual, you're so right. I would really support information supplied whether recordings are pitch corrected or autotuned, that would definitely affect my purchasing, and while I understand that autotune can be used as an artistic choice, I just hate the robotic sound of it. I want to hear voices with all their wonderful and unique imperfections. (as a very amateur singer, no autotune or pitch correction on my voice!! lol)
I could be wrong, but I think I've found what you are looking for.
It's Ren.
He may be the one that turns the tide on thinking you need pitch correction and autotune to have a hit record. I'm fairly certain he doesn't use either (except on songs where it's an obvious artistic choice), and currently has the No. 1 album in the UK.
His voice and presentation is amazing
I agree with your definition of "live", and I agree that pitch correcting a live performance degrades it in both senses of the word. And there is no other job where you could perform so badly, that someone else had to come along afterwards and correct everything you had done, and still remain employed. I used to do all the accounting, bookkeeping, banking, returns, and billing for a store I worked at. I'm trying to imagine how long I would have lasted if all that work was full of errors every day, and someone else had to be hired to correct all my mistakes. Not very long I imagine...no jobs work like that.
If record labels want good singers and good musicians, they're out there. They're making a living playing in clubs and bars every night of the week! Do record labels not send out scouts anymore to find these people? Or is it easier to sign the latest Disney teen star or Tik Tok sensation, who comes with a ready-made fanbase of millions, have someone write some passable songs for them, manipulate the hell out of their voices so they sound good, and just sit back and wait for the money to roll in?
When you said that even established singers with great voices are feeling pressured to use pitch correction, I'm wondering where they're feeling that pressure from. It certainly isn't from their fans, their audience, the people buying their music, and isn't that the people they should be trying to please? Aren't those the people who's opinion should count the most? I'm waiting for the first album to be released by an indie artist who makes a point of letting everyone know, right on their album cover, that no pitch correction or Autotune was used in the making of the album.
Another great video on this subject. Keep on making them...people must be educated on what it is they're really listening to!!
No...still can't get that image of a sprinter motorbiking to the finish line out of my head.😂😂
One thing to keep in mind and you may want to mention, Phil, is that "pitch accuracy" is misleading. What we're calling "perfect pitch" is often the wrong pitch in the context of whats happening in the music. For instance, in an ascending run a slightly sharp pitch is sometimes more correct than a so-called "perfect" pitch. That's how I was trained as a classical musician, I'm sure many others have been as well.
@michaelscriven1085 That reminds me of what a piano tuner told me once a few decades ago. The strobe tuners were just beginning to be used and he said that even though they were mathematically correct, the piano would sound out of tune because the human ear does not hear the same way that a machine does. He didn't explain all the details but that statement always stuck with me.
@@Psalm1267 yes, well you know a piano has 2 or 3 strings for every key. If you tune all the strings "perfectly" with a machine, the piano doesn't sound quite right. So professional piano tuners make them slightly "imperfect" to get the right sound. This modern imposition of machine "perfect" tuning is itself imperfect. Software tuning (and drum machines) does have "humanization" features, but then the use of such features are also subject to....human error....ultimately I don't think hardware/software tools are going to match the complexity and nuance of human ears + decades of human musical training, and in the end all this AI incursion into artistic fields, while dominating the mediocre and speeding up the tedium (as in animation) , is going to make human-made fine art more valuable.
@@BearfootBob Yeah, overtones, timbre, all this stuff that makes music great requires a professionally trained ear. Say, does anyone know whether electronic keyboards are tuned mathematically, or properly?
@@Psalm1267 I know that with acoustic sounds, modern keyboards are often using recorded samples, probably with varying degrees of post-processing. No digital piano IMO is ever going to sound the same as a giant soundboard resonating in a hall. For electronic sounds they use sound chips, and I think electronic sounds are generally supposed to be electronic-sounding, and that is "proper" within the context of those genres that use those sounds in that way. Electronic effects are cool and should be used creatively. The vocal pitch-correction issue is egregious because it is circumventing the artist's training, talent, and agency in musical contexts that make no sense to apply that particular effect. It's like putting the heavy effects John Lennon had on his voice for "Lucy in the Sky" on every recording as an industry standard regardless of genre. Vocal pitch correction sounds particularly stupid on modern Country, IMO.
