My mother, Astrud Gilberto, was, among other things, the voice of Eastern Airlines. You would have to sing, along with the orchestra in those days. For some of the spots, the orchestra would play almost a minute in, and then she'd deliver the tagline at the end (a very high note). You either nailed it, or *_EVERYONE_* got to do it again. I'm old enough to remember when people could actually sing without computer devices. No wonder everyone, even young people, still listen more to older music.
Wow, the girl from Ipanema! She was a wonderful singer and sang some of my favorite genre of music, bossa nova and samba. Ms. Gilberto and Tom Jobim, Stan Getz, and, of course, Joao Gilberto! Oh, those were the days of such great music. My sympathies for you for the loss of your mom, and my gratitude for your mom and her beautiful contributions to the world of this incredible music.
To me, autotune is not acceptable at live shows. It definitely changes my feeling about taking the time and expense of going to the show. The artist can atone by discontinuing autotone in the future.
I think someone like Cher's use is OK because it's just used for an effect for a small portion of a vocal performance, but using it throughout their performance, that just tells me the vocalist sucks and it's a sign of a musical con artist.
Buble has pitch control as least as good as Frank Sinatra. By Autotuning, it removes so much of the human nuance as to render it, in this case, as unlistenable. One of the ways I determine if any part of a "live" performance is actually live is by catching mistakes and little pitch deviations. I'd much rather hear an actual performance than a computer generated/enhanced one. If the stage doesn't differ from the studio, what's the point in a live performance?
You sure his pitch control is that good? You sure he has the stamina for an evening of singing and moderation like Sinatra had? I guess you underestimate the talent of Sinatra.
Absolutely agree. And Sinatra sang so that every member of tje audience, even if listening to a recording, felt he was singing to them personally. He didn't guss about hitting a note, he got there, but with the aim of making every note important, but not an exercise in vocal training. Wonderful!
Problem is that the argument for using autotune starts with a false premise that the most desirable singing is that which dead accurately represents the intended note each time. Great singing mostly moves around the exact precise pitch, implying it by starting phrases above and from below and only occasionally hitting it dead on. That’s actually the sound we most associate with great vocal performance and where the real artistry and tone, phrasing and dynamics come from.
Tuning a vocal with Flex Pitch etc. isn't just a one button fixer. All the parameters of performance are broken down and are manipulatable - pitch drift, vibrato, formant, fall off. You don't HAVE to hard tune everything to right in the middle of the pitch, or erase all the scoops; the technology just gives us the tools to massage, correct or destroy a performance
Auto tune is a crime. My best singing was live one take on stage in the opera hall. They way it should be. You prepare, you work hard, and then you do your work and fly together with the orchestra And conductor. Nothing like it. Human emotion is frequency and is carried direct to the heart
Well is autotune not ok sometimes? Without vocal effects on singers we wouldn't be able to create certain sounds to add to the experience of the song.. would the beatles 'rain' 'Lucy in the sky' 'strawberry fields' etc sound as good without effects on John's voice? Besides some ppl listen to music purely for the instrumental n dnt care about vocal, music like dance music, so surely there's just and time and place and genre for it, music isn't only about singing it's an experience
@@jadebel7006 auto tune is not an effect... Itsa CORRECTING program for pitch.... Ifa singer sang more than 25% out of pitch, then he is not a prof singer.. Justa person with a singing hobby
Can you imagine Karen Carpenter or Patsy Cline using auto tunes? Seriously, auto tunes cannot beat natural vocal perfection! The beauty of humanity is that it has minor imperfections that allow expression and personality to shine through! AI can’t touch the human voice.
If Neil Young was going into the music industry today, he might be able to write songs, but he would never be able to sing them. If he insisted on singing them, into the autotune booth he would go. Very sad, really.
Got that right! Just listen to "Where the Boy's Are" by Connie Francis. Her singing on that song is so pure and beyond reproach. If it were all Auto-Tuned, well, I just can't imagine it. It would suck so bad!!!
I think auto-tune should be banned from live performances and all recordings with auto-tune should have a big disclaimer. It's the only way to tell if a singer is truly great. There are plenty of great singers who don't need it and it's a disservice to them to let a program decide how their notes should sound. Thanks for another great analysis!
"I think auto-tune should be banned from live performances and all recordings with auto-tune should have a big disclaimer. It's the only way to tell if a singer is truly great" If they do that, do you promise to buy all the records and go to all the concerts????
