Chicken Permission .....or they just prop themselves up by doing every step of prod, write, record, mix, master by themselves. some great artists today can complete most all these steps on their own, it's very impressive. But most would agree a second set of ears in the mix/master stage is ideal no matter how much experience you have. Bieber gets 3-4 world known mix engineers on each track. It's a pretty expensive process.
0:33 *Roomie* : so you may think that someone like Louise here would not be able to become a world class pop star, not with that Voice, right ?! *Louise* : 😕😕😒😒
I sound like Louise. So I was psyched when I heard her at the end. And so happy when Roomie was DELIGHTED by her output. Imperfect enough to be autotuned: GOOD JOB LOUISE. 😂
I Hate it when people say "anyone can be a pop star with auto tune." Because as someone who produces muisc myself I know Its simply not true. Sure you can take a fairly average singer in the studio and with enough hours of head ach, tuning and voice comping you have something that sounds okay. BUT you're failing to see the major elephant(s) in the room. Number one is tone, sure you made the timing and pitch correct but her tone is still very hard to listen to. The second is branding a overly edited vocal is a nightmare to brand how are you sposed to market a unpredictable unreal vocal sound. They never be capable of a truly live performance. And before you point to pop artist that use auto tune and say they did it. You must understand artist like Taylor swift have good tone and natural talents. They use these effect as an artistic choice and there career would still exist without them.
I agree there's more to it than being able to be listenable in a studio recording. Personally, I think Louise's tone is pretty nice, reminiscent of Carly Rae Jepsen as many have pointed out. I've also gotten many requests for the full song (Which does not exist, so stop asking haha). There are a couple of popular singers who I think have questionable vocal tone, but that's all subjective until you get to the really far end of the spectrum. I'd say most people can produce a passable vocal tone in the studio, given you record in an easy registry. Funnily enough, low registry singing has been very popular over the last year or so in pop, so this year would have been easier than most. Where modern artists would be without studio help, we can just speculate about. Some artists would still be huge stars (Adele, Ed Sheeran etc are good examples) some others, maybe not.
RoomieOfficial Hey thanks for replying I love your channel! I understand what you mean. I don't mean to insult her tone by the way. I just know a few people that think the whole industry is fake... Hey! Keep up your good work!
While many overproduced artists are real artists, that is exactly what i dont get: some of them are real singers, great singers, they practice and learn everyday too. So why those production tools? The reason is chart competition, not art. There was a time not long ago when artists didnt have such and the records sound great. Even "bad" singers like Kurt Cobain recorded his tracks in few takes and they sound just perfect. I think a singer must cope with his/her own voice for the bad and the good. There are still people out there who still believe in their voice. Another thing i still dont get is why punk rock bands have been abusing autotune so far the last years. Punk rock! I dont get it.
I think autotune destroys the humanity of a singer's voice. Singing isn't meant to be flawless or perfectly on pitch. There's a natural vibrato and subtlety to singing that I think Autotune has absolutely ruined.
My experience playing around with autotune is that if you can't sing in the first place then you can only do robot vocals. It's still better to fix the audio than hear a straight off-key vocal but it won't add the tone of a real singer to someone who only sounds ok when they sing along with the studio track. Would I use it? Yes, I'm not a real singer so I'd have to. If I wanted something more natural though I'd then sing along to the auto-tuned track, using it as a guide to stay on key. Again though, a real singer's throwaway takes are going to sound better than my tuned yelling.
Not to mention they didn’t really have much choice if they wanted to make it, they were kind of forced to do it the way they did by the people who they were recording under
As a hard rock guitar player, I really don't look down on autotune as a bad thing. In some of my recordings, I admittedly needed to used cut, copy, and paste in order to fix some of my minor mess-ups here and there. But here's the catch, I can play my stuff live. Therefore, as long as the singer can belt it out live and it sounds just as good, then I am cool with it. However, if you need to rely on autotune, pre-recorded tracks, or lipsyncing for a live performance, well...you might just be in the wrong profession altogether.
If your down with “correcting little mistakes here An there”. Then your not a real rocker my friend. You either can sing or you can’t plain and simple. A rock An roller wouldn’t mind leaving “minor “ mistakes in.