@@BearfootBob Kinda explains why I'm never satisfied with the sound when I play.
I'm with you, Fil, and definitely also old school. "Live" is natural, what we hear musically, instantly. That's it. Anything that has had any layer of production, like pitch correction or auto-tune is not live: in very simple terms, it's edited. I just watched an amazing Adele "live" version of "Rolling In The Deep," and because of your videos, I found myself wondering just how "live" it actually is. No shade intended on Adele. She's a vocal powerhouse. I adore her. But I've grown to distrust a lot of "live" TH-cam performances. My ear picks up auto-tune pretty well, but not pitch correction. It's more... subtle, maybe? But it's still fake, and I don't like that. I also agree with the person you were chatting with about feeling duped. This whole issue is really unsettling for me. Some people don't care, I know. I just want transparency and authenticity.
I tend to agree with your definition Fil, however I don’t mind when captures from the soundboard from a live performance are produced into a live recording such as providing stereo enhancement to add depth or correct poor venue acoustics that prevent replication of the live sound heard by humans. However, it destroys the integrity of a live performance if we alter the frequencies generated by the voices and the instruments heard by the live audience. Marketing post production overdubs or replacement of recorded tracks with pitch correction technology are fraudulent when marketed as live.
The only exception I might make would be antique recording media restorations such as from Edison wax cylinders that spun at a speed that makes the entire recording misaligned in pitch. In this case, the alteration in post production of converting the 100+ year old media to preserve for modern audience essentially is an attempt to let the listener hear more closely what the audience heard at the time of the recording.
It is an abomination what these alleged “audio engineers” are doing to dehumanize the vocalists’ art as rendered. It is true in this case just as it is when the same “destroyers of art” from the console ruin Art Garfunkel, Freddie Mercury, or any past recordings be they live or studio in origin. For me, I want to hear what I heard at the live performance. If I buy a live album and it is pitch corrected, then these film-flam con-artists pretending to be sound engineers have ripped me off just as if they stole cash from my wallet! There must be disclaimers on recordings and videos are altered in this way and marketed as a live recording of a specific performance. Without a disclaimer it is fraudulent as well as an insult to the performers as well as the sound engineers working the event and creating the actual recordings prior to being fundamentally transformed (i.e., ruined) in hidden, unaccountable post production.
Fil, I am sure the brilliant music lovers in your audience will have additional exceptions or valid perspectives as well.
The engineers and producers doing these alterations in post need to let us know, a la a disclaimer, so we can look elsewhere to purchase or consume an actual live performance of the artists. 🙏
Flat... Totally agree with your thoughts on this. It isn't just music though, it is all forms of artistic expression.
I stopped joining writing groups online because people were using AI to write for them. Sure the writing was grammatically perfect, but completely lacking emotion or soul. Artists are now using AI generated art to promote their genius artistic expression.
I'm going further underground where water drips to a natural rhythm and a chord is effected by the wind. New music is completely foreign to me.
I mostly agree up to the point where you say pitch correction allows people to get paid for a job they otherwise wouldn’t have the skill to do. Pitch correction isn’t that much of a miracle worker. It can fine tune notes to be easier on the ears of casual listeners. But it can’t make a singer out of nothing. There is so much more to singing than precise pitch. And artificially fine tuning a note a few cents doesn’t help in any of those areas. I know from experience. I had thought I’d just pitch correct myself and sound good. After a few minutes of disappointment, I googled signing lessons and worked on it and got pretty good.
I'm guessing the method of watching the waveforms snap might no longer work once they start using A.I. to make it natural and a bit sharp/flat here and there without any snapping?
Great presentation, Fil. There's a long list of performers using microtonality whose recordings could be "fixed up" with some auto tune. Let's start with Miles Davis.
100% agree
Attending a live show,nobody cares if the singer hit the right notes or not
They even didn't hear them due to the mood in that concert
Then after ,you buy the cd with that performance ,you want to hear the show as it was
Even though you don't have a clue what you are talking about, I give you kudos for speaking with conviction. And you have nice hair, so you've got that going for you.