@@WellMefisto, I will, as long as I *like* the music. If I found out that the bands I pay to hear live are using auto tune, I’d stop buying their records, and merch, and stop going to their concerts. Effects pedals on guitars are acceptable, because we can hear them. Anything fake and over processed is not getting my money.
I watched a video of Paloma Faith where she was singing live in a small venue. She was covering a song by another singer of which I don't remember the name of the song. The first few words she sang were very off key, she laughed and stopped the music. She apologized to the audience for not hitting the correct notes, and proceeded to make fun of herself for the awful singing. She did a few seconds of vocal warmups while joking with the audience, then told the band to start at the beginning. She hit the notes perfectly. The audience appreciated her honesty and cheered her. Auto tune is awful. The music industry has ruined music.
Yes. I saw morrisey hit a bad note , he put his hand over his ear and cringed 😂. Another time, he said I don’t know why your applauding so much I messed it up badly .
A truly professional response, that. I saw Peter Gabriel do a similar thing with the piano when I was at his Manchester gig a few years back: he began a song with the wrong chord, then just smiled at the audience and said "let's try that again, shall we?" and got it right the second time.
The music industry certainly did ruin music. Music was my life for years. I played guitar for over 30 years and been in several bands. I haven't picked up a guitar in years and don't even listen to music anymore. I skip around you tube to see what's going on, but that's about it.
@@ericbitzer5247 Hello Eric , have you ever heard of the controversy over tuning instruments? I think it’s about tuning to 432 mhz . I’ve seen videos where they do a side by side comparison of the sound. Idk , might be something to check out , put some new gas in the car ….LOL I hope I got it right , if not just looking it up you’ll probably find it.
Didn’t people sing perfectly beautifully once upon a time without needing computer enhancement or other electronic wizardry? Frank Sinatra? Andrew’s Sisters? Bing Crosby? Dean Martin? Judy Garland? Beach Boys, Beatles, Etta James, Ella Fitzgerald? I mean really, I want to hear real human beings singing, not a bunch of processed shit. Cmon man…
@@BrunoNeureiter I disagree, I AM TOO used to perfect music, which is music recorded without the BS of having someone/something correct your mistakes, sing it right... I cannot even imagine what someone like Lou Gramm thinks of this nonsense of having pitch correction applied to a singer's voice, especially live.
This reservation about the drawbacks of technology applies not only to vocals. I'm a drummer. I don't claim to be a great drummer but I love playing and I love listening to great players. Tempo shifts into a chorus, the expressive lag on a snare beat in a single bar - all of these are human and music is a form of communication between human beings. If it becomes mathematically precise then it is machines talking and the human element disappears. Where then is the humanity and emotion? I wonder whether machinery has contributed modern music being so often boring? Keith Moon was not the greatest timekeeper but the sense that he was about to fall off the edge was what made his playing so exciting. Janis Joplin may have wandered around a note but the rawness of her performance is what made it heart rending. I'd rather listen to Aretha being slightly flat than Beyonce being autotuned. Thanks for the video. Always enjoy your stuff.
Have you seen the video where they run a John Bonham track through beat detective and totally ruin it? I think it was Rick Beato who did that. Like "Bonham is so far behind the beat, he's actually in the previous measure! Let's fix that!" And it sounds terrible...
@@creamydistortion - some of the best drummers play miles behind the beat. Especially the snare drum. I have spent hours and hours trying to play behind the beat and it is really difficult to do to order. I had a ‘master class’ with a well known drummer (I won’t name drop 😏) who was well known for playing behind the beat and I asked him how he did it. He said it was just the way he played… no secret, nothing he could tell me, it was just natural 😡
This is a great example of auto-tune making a great singer worse. The ability to travel through a note, climb or decline to a note, manipulate vibrato, utilising all of that to tell a story, is what makes a singer great. You lose all of the humanity, all of the emotion if you snap to a scale.
It's become an industry standard to use backing tracks with vocals on them to thicken out the lead voice. A lot of singers use it live but you can't rely on it. I'm talking a few cents flat or sharp and it really smoothes the voice out live. Of course with such a small tolerance you still have to be within that range or it will correct to the wrong note. After touring with progressive rock and metal acts I can confirm this is done every show with the bigger acts. Heck, I've not even seen keyboards plugged in before along with all the backing, it's all on the track. It's surprising what you can get away with though as most people don't have a musical ear.
