Auto-Tune inventor Dr. Andy Hildebrand wins Grammy and celebrates with limited time promo price

[DCrown]

Well, back in the day in most cases you had to be good or unique or talented to get a contract signed.

No.

So much junk got released, it's not funny anymore. The only difference to the junk of today is that it was better produced and marketed with often huge budgets once a suit decided it was commercially useful.

I wonder if you really believe the silly, wildly naive nonsense you post here.

I see, only your opinion is a good and valid opinion, because only you know the truth and you are Mr. KNOW-IT-ALL and what you write is right and has to be accepted. A poor attempt trying to defend a worthless mass product, that's what music is today. I see
Maybe try to find out what the average duration of youngsters listening to one song is. 30 seconds, swipe to the next and so on. Some say that the average song length in about ten years will be 1 minute.
We rarely have bridges today, soon verses will be gone, too, refrains only !
Have to accept it, because times are changing. What a joy it is listening to a complete album

[El°HYM]

@Urs
The decline started in 1990s with daws, soon everyone could all of sudden produce music. At first glance it sounds nice that everyone can produce music on a small budget. Today we have 100.000 new audio uploads every day. It would take a whole life to listen to every track of one day only.
Back in the day you could easily listen to all new releases of a week on a weekend.
So it's kinda paradox that you develop plugins for daws and herby support the system knowing your views now, I know it's not your aim to support bad or soulless music productions.
There's still good music today, but not that easy to find, music is a mass product today.
It's like a lot of people have become car producers, but lots of cars with brakes not working properly, with faulty steering or some even forgot to add wheels.
It's more difficult to produce a car than one might think.

Oh, boy!

Back in the day it was the record companies who decided what music was avalaible
and productions were super-expensive, so they funded these and at the same time drove the artists into
debt with it which made it easier for them to control them. Talent was not as important to get a name as it is today, because a) those big studios were brilliant at polishing turds (and they worked weeks or even months on it, splicing tape, punching in, overdubbing like there's no tomorrow; and b) the companies spent at lot of dosh for marketing these turds. And even the really talented artists often were hammered into submission by their record companies, thus resulting in their work being artistically significantly inferior to what it could have become otherwise.

And how many complete albums of respected artists disappeared in the labels' archives forever, just because some suit decided it wasnb't comercially viable!?

And that is exactly the reason why so much fantastic music is coming out these days. The talented people (of which there are more than plently) can produce at home whatever they envision and then release it on their own.

While this is certainly true, there was also the exact opposite of that. Thinking of highly talented session musicians like The Funk Brothers for example, who defined the Sound of Motown and a whole Era. Plus the more than talented Engineers of those Days. Different Times at least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAhJMsi_a1U

[jens]

I see, only your opinion is a good and valid opinion

Oh the irony - I am not the one of the two of us who vilifies a certain tool and in one broad, vastly arrogant, ignorant and ill-informed stroke insults anyone and everyone who dares to use said tool.

[DCrown]

I see, only your opinion is a good and valid opinion

Oh the irony - I am not the one of the two of us who vilifies a certain tool and in one broad, vastly arrogant, ignorant and ill-informed stroke insults anyone and everyone who dares to use said tool.

Funny that a known Top 10 insulter posts something like this
I am the only one who dislikes autotune in your world, don't worry Antares will survive it lol
And now you behave like a offended boy who does not get his toy. And you really thought you could force me to upload or link one of my mixes? Again: no! That's not the topic.

[revvy]

Urs, read who you’re aligned with, and weep.

Who I'm aligned with? Who I shit on?

What's next?

What I better think or else?

You’re aligned with the folks in this thread claiming mo decent music has been written in the last 40 years and that AT is the devil.

You shit on Antares and anyone who uses AT as they are, according to you, responsible for the define in music and reduced sales.

No idea what your last sentence means, sorry.

I think you're conflating several things here.

My last sentence means that I do not appreciate being told what to think or which opinion to voice, or to voice an opinion at all if someone disapproves of it. IMHO implying some sort of consequence of doing so is that.

I do not think the tool itself is the issue. The issue is that its overuse has become "a thing", almost as if in certain cultures it is code to use this tool that way, as if one has to do it to belong.

I personally stopped listening to contemporary popular music channels (charts, radio, TV) since the majority of songs seemed to contain robot voices. This may be coincidental, but I sure think there's a relation. I do recall instances of people doing the same, so I'm just extrapolating a pattern and forming an opinion based on that.