I think your videos have made me able to pick pitch correction and auto tuned vocals with ease. I guess it does help growing up listening to recordings from the 20’s up to the 70’s of excellent vocalists in different genres. I really hate hearing the stretched and distorted vocals for no good reason.
If a singer can sing , let them sing, let them sing their song their way the way they wrote it. So yes it degrades a song. Can you imagine Hendrix being auto tuned? I can't.
Yeah ... Wrote it before ... I listened to performances of the song contests ... Around 96 or 97 there seemed to be a breaking point, the singers seem to get worse, they seem to be unable to get or holding the notes correctly, maybe because they know they don't need to practise, because pitch correction will do?
Recently I watched a video I stumbled upon from Eliza from the School of Rock with Jolene, of corse, it was a perfectly corrected "flat ironed" version made in the studio, then I looked to find another video from her to hear her real voice - and yes, you obviously can hear the difference with the live performance on this TV show where she sang and another young guy played guitar
To your point of it getting to the point that good or great singers are going to want to advertise the fact they don't use pitch correction or autotune of any sort, that is a scenario similar to what I told my friend awhile back. I said I'm imagining the day when it goes full circle and people are making a point of * not * having a lot of artificial things done to their voices. I hope it comes sooner than later too! I can see sometime in the future when everyone has just accepted that everyone uses pitch correction and autotune to the point it's unheard of to do anything else, and some younger folks get the crazy idea to just make music that's all natural. It will sweep the charts, this 'new' thing of just singing like one sings and doing nothing to it. I hope it doesn't come to that where it's a long time coming, but I'm afraid it will at this point.
I agree with you, I think eventually it will become cool again to be natural. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
@@cindi1313 Let's hope! This trend of wanting to make everyone sound robotic and the same is already old (for me at least). I wonder how long it's been the 'in' thing to do now. Hmm.
Thanks again Fil
Auto-tune (and pitch correction too?) can be applied DURING a live performance, correct? If that is true, then live is not necessarily unaltered. I like your idea of songs/albums being labeled "Not auto-tuned or pitch corrected". You never know Fil, if enough artists do that, then maybe that will eventually end the practice altogether.
Curious to know how the waveform software looks for “tone deafness”? Someone who is tone deaf can’t hear certain frequencies and don’t realize their condition, but they compensate vocally and consequently voice a distorted creation that normal hearing can recognize.
Hi Fil,
This was an interesting video. I am not a fan of pitch correction. A live performance to me means no outside processing. The artist or group playing and singing their songs without “help”. Laura has a unique vocal and singing style that works for her. The unprocessed vocal sounded better, as you noted, she was hitting the notes, and it’s her particular vocal expression and interpretation that makes the song great. Thanks for an awesome and informative video! Debbie☮️
For anyone out there who enjoys Americana/alt country music, I just questioned the channel Western AF ("Documenting authentic modern singers and songwriters for the archives of history") as to whether they apply pitch correction/auto-tune to any of their artists' performances and I got back the most welcome and happy answer: "Nope.".
Fascinating comment about somber emotions naturally falling into a flat note. Makes sense.
Pitch correction of a live concert is an insult to everyone, but especially to those who attended. Imagine listening to the "post production" recording because you want to relive the experience, and then you realize that the soul of the music is missing.
That original "live" performance was kind of a breakthrough performance nevertheless I think. It was definitely how I discovered her (actually, seeing a thumbnail with ukulele got me onto her, when I clicked on the video I was blown away). Laura is such a boss musically and vocally, I reckon it was not her decision to correct, but the "big label's".
Regarding the athelete analogy. Pitch correction is like doping for singers, lol.
let's look at autotune/pitch correction this way: if everyone could paint the mona lisa, that would cheapen the original to the point of worthlessness. if you like an "artist" who uses technology to make their voice "palatable", then, you don't actually like their art as much as their image. yuck.
Pitch Correction and Auto tune especially unless it's intentional like Cher's Believe where its used for effect by a known to be great singer. Putting a sticker on the album is a brilliant idea. It would cause others who don't to leave well enough (better really) alone. Music isn't supposed to be perfect outside of emoting .