@@ohger1 He’s likely NOT dead on every note (nobody is), but he’s a great singer and human ears don’t detect it as “off” unless it’s quite a bit off, so you wouldn’t know. It actually sounds better than if it’s auto tuned even though with auto tune it’s perfectly on pitch.
@@drinkinslim You know what's actually the worst? Actual good singers, that would sound perfect and natural just jamming even without effort, but the producers decide to put autotune on their voice.
Applying auto tune to a crooner is like applying posterization to an impressionist. It is painful to listen to. You keep calling your visual a waveform. As somebody who regularly manually edits samples to clean up waveforms, I cry foul. We are not looking at a waveform, but a pitch graph. That aside, this is a masterful analysis. Thank you for doing this. I appreciate your work!
This is so bizarre It never occurred to me that people, especially people that *can* actually sing, use autotune while singing live. It just seems ridiculous to me. Just get a robot to sing. The whole point of hearing a good singer and hear them sing live is that you hear the personality, character and individual time tone of their voice. Ella Fitzgerald did incredible things with her beautiful voice. Imagine trying to use autotune with her. It would take all of that beautiful personality out. Crazy
My husband used to LOVE Bublé! He played me one of his albums shortly after we first met. I told him, "He's a great singer, but it's a shame that he feels he has to use Auto-Tune on all his songs. He really doesn't need it. He's really very good." My husband asked, "What's Auto-Tune?" So, after many a listen while I described the technology, he finally was able to hear it. After that, all bets were off. Thankfully, I never got to hear another Bublé song on our stereo. Thank God! - And hey! Mr. Bublé: If you're out there reading this, you almost had an ardent fan, but your Auto-Tune literally "Tuned" me out. Sorry buddy.
Great singers can use being "off" the note and then "on" it as a purposeful tension-and-release. It's another tool in the vocalist's toolbox. The premise that a note must land and stay perfectly on pitch is the whole problem with autotune. Autotune does what it's supposed to do. The problem is that we shouldn't be doing it.
Sliding up to a note creates huge problems for AT... And sliding up to notes is standard fare for many singers, including me. Not all the time, just some of the time.
You covered that well. yes Autotune does what it is supposed to do, but if it malfunctions or fails, and many have, it is even worse for the performer.
It's interesting, because vocals are processed through all sorts of equipment when singing live: gates, compressors, delays, reverb. I know: it's different... and yet kinda the same. I mean, the voice is being processed.
@@drinkinslim Exactly, pitch correction is just another tool. Singers would also suddenly sound worse if you took away the reverb, doesn't mean their voices are bad and that reverb is fraudulent. The issue with autotune has nothing to do with whether it's lying or not; it just ruins performances a lot of the time. This video wouldn't exist if autotune hadn't ruined the performance, but you can just as easily ruin a good performance with bad EQ or compression and almost no one would care about that.
@@iy42touche.... but, eh, autotune pitches, its a different monster than ambience or volume.... and.... i could guarantee, if theyre using autotune, they are DEFINITELY using everything else as well...might as well have anyone or everyone else singing.... just lipsync, might as well.
His voice sounded much better with no autotune. I mean he is a good singer so I don't know why the need to even use it. Expecting pitch perfect notes from a singer is unrealistic and not natural. Imperfections make live performances so unique and interesting.
One of my favorite vocal performances is Gladys Knight's version of "If I Were Your Woman", especially the "you're like a diamond, but she treats you like glass" part where her voice is right on the edge of cracking. It's off just enough to show emotion, but not enough to to sound like a mistake. Imagine how much would have been lost if they had had auto-tune back then.
Ive never understood how he rose to where he is. Ive heard hundreds of people in karaoke bars who sound just as good or better then him. It just baffles me
Frank Sinatra managed this song thousands of times with NO auto-tune. Using technology just because it's there is not a good thing. Michael should stop them from using auto-tune for his own good.
Believe it or not, there were thousands of people back in the day that could not stand Sinatra as a performer. Not all women were swooning over his voice. I like some Sinatra and but not all of it. I think it would be cool to have Fil compare Buble and Sinatra with the same song. I find his study and explanation of singing techniques very interesting. I remember having to listen to things like this studying music in high school and college. I find this fascinating.
@@kln58cub The reason Bobby-Soxers were swooning over Sinatra was that he was the only male singer around, as the rest were drafted. I think it's funny to see the old WB cartoons, from that era, with caricatures of Sinatra. One of the funniest has him as a rooster, with the hens swooning over him.