+DatVocals! Yeah auto-tune can be really nice for example -'nails for breakfast, tacks for snacks' by Panic!AtTheDisco has a really cool tone with the help of auto tune
What I notice about that mix is that none of those notes are really out of her reach; her voice just needs to strengthen and mature, and she could probably do it herself. Natural singers with perfect pitch are the people to listen to to get the singing bug, Louise. Also heard Bieber's demo without autotune, and wasn't bad, particularly for a kid. Maybe Autotune is a a way of saving listener's ears, but let's face it - It's still a hell of a lot of trouble to get a note that should be there in the first place.
Dave Grohl in the documentary Sound City talks about how a lot of modern producers abuse these tools instead of just using them as tools without relying on them so much.
Of course it's cheating. It allows people with no actual musical ability to pretend that they have some. It enables studios to choose "stars" based upon their looks and persona for easy packaging to the tasteless masses.
Honestly, there is nothing wrong with slight pitch correction. Artists who use it in massive amounts are a little meh to me....But if you are adjusting certain notes that are flat by 10-15% pitch correction, I wouldn't call that cheating. I use it every now and then on my recordings, but I try to go for the best possible take I can throw out and then do post EQ'ing/slight pitch correction. If you can replicate it live to the point of where people say it sounds good like the song on the album, then you're in the clear. There is a limit with pitch correction where it starts to sound robotic (Usually around 40-50%). That's the range of pitch correction that always makes me cringe haha.
Mat Broomfield you're so simple, you need to be somewhat accurate to for the autotune to not sound like shit. It comes down to the fact you probbably listen to metal or rock and think your singers have skill, I'll tell you autotune is probbably the most prominent in heavy metal you pleb, as for the drumming in that shit, teach a 5 year old to bang out the double kick as fast as you can and bam u got a beat..
Even the songs you like that aren't 'pop' I can almost guarantee have some kind of light pitch correction going on. It's just the industry standard now and it doesn't necessarily mean the artist can't sing.
FUTMZ Jesus take off the tinfoil hat already. Tons of pop singers today can legitimately sing. It’s not like it’s up to them what the producers do with their voices in the studio.
I think that depends on what stage the singer is at in their career and what kind of management, label, and contract they're under. Some of the more seasoned artists probably have more control in the producers they work with and how they produce the song. Other than that, I agree with you :)
This is the first video I saw from you. It is very wel done from a to z. Straight forward, clear, nicelly filmed and presented. Also the short video clip with lighting, angles and stuff. You've got a new follower! Keep up the good work. Greatings from Belgium
Nice job - even the Beatles explored with all the possibilities they had - speeding up, slowing down, backwards tracking, duplicating voices and took their voices to the tech limits of their day
Ted Olsen which was only for parts of songs at most. They used tech for specific sounds and feelings, not to compensate for a complete lack of skill and talent lol
This is a generalization that overstates reality. Some singers are not that good, but there are many singers today who have amazing voices - even so I would not buy their music because I don't enjoy their music
Did I use pitch correction on my vocals in the studio? Yes, to fix some small mistakes where I kept missing the right note. But you bet your ass I played that song in the car and sang along to it for hours to help me sound as good as the recording!!!
and still, after all this high end production, you can instantly identify there's lots of processing and you simply don't get emotional like for example when an Adele hits a note. Magical, probably that's intuitely responsible why I absolutely dislike 80% of nowadays pop music. no feeling at all.
+Lukas T adele's vocals are highly processed on the album recordings. "Hello" was criticised by Sound on Sound for utilizing over-tuning. Most pop stars are good to great singers - there's really no point in choosing a bad one over a great one, if they're not really famous already (think Paris Hilton, actresses and all the social media comedians making singles)
true that. but there are artists who then just fail in live performances or are lip snycing or constant playback or other mic effects...mariah carey is one good example of having failed multiple times live and then there's Adele Aguilera etc and rock bands who always sing live and you know it when it's live. imperfections in singing is what makes a live performance amazing and original and emotional.
Adele makes by the numbers soppy sad soul ballads, at least some of the artists like Kanye West and Bon Iver are doing experimental, interesting, creative things with it, which means more than simply trying to be emotional like Adele, probably the greatest female artist of all time Bjork understood technological distortion can be just as effective as a raw sound.