It's ultimately personal preference whether recordings a recording is equalized, tweaked whatever. The logical conclusion of this thought process would a multi-track live recording that's even been mixed isn't actually live as it went down. Versus a soundboard recording that can't be remixed later. And an audience recording is true to what the sound in the room was (but you also get all the noise). Even then the recording position can make a huge difference. That's one nice thing about live streaming music, you're basically doing everything on the fly and can only edit for length etc., unless you're doing a multi-track recording at the same time. I don't have an issue with pitch or note correction, I think it's best when it's just limited to one bum note or whatever. Anyhow, it's not going away.
I do more improvisational music, so I have an obvious bias. And many of my favorite artists were old school musicians who didn't have these tools (e.g. Elton John). I actually loathe quantization even more than pitch correction. Humans aren't perfect. The imperfections, that's where the good stuff is!!!!
You're right on as always. I'm old school as well.
All the cool kids are doing it. Another great video
Delbert McClinton - a really great vocalist sums it up: "Autotune is BS." You should feature him- active since 1957 and toured with bluesmen like Jimmy Reed, Sonny Boy II and Gatemouth Brown as a young man- and there are plenty of great performances from him on YT. Delbert gave John Lennon some tips on harmonica playing back in 1962.
I agree that a pitch corrected or auto-tuned "live" performance is not really live, it at least needs an asterisk after it. In this case the truly live performance is so much better. She has so much emotion in her voice which is lost with the pitch correction, and that just takes so much away from the performance. When you first were playing the pitch corrected version, I thought, "oh, I don't know if I like her voice". Then when you played the live version, it was like, "Woah!" Very different vibe. I think nearly everyone is doing either pitch correction or autotune now because they are afraid if they don't, they won't sound "modern". This kind of processed, somewhat automaton vocal quality is kind of the modern way, it seems.
Degradation, yes technically as you explained. But otherwise it's subjective.
Did see an Indie artist promote his release over year ago as not using Auto-tune.
You explained once, "live" performance can mean the vocalists or musicians merely were present before audience. Several meanings of live now.
💯💯💯 I agree with you, Fil!
If I’m told a performance was “pitch-corrected”, it wouldn’t effect my overall enjoyment of that performance; but it definitely would effect the regard I have of that singer’s vocal capabilities.
Yes it does...
To me call such an altered performance live is similar to telecommunications companies promoting their VoIP as a "landline". A landline is the original analog copper wire Public Switched Telephone Network, not a VoIP alternative.
I recall when the photography world was having these same discussions, only it was about the authenticity of a photograph after it has been photoshopped. Photoshop won.
Yes, sadly, you can't accept anything as real in most photography anymore. I don't do a lot of photoshopping myself, because I'm old school, but it's bad.
I commented on the video and got this reply:
"@collierlandry
3 hours ago (edited)
I'm the guy that directed, shot, edited and recorded this and we tracked everything live. Yup, zero auto tune! LP is an UNBELIEVABLE talent and a really great human being to collaborate with. The band was so tight is was like they were playing to a click. One of my favorite shoots of my career thus far! "
I agree!
Last few live shows I saw, Cats in Space, Wishbone Ash, Steve Vai, John Hackett Band, Steve Hackett, Tiger Moth Tales, Charlotte Carpenter. Pretty sure no Auto Tune whatsoever in those shows. Steve Vai was instrumental so does not count despite being the biggest artist of those.
A live performance is when you are there listening to it yourself and the performers are playing their instruments through amps and the singer is singing into a microphone. Isn't that how it used to be?
Couldn't agree more! ❤
Anyone who draws a line in art is a sophist.
Great question: does a pitch corrected voice still have the same "value" as a natural voice? Coming from the history-of-art-corner, I have asked myself this question MANY TIMES about artists who, in the Renaissance, used the Camera Obscura and produced some extraorandinary natural, almost photographic, paintings thanks to this technical tool (like an overhead-projector). Is this cheating? And if so, does this disgrade the painting? 🤷 Is anybody out there who has some opinion on this question?
To answer your question, Yes I am disappointed when I realize an artist pitch corrected their voice. Especially now because I can hear it!🙁
I agree with you 150%. Pitch correction has ruined music.