"Making the voice into a keyboard" is probably the best and most succinct description of autotune I've ever heard - and something that even the casual listener can understand. Thank you, once again, for the excellent analysis.
I find there's a natural musicality in the human voice, spoken and singing, which resonates with our nervous system. I actually feel physical discomfort listening to Ai speaking or singing. I can't bear to think how it's damaging people's ability to feel. Thanks for this brilliant episode.
That thought occurred to me in a way too. How would I react if I began talking to my friend and the person started sounding like a robot person. i would think they had been somehow altered by brain surgeon or abducted by aliens and had been altered in some way. I wouldn't be feeling the same connection with the person or have any sense of receiving or giving compassion.
I have been a singer for a great many years. It’s great to have someone calling out the frauds. Singers should keep it real or find another career/hobby or get singing lessons. Nothing grinds my gears worse than auto tune. Well.. maybe professional lip sinking.
It makes something real become fake. People get upset if a musician or singer pre-tapes a song for a special performance and then plays the tape when they're live. How is this different? It may be their voice coming out of the mic during the live performance but it's still being altered. And, as you said, Fil-there is no point to it because Buble has such a wonderful voice. But even if he didn't, it's all the same to me. I want real, the real voice, especially when I'm being told it is.
@@Loralie571 Buble is about as in control of how this performance is managed as the average person is in control of their cat. Buble is not much different than an accountant. He shows up for work, someone tells him what they want him to do, and then he does it, and has no/little control over conditions. If the boss wants him to use. QuickBooks, that's what he uses, if it's Sage AccPacc, that's what he uses.
@@gavinpearcey A singer of his calibre has final say on anything and everything about the way his voice sounds in the house. It's far more likely that he went along with it than it is that he was forced to abide. This isn't a teenage pop singer whose parents signed their rights away.
Interesting that you did this video as I remember Bublé doing a live performance here in the UK and I thought it sounded absolutely dreadful and exactly for the reason you stated. Ie not so much correcting the pitch but how much his voice sounded synthesised. He might as well have been singing through a vocoder.
A folk/bluegrass engineer once basically forced me to use autotune on a recording, with the rationale that "everyone uses it". I was only able to convince him to lessen the effect. I think engineers and producers sometimes get too lost in the weeds and can't ignore the slight pitch fluctuations of human singing. It's like an itch they have to scratch, when in my opinion the sound of pitch correction is usually far more distracting than vocals that are slightly out of tune.
Thank you, Fil, for discussing this topic! As a vocal music teacher and singer, I am 100% (and much more) with you on all counts! The voice is a psychomotor instrument. If we start relying on auto-tune, we potentially can lessen the important and essential impact of our human brain and emotions/full body in the process of singing. The human voice is one of, if not the most personal, verbal means of expressing ourselves! We, as the public, and leaders/professionals in the music industry need to value and encourage the use of singers’ natural voices!
"Michael Buble’s fans enjoy his natural voice with all its nuances." Or, so they thought. If you get caught using it live, NO WAY does one NOT use it in the studio.
@@mojo4376 ... He's not fake, I've heard him sing beautifully unacompanied, he is a good singer, and as the video shows, he doesn't need to use auto tune.
I don’t know of any artists who don’t use pitch correction in the studio these days. Might as well stop listening to music if you are against pitch correction.
For a guy who can actually sing why? Why just suck the life out of a performance that would otherwise have been great just to make it "perfect". I'll never understand.
Same here - I'm not particularly fond of opera music, but I have an incredible respect for opera singers, whereas I have very little respect for people using auto tune or the like. If someone can't sing well and needs technology to make it sound like they can... They probably shouldn't, unless they can be creative with their music and not just use technology as a crutch
Tragic that a performer at the level of Bublé would make the choice to use auto-tune. I saw Sinatra twice, the last performance was in his twilight years. Because of the years there was a decline in his ability to hit the highs, but he would try to punch through it and he often did hit it. I can't imagine Sinatra on auto-tune, I think he'd rather go flat or high and let the flaws fall where they fall. It's a cheap cheat in my opinion.
About 7 years ago, Buble's "just havent met you yet" was the very first example of auto tune I actually heard. I didn't know what it was, I just knew it sounded electronically altered.
It's a beautiful day is the same way. I hate autotune. It's a david foster thing. Jason scheff cant sing in tune either and foster produced chicago during the scheff years.