Singers aren't popular because they're talented. They're there because they're the 'product' that the music INDUSTRY sells to people just like you get sold an iphone. What makes an artist more appealing than another is the marketing behind it, the image they give you of that person. It's not by luck or by any 'talent' that some people suddenly become famous and blow off the charts, or the same artists be making number 1 hits or winning awards. Labels call and pay the radios to make you hear the same 5 songs every day for weeks until you like it (for example chainsmokers closer). Behind every hit song or album, there are about 3-5 producers, 2 vocal coaches and 1-2 songwriters in the studio telling the 'artist' what to do. And in the live show, they just have to play the song really loud and sing couple of words that are in their vocal range and let the audience sing the rest.
Zimzim..... Then there are singers like JASMINE LAMPORT.....who have NOTHING you have mentioned....she had 1 Producer(an unknown), 1 co-writer(me), no Major Label, zero budget(her songs were demo's), no vocal coach(unless you include me saying ("a little higher might work better there Jaz"), zero Radio exposure as yet. ....and yet Jasmine has nearly 60,000 youtube views and is selling songs and streaming songs GRADUALLY....as people are finding her....i wonder if it might be to do with her "naturally beautiful"vox. One of her songs now has a 94% like to dislike. If she does very well eventually maybe she will give folk one thing...FAITH in JOE PUBLIC'S OPINION. I know one or two top folk in the Music Industry who actually seem truly impressed by her stats. Have a listen to her Zimzim...she might not be your thing...but somebody is getting her!!! Is it possible that Jasmine Lamport is the "Holy Grail" of young artist's of the modern era. If you play her song "WHY?" and read her small comment section, have a little read of an Award-winning guy called STEVE PLEDGER'S critique of "WHY?"....maybe he knows something....subscribers are arriving of late. P.S. Jasmine has never toured. She has only performed to folk three times(100 at each gig)....STANDING OVATION at all three gigs....I WAS THERE in the wings....something special is being allowed to develop naturally. Come join us. Sonic Foxx SONIC FOXX MUSIC
Sound engineers have been “cheating” for decades. If tuning and adding effects is cheating then I cheat every time I play guitar. One thing you can’t fake is a good song. You can fake the performance but if the song sucks nothing will help.
Effects (overdrive, tremolo, noise gates, etc) ≠ autotune. Autotune would be taking my guitar that's physically tuned to Eb A D# Eb Bb F and correcting the output using software to make it sound like it was physically tuned to E A D G B E (Standard tuning).
Is it really cheating. Fuck. If it helps people make other people smile... then it's perfect. Fuck. Why are you not going AFTER EVERY FUCKING SELFIE IN AMERICA?
willwall it’s what they are saying on the video hahaha It’s like a program that artists can use to add some effects on the voice, kinda robotic and unnatural, to “correct” the frequency and notes, usually when it’s a high note.
Yep - Many use all the BG vocals on a track and it makes them sound more full. I've even seen singers with an auto-tune rack on stage along with a compressor to make it sound more like a studio vocal.
Music an art, everything they can do, they shouldn't be slated for doing, its a freedom and its all about the idea, but i think performance is a different story.
I think the issue is that people dish out real cash at concerts to hear someone lipsync to a recording because they aren't able to replicate their artificial studio enhanced voice.
ppl don't like auto tune because it takes something that took talent and turns it into something that you have to learn mainly just learn how to auto tune
People hate autotune because it robs the truly talented artists of their birthright. Producers only go for looks nowadays, someone that is going to get the little girlie's wetting their panties. The likes of Clapton, Mick Jagger ETC would not even get a start today.
Steve Bird Mick Jagger? That's not someone I'd pick to talk about great vocals. Jagger was all about selling attitude rather than vocal skills. In my opinion you kind of destroyed your own argument.
No he didn't, you just don't know what great vocals can mean. That attitude only works because of the techniques he uses when singing. Broaden your understanding of great vocals.
Kai Fuller Nothing you said here addresses in what way you think I'm wrong. He has little to no range, he's amelodic and unharmonious, but he can produce lots of volume and has a very distinctive sound, and coupled with the great songwriting it obviously works for the stones. But Jagger is by no means a great or even good vocalist, but he is a great Rockstar who fit the music.
Wolarski true but I don’t count little things like comping as cheating. I’m ok if an engineer comps my vocals for a different part of the song. I still sang it that way, he’s just using it again. Although purists might disagree I think this is one modern convenience we can be ok with
EXCELLENT introduction video to understand autotune. Nicely done, little unneeded crap, except where providing some humor (the walk by guy was hilarious), and good information and demonstrations.