Agreed Live is live..any electronic trickery is not live. And pitch correction should not be used ever. If a singer is good it isn't needed and if a singer isn't...they shouldn't be a singer
Anything that wasn’t in The Original Performance, is Altering, That Performance!
Fil, have you analyzed your own voice in a video? If you have I missed it. If not, it would be fun to see!
Fil has addressed this and said that analyzing his own voice would be weird!
Can you imagine Joe Cocker's voice after pitch correction or auto-tune? Those processes would have destroyed his sound.
Fil what do you think about Al Stewart ?
I agree with Fil's definition of live. Post-produced ("doctored") performances are not inherently bad, but the post-production should be disclosed. I've had to stop watching videos of live performances of songs I like by the artist I like because the singing was so far off pitch that I couldn't stand listening. Those performances might have been enjoyable if the singer had been pitch corrected. However, not disclosing pitch correction in a supposedly live performance is essentially false advertising.
I see Auto-Tune launched in 1997. Do you know of any situations where pre-1997 performers went back and vocally processed their early recordings for re-release/remaster?
Pitch correction systems have been out since the 60s
Yes it does.
LP is a brilliant singer. Listen to her live version of Halo. It’s stunning.
Do check her out more she great,
Yeah, I agree, the pitch corrected one is degraded, it actually sounds unnatural. I like your analogies with racing, playing football, etc.--I also think about suggesting that all paintings have to look a certain way, or all fiction writing has to have the same storyline/formula. There's no creativity in that. Or--suggesting that there's one standard for beauty, and all men have to look a certain way, or all women, because that's the standard of "perfection". But perfection is dead (the word it comes from literally means "finished"). Imperfections are what make something alive.
"There is no Santa Claus"...that's you...that's what you sound like
A question can you trust any music any more if there using pitch correction everywhere do they use on something like later with jools holland if they do I think I will lose my trust in music. Do you think music show and albums should said pitch correction used and as computer get better people will be able to do pitch correction at home?
An artist can paint a picture a street and it is beautiful, but if you look real close there is little 'accurate' detail in any of it, just suggestions of lamp posts, people, trees, etc.. You could then take a photo of that street with super high resolution camera and lens and it looks awful compared to the painting, but it is super accurate. It is the artistic quality of a great singer's voice that matters. If the song, emotion and performance is great, no one cares if this or that note was bang on or not.
What's the link to the real live version you used in this video?
Would love to see you review Dan Vasc Amazing Grace.
Meh. Sometimes it seems to me like artists today are trying too hard to have a “unique”voice than just singing. I like post production tricks that serve the music ( I’m not saying this doesn’t) like Gotye’s hit.
They're in the process of tuning our ears and brains to crave robotic machine-produced absolute "perfection". They can take any warm body and make a star out of them, in exchange for the "artist's" soul. The next step will be "music" without a real warm body, made by AI and holographic images. (Remember the recent ABBA tour?) It will cost them a lot le$$ and they think they will make $ anyway.
Sports will follow because they're all already choreographed anyway.
IMHO: If an artist produces a finished piece that employs pitch correction as part of the artistic choice because they want that type of sound, then that is using the tools at their disposal to make the piece the way they want it to be. I probably wont listen to that artist because I don't like the auto tune sound, and so it goes.
If an artist does not use pitch correction in their original piece, then pitch correction is like slashing the paintings in a museum - a destructive violation of the artistic intent.
I think it should all start getting labeled either way - I'd want to know what Im getting before spending money or time on an artist. If pitch correction is part of the experience I'd probably pass. I want the thrill and emotion of unadulterated skill and sound.
This is like saying Vermeer isn't an artist because he used a camera obscura and was "painting" over light.
Why, as a producer or live sound specialist, you would want to cheapen the skill of talented artists who can sing, by making them appear like they can't is beyond me. I think you're right it's mostly industry standards to get to what is seen as the sellable pro - and peer pressure induced insecurity but it's very sad that adult professionals, who willingly chose an artistic pathway, can't resist that. Backbones in short supply it seems.
I would love to know if Andrea Bocelli uses auto tune or pitch correction software. I love his voice, and will admit I'd be disappointed to learn he's fallen in line with the majority.
Hey Phil ❤