Does Buble' not think he's a good enough singer without it? I am shocked he has used this for so long. He did a duet of Fever with Elvis on an album with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. Wonder what went on there, as Elvis absolutely never used anything like that. It was Elvis' album. Never would. And certainly never needed it.
Basically, auto tune would never work in Blues influenced music, as the 3rd degree of the scale is usually sang in between the minor and major mode, therefore not relating either to the previous or next "12 note system" note, as the computer doesn't know where to drag the it...
I would not be happy to be at a concert and realize that they are using auto tune. I understand the stresses of touring but auto tune crosses the line for me.
@@prd004.2 nobody is faking anything... Tracks are only used to augment what's already on stage. It's not exactly feasible to tour with full orchestras, multiple keys players, and guitar players, and several backing singers. Tracks are just there to fill out the sound, not for musicians or singers to mime to. I've mixed thousands of live shows, and never had anybody fake performing.
Oh, Fil! You're going to have to go into a witness protection program now, the bubble heads will be coming for you. It's been great knowing you. Really enjoyed your channel. Farewell, and good luck with your new life!! 🤣😂🤣😂🤣
He’s done a vocal analysis of Jon Bon Jovi describing vocal fatigue. Remember, these folks are vocal “athletes” and just like a elite sports athlete can get fatigued over many weeks of practice/ games (rinse/repeat) and need rest and healing
For various reasons (including actual bad singers) this just became a standard practice. Producers, even legitimate good vocalists just assume it can’t hurt and will catch anything that might be off key by a marginal amount. Obviously there’s downsides to that, it strips some of the character of your singing and since it’s almost like “cheating,” it makes people speculate about how “horrible” you might sound without it.
So, I'm not understanding WHY these singers are OK with this being done?! WHY are they NOT speaking out against auto tuning of their natural voices?? WHY is this ok?? I have just binge watched your videos. You're amazing and I'm learning so much. Thank you! (Love your subtle smiles as you watch/listen to some of these.)
I'm beginning to wonder if we'll ever hear a real voice or a real instrument again. I guess that's one reason I like the 50's, 60's & 70's singers a lot better than the mostly junk they're producing today...Great video Fil
Ok, he's a very talented musician, but he still uses electronics for a lot of his instruments instead say, a real live drummer, someone playing the guitar, or other instruments.....In the years that I mentioned, when a recording was done, it was done with live musicians, no auto- tune for voices, just natural singers, and that's my point.
It’s like when we used to listen to cassettes. If the player started to eat the tape, you’d hear the music start to warble, and immediately realize you had to hit eject, in hopes you could get the cassette out and uncrinkle it , or cut and splice the tape. Why do they auto tune? Why do they mime on tv performances? I’m gaining more respect for bar singers by the minute.
In fairness, there were an awful lot of pop singers lip-syncing on TV shows back in the 60s and early 70s, because the technology didn't exist for them to reproduce the record's instruments and effects in a TV studio. But they were good singers, and these were mainly teeny-bopper shows.
I did a session with Michael Bublé a couple years ago and he’s actually a good singer in the sense that he sings on pitch with good phrasing and musicality. This processed sound is a creative choice and live it’s probably about consistency and not getting clowned on social media in case of an off night. Sad state of affairs our modern musical world. 😢
I once did a karoke night and I thought I would try to make myself sound perfect to be funny. So I loaded autotune onto my laptop and ran the mic through it and then ran that through echo and delay. Well thee result was like this stuttery echo mess. The accuracy was not actually too bad but it didn't sound natural it was so robotic . Like chers believe.
Kudos to you Fil for exposing this sad auto-tune reality. If a live performer needs auto-tune, then they probably need to reconsider performing live. It’s not worth the $100 ticket to us customers.
His fans won't know. Record companies can pay to tweak algorithms to help suppress widespread sharing of the fact to known consumers of his music. Even if fans were told, they probably wouldn't care, because that's where we're at.
@@carlodave9 , sadly, you’re right. I’m waiting to see ‘if’ my post of this video is going to be approved in The Buble Insider’. Even if it is, I’ll be heavily criticised and labeled a very nasty person by the legion of ‘worshippers’.
It’s a downward spiral. Every performance now is filmed and recorded and every human mistake made available to billions of people immediately. And gigs costing 100,- or more have to be perfect. I kind of get it that artists want to play sure. Like her or not, but you have to be Adele to not be afraid. Easy on me is a great production, cause it is 100% autotune free and some notes are flat, some are sharp and all of them are exactly right.