All you anti-auto tune snobs are pathetic. All music nowadays uses auto tune to subtly correct pitch because it simply makes more sense. What's the difference to the listener whether the vocal was tracked/comped hundreds of times over and over until a perfect compilation of takes was made, like the way all your old music was recorded, or if it's just fixed by technology, if the end result is virtually the same? When used for subtle correction as opposed to the expressive vocal effect when pushed to harsh settings, it is a great tool for studio workflow. You are ignorant old timers.
This can relate to the problem with streaming. When you have artists not making money off of streaming, they have to tour to earn everything. And when they do that, they can't make as much good music. Now this can be a problem for bands who actually write their own songs and don't drown it with technology, but people using auto tune and stuff like that can keep up at a regular pace. However, if you're good enough, you should do fine. The band Tool ,for example, still only sells cd's and vinyl, and they still do amazing
This difference is real singers don't need autotune. Listen to Fergi with autotune versus her signing the National Anthem at the NBA allstar game without auttune. She's not a singer.
I kinda want to see the people that think anyone can just hop in the studio and make a pop song with no talent needed do just that. If it's so easy I want to see them do it
Cher's "Believe" was most assuredly not the first use of Autotune (TM). Autotune was developed simply to automate a process of pitch correction studio engineers had been using for years with Pro-Tools and Eventide Harmonizers or other external pitch changers. Autotune incorporated the Pitch Correction into the DAW and added automation tools to repair multiple notes, first in one pass, and then in real time. "Believe" was created by deliberately abusing the plug-in to create a new sound. The tool was already in many studios and had been used on countless recordings.
In no way should it even be called "cheating." You are supposed to like music because it sounds good to you, skill required to make said music should have *nothing* to do with whether or not you like the song. Yes, you can like more organic style vocals, But if artists can find an easier way to achieve that, What is the problem? It's innovation, not "cheating."
Neither can I : they sound like robots or even worse, like some 'Mickey Mouse' with a muzak background for supermarkets ! Actually, when I go shopping, I do it as quickly as possible, mostly because of the crap we have to hear...
@@pamelapopo8627 Obviously, you don't mix or pruduce any music. Some people go for a certain anesthetic and prefer a robotic sound, which is fine but most of the time, when the tuning is great and the performer good enough, you won't even notice it. It's like CGI: people hate it but don't realise it's there most of the time unless it's really bad.
The thing is: this stuff can help a lot with densely layered pop tracks, but if you're going for a more minimalistic approach, if you can't really sing, you're hosed, because no one wants a quiet part of a song with all the noise that autotune plugins bring.
I am torn on vocal production. I definitely like the ease and speed it can give to the process with a perfection that could take dozens of takes to get right. But I also miss some natural sounding vox and occasional natural pitch variations that add humanity to a voice. I am not against using whatever tools are at my disposal when I record music, but when I'm making songs in certain genres, I avoid using things like pitch correction because I want a more raw sound.
One more thing to consider is that some musicians do create great music and lyrics, except they don't always have the voice to bring that musical composition to life. In this case, some cheating is quite necessary.
All I keep thinking is "The Beatles did their first album in a day, the Beatles did their first album in a day, the Beatles did their first album in a day... and it was a masterpiece, the Beatles did their first album in a day... John Lennon's voice was wrecked at the end of the day... the Beatles did their first album in a day... completely finished it not just recorded it... the Beatles did their first album in a day..."
CyberChrist Haha yeah obviously But my point was that they didn't need 100 takes for every single line and instrument and no post-production to make an absolutely splendid album, only their raw skills
They already knew how to play the songs. They didn't need rehearsal, that work was done by performing the songs in bars day after day. They just went to the studio and did them.
I applaud this guy for making his case in a short 5 min video. He's not editorializing here with a value judgement (except for the click-bait-y usage of the word "cheat" in the video's title). He's just explaining/educating… nice. Assuming you have an audio interface for your computer with good A/D converters , a good mic & pre-amp… Pick your favorite DAW: Pro Tools, Logic, Ableton Live, Cubase, Digital Performer, Sonar… add AutoTune (if you want the branded product, there are other pitch quantizing software tools that work well too), add Melodyne, and/or Revoice Pro 4 and YES, once you've learned how to use these tools you can make singers who otherwise wouldn't sound good, sound good (in the modern pop music sense anyway).
The best singers will not default to the exact pitch of the equal tempered note. Notes will be a few cents sharp or flat in a good way. Autotune makes bad singers sound better, but it makes great singers sound worse.