Finding contemporary music that I like has become hard, tedious even, but I do find things. As such, I do believe that a lot of contemporary music is great. Not sure why my opinion somehow implies the opposite, unless being conflated ("aligned") in an unreflected way.

(I also remember now that there was another song using the Cher effect that I actually liked, but it was self referential to the method of production)

You posted inflammatory nonsense and I disagreed with you. Didn’t imply any consequences. At the same time I didn’t blow smoke up your arse, no. I’ll leave that to so many other willing smoke-belchers.

Honestly: Im not angry with you Urs. I’m. Just. Disappointed.

And of course, FWIW, insanely jealous of your skills and success in the musical SW/HW field. That goes without saying, sir. *chapeau*

[jens]

While this is certainly true, there was also the exact opposite of that. Thinking of highly talented session musicians like The Funk Brothers for example, who defined the Sound of Motown and a whole Era.

And yet they weren't even credited but instead were paid by the penny and partly died in poverty.

Thanks for making my point so eloquenty.

[DCrown]

While this is certainly true, there was also the exact opposite of that. Thinking of highly talented session musicians like The Funk Brothers for example, who defined the Sound of Motown and a whole Era.

And yet they weren't even credited but instead were paid by the penny and partly died in poverty.

Thanks for making my point so eloquenty.

What do you think? Just a guess.
How many of the daily 100.000 uploads don't even ever see a penny?!

[jens]

What could be your point? Leave that goal-post alone, will ya?

[Scotty]

I am not trying to "hide the fact" of anything with that post. To deny that age is not a factor in our perception of music, especially pop music is at least naive. My children are avid consumers of music. To them music is not in decline, it is as relevant to them as it was to me. They are not bothered by the pervasive use of technology and they grew up in a musical household where the walls are filled with traditional instruments.

Times change and how we relate to what is new and how it is generated is at least in part a function of age.

I was having a drink with a guy at our local pub and he was reliving his past . He caught himself mid sentence and said ... "You know, the older I get, the better I was." Ain't that the truth, I thought.

Today I am medium age and it's hard to find new releases that I really enjoy today. Your post is also more or less a standard reply trying to hide the fact that most of today's music isn't that good, not saying everything was great back in the day.

[DCrown]

Yes I will leave this thread, enough being discussed, Autotune thread always pops up as first thread and I am to blame for it, too.
I am not going to support free autotune promotion any further

[revvy]

This thread reminds me of the film Up.

I’ll be in f**king tears in a minute.

Or puking. One of the two.

[jens]

Here's a general remark (one can basically be applied to anything):

If you are speaking out AGAINST a process of democratization, then the question arises why that is and what it exactly is that you fear.
And whatever the answer to that may be you are a) on the wrong side of history and b) in the process render yourself irrelevant and a relict of days gone by - and justly and for the better so.

[El°HYM]

While this is certainly true, there was also the exact opposite of that. Thinking of highly talented session musicians like The Funk Brothers for example, who defined the Sound of Motown and a whole Era.

And yet they weren't even credited but instead were paid by the penny and partly died in poverty.

Thanks for making my point so eloquenty.

Me was more referring to the skills & talent that was around in those days. You might agree that the Musical Industrial Complex hasnt really changed that much, as a session musician would still get the same kind of deal in these days. Furthermore we now having Songwriting Camps mass producing musical Products, which can then establish themselves on the market. A lot has also been lost throughout the Decades, while never have been perfect for the Artists from the very Beginning.

[jens]

Me was more referring to the skills & talent that was around in those days.

hm... I could have sworn I made it quite easy to understand my point, but apparently that's not the case at all.

So let me try again:

Talent exists. It existed back then and it exists today. That is not what this discussion is - or should be - about at all from my point of view. So there is zero point in replying with examples of talent to my argument, as if part of my argument ever had been an alleged lack of talent back in the day. It was not in any shape, way or form. Neither did I plainly say anything that could be interpreted that way nor did I hint at me assuming there were no - or few - talented musicians back in the day.

In fact my argument was basically the exact opposite of that. My argument was that only because the music that was released was better produced back then than a lot of stuff that is released today that in no way means that the artists whose name was on the cover were all more talented than most muscians are nowadays.

[El°HYM]

I agree to disagree.