Always could hear it on his records, but had no idea he used it live as well! His music is so milquetoast anyway, destroying the variances in his voice with software makes it even more bland!
There are zero times where I think auto tuned versions of a talented singer is better. Zero point zero…. A great singer on a bad day is still better than a great singer using auto tune… 100% If someone is so bad they need auto tune all the time just to sound good. I’m not listening to them anyways and don’t really care lol.
Bublé's voice has been processed all the time and probably this will never stop. The main problem is that 99.9% of the audience does not realize that their money spent on concert tickets goes into ProTools playbacks and live autotune. They just don't care. I care for my Sinatra vinyls, that's for sure ...
But the guys and gals (surely guys, I've learned he do very well in the gay-segment, and that's fine with me, whatever makes your boat float) will enjoy the concert and think their money is well spend. That's just how showbizz works :-)
Sinatra was great, especially in his earlier days. If you're not familiar with Bobby Darin, I highly recommend you look into his catalog. He was an incredible talent as well.
Watching all these videos always leads me to marvel at just how good, say, the Mamas and The Papas were vocally. And Art Garfunkel. And Bobby Hatfield (Righteous Brothers). And Roy Orbison . . . all without auto-tune. And apologies to the myriad singers I've not mentioned, but time and space are limited 🙂
You just can’t unhear it! His voice actually sounds better without it. I have never, and will never, use it.your videos are so interesting. Love what you do!
I'm a singer songwriter ...I got the musical talent from my mother who sings like an angel ...but alas I inherited my Irish father's deep voice ...and even tho when I sing it sounds like someone's emptied gravel into my throat I still would never use auto tune ...
If you’re singing opera, or soul styled pop, or certain hard rock styles or… anything else that takes a technical voice, or you’re in a singing competition, then you want people to hear how good you actually are, and not think you’re cheating. So don’t use this effect. If you’re singing punk, folk, or rap adjacent stuff, you’ll want to sound “real” and maybe lo-fi but tremendous pitch accuracy might not be as important? Again don’t use this effect. The only time it’s really going to add to things is if you’re just trying to sound robotic, or are correcting one or two “off notes” so you don’t need another take. But even then, if someone notices it will make them doubt you’re a good singer.
@@ShanRees The problem is though, the effect in that song was horrifying. It was totally new to the general audience, but it was more of a weird novelty than something which was greatly appreciated. Later on it just got out of control in Pop music to 'fix' poor performances, and now it seems just to have become the lazy default option.
Autotune compresses the notes in a way that is unnatural to our human vocal cords. If we sang like autotune, we would damage our vocal cords in the short compressed notes. It goes against the physics. On the bright side, you can use autotune as a practice tool to learn to train and hit the notes accurately! 😁 Our vocal chords are more like the strings of an orchestral instrument or a fretless bass, and not like the keys of a piano.
His natural voice is much better...I guess I would call autotune digital distortion...I know how it works because I am an electronics engineer and I wonder how many bits are on the ADC (analog to digital converter) chip and dsp chip...
Hearing Michael's isolated voice like this just shows how auto tune changes a natural vibrato from a natural pitch modulation to more of an amplitude modulation. It’s like his natural and incredible sounding voice has had a key component ‘photoshopped’ out. I find this to be too big a price to pay for the convenience of ‘fixing’ the odd and rare (and not necessarily unwanted) out of tune note.
I just read were Michael Nesmith, who was best known as one of the Monkees passed away today at age 78 (RIP) Michael and thanks for the wonderful body of work you left behind.
Aww, how sad. As a young kid, I remember watching the bed rolling down the street at the beginning of the show"Hey, hey🎶, we're the Monkees....!!!! 🛏️🎶
@@cindypowers4993 Davy Jones 30 December 1945 - 29 February 2012 Peter Tork February 13, 1942 - February 21, 2019 Michael Nesmith December 30, 1942 - December 10, 2021 Micky Dolenz is the only surviving member left of the group.
I am/was big fan of Michael Buble, but now I'm probably not ever gonna bother to see him onstage, or listen to his songs. I want the real vocal for my money, not a cheesy, coma-inducing cardboard cut-out. Boycotting live concerts (& not buying recordings) may be the only way to get these industry execs to listen!
Seriously I can't believe this is free. 🙏 so Grateful. Your analysis, education, clips. Love your passion ❤ Bang. Dead on the line. Love your appreciation of natural voices and the Understanding. So many thanks 😊 Deputy Dog 🐕 ❤
It's much easier to hear the autotune kicking in when the vocals are isolating. The music covers a lot. I wonder if one day there'll be a anti-autotune revolution, with artists rejecting it entirely.
I’m way below Michael’s league, but I don’t use it. I’ve tried it in the studio, I didn’t like it. When I use my vocal harmonist pedal to create vocal harmonies while performing live, I make sure to set the auto-tune off. I’m not against it per se, it just doesn’t go with my style. I’m old school anyway
to be a succeeded anti-autotune movement means that uglier or fatter singers would be strong in the market too. I don't think music or show biz would care for or allow that
......imagine going back in time with autotune, walking up to Grace Slick about to sing White Rabbit, then telling her, 'Maybe you could do it with this thing'.......what an utter gew-gaw autotune is. 0:03
The little inaccuracies in the voice, are often caused by the singer putting some feeling/emotion into the song, and you really notice it. Autotune will take this emotion away. Michael Bublé clearly has a good voice, and clearly he can sing, but I've always felt that his voice sounded emotionless, which is why I've never really wanted to go out of my way to listen to him. Mind you, that's my taste! I've never appreciated people like Pavarotti for the same reason, there's more to putting in some feeling than just holding a perfect note and going loud or quiet. Perhaps Bublé is a better singer than I thought and autotune is the culprit. But as for emotion/feeling, listen to Ray Charles singing "You Don't Know Me", then listen to Bublé singing the same song. Then you might know what I mean.
Buble's voice is very good and well trained, but it's just so smooth and good that it's not at all interesting. Same with Celtic Woman performances. They're so pitch perfect and emotionless. Boring.
@@davelanciani-dimaensionx I used to have a Ray Charles cd that came with a little booklet that just sorta gave an overview of Ray and one of the stories it told was when he was recording Seven Spanish Angels his voice "cracked" and the producer stopped the take and said "let's start over" and Ray went into the booth and took him off to the side and said "man I MEANT to do that". It fit the story of the song much more than some robot telling it.
Man Dave, I really encourage you to revisit Pavarotti sometime. Possibly with live video. My favorite singers are Ray Charles, Ella Fitzgerald, Sinatra & Billy Eckstine...so many 50s and 60s soul singers and classic country guys....Pavarotti is nothing but soul, right up there with anyone I can name.
Ian Gillian was excellent at emotional effects with his voice. Child In Time is a great example. That is why he was picked to Sing the Parts of Christ in Jesus Christ Superstar on the Album. He was able to show sadness and pain and keep the notes and pitch. He lost nothing singing emotion.
Perhaps people think the same of him, but give me Harry Connick Jr. any day over Michael Bublé. For me, one has a loot more character. Heck, I saw Seth MacFarlane live with the Boston Pops on New Year's Eve a few years ago and I'd rather listen to him than Bublé. No offense to anyone who likes Bublé, as music is personal and what is my cup of tea is not necessarily yours. Just listen to what you love and just enjoy music! Happy Holidays everyone!
I'm a singer and I wouldn't even THINK of, cheating my audience out of a truly Live Performance! I also don't use it for recordings because I believe that it makes you a Lazy Singer and you miss out on getting so much better as an artist. I'm also someone who Produces and I am not a fan of it at all.
So to sum up it’s something we already knew: he’s not much of a singer and a complete ripoff of previous singers. Never could understand why anyone likes that
14:00 it's interesting that you mention that because that's a classical training thing. I had a music theory teacher one time that in so many words told us, when you're gonna be going from a 7 to the octave, you almost WANT that 7 to be a bit sharp, because it just begs for the listener to yearn for it to resolve up that last half-step (or more like 1/3 step if you do that). It creates a really nice tension that begs for the resolution, it wouldn't be surprising to me if Michael is doing that subconsciously because he may have learned the same thing once upon a time.
If that kills a career, that career deserves to die. Loads of very popular and successful singers don’t sing “well” but are true to themselves and make up for it elsewhere. If your auto tuned vocals are the only thing keeping you afloat, get another job.
People heavily criticized David lee Roths voice on the last 3 van halen tours. I saw all 3 tours and appreciated that it was real. Had a great time at those shows. Sometimes I think people want the fake shit, I dont.
There are folks who are performers, and their audience expects them to do complex dance moves while singing. If that’s happening I am forgiving of lip syncing. But not a fan of auto tune at ALL
Bublé’s live appearance on the Graham Norton Show (backed by a big band) a few years back sounded great and I made a recording of it. The more I listened though, I realised he was singing slightly sharp throughout the song - which suggests no autotune in this particular performance.
When the hell did auto tune become a thing? Bublé is a heavyweight star, and he'll be getting his vox in his in ear monitor, why the heck is he allowing this rubbish to happen? Sack the sound man and throw that crap in the bin where it belongs.
MB has been using AutoTune live for years! He did a Christmas special in 2013, when he performed with Mariah Carey you could hear how his voice was snapping to notes harshly while Mariah's was natural sounding
Just found on RU-vid a 1965 live version of Sinatra singing 'I've Got the World on a String'. Fantastic live version. Frank at his best. He had no autotune....didn't exist. Why do they need it now?
The great singers of the past relied on their own voice when it came to a live concert by constant practice. These modern day singers want everything done for them and when it goes wrong they blame tech not their lazy voice.
If they had asked the audience: “The artist might not hit every note accurately tonight so, would you like us to auto-tune the performance?”, how many would have said “Yes, please!”? I realize that there are many aspects to this and it's a tough industry but using auto-tune in a live performance feels fishy to me, especially if the audience is not aware of it. Fil’s videos really highlight the fact that singing (and art in general, I guess) is not just about striving for absolute perfection, but also about expression and emotion. In science beauty is perfection but in art we long for the “imperfect” human element too, IMO. No piece of art is a perfect reflection of reality, there's always some interpretation involved. BTW, I still haven't gotten over what they did to Freddie Mercury, that was just downright criminal. And the man can't even have a say in what they do with his voice. So, the people who do this, whoever you are: STOP IT!
It's like instead of watching Bob Ross paint a picture watching Bob Ross starting the print job of a copy of one of his pictures. (I know he already died, but i think his painting videos are known enough to make a good analogy)
I worked with Michael Bublé in musical revue theatre before his fame. He has a fabulous, beautiful, strong, tuneful voice and he got his chops singing day in and out on the live stage. Also he was a sweet person. Just saying.
I think he steeply loses his tonal accuracy and range at higher volumes, and that's why he uses autotune. Almost anyone can sound like sinatra at the kitchen table, but if you ask that person to sing to someone down the street it changes everything. that's why opera to me is more respectable for talent even though i kindof hate the music.
I would be interested to have a comparison of Freddie Mercury and Adam Lambert because I appreciate both and am curious how their voices are different technically. It would be a great opportunity because we have access to both performing the same songs in the original key, live in similar environments.
Very interesting analysis. I learned a lot. I had no idea that Buble used auto tuned. Such a shame. We pay and reward the good singers for their skill. But now it all seems like Minni Vanilli. Lip syching all over again. Makes me not trust modern singers. Makes me wonder if producers tinkered with the great music of the past to 'digitally remaster' the vocals as well but you told me that they cannot. Very disappointing but alas I suppose makes me appreciate the oldies but goodies.
Queen overdubbed the hell out of the official releases of live concerts, replacing all manner of perceived mistakes in pitch, vocal weaknesses, missed cues and thin harmonies. The unsavory truth is that Queen mislead, well, all of us. Their fans most of all. We bought and listened and cherished what we thought were live performances. We have believed, on that basis, that they were practically flawless in concert. That is what they wanted us to think.
@@darkprose Loads of bands do that though. Recording at a live concert is a nightmare and will always result in problems, aside from the physical problems of musicians stumbling or being unable to hear cues. Sound engineers love studios because they have maximum control of the sound, and that's why bootlegs sound scuzzy compared to official live albums like Thin Lizzy Live and Dangerous. I'm happy if a live album captures the energy of the live performance but also sounds listenable. You can hardly expect a band to be note perfect for two hours every time when they're two years into a world tour and probably hung over and functioning on 2 hours sleep.
I'm not sure why Buble needs Auto Tune, he's a very in-tune singer. I remember him doing an "audience with" thing years ago and my wife asking what the hell they had done to his voice: it was perfectly applied Auto Tune, even perfectly set you can sound like a sheep.
I feel if you can't sing live then don't. If you have to use auto tune at a live concert then you are doing a disservice to the paying fans. I don't even like it when pitch correction is used in post on recorded concert footage. It all revolves around the same premise of being dishonest.
