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

[jens]

I'll side with musicianship via hard work.

[Bombadil]

I'm a proud Luddite. How about just actual musicianship? Not too much to ask.

[jens]

Pride makes people do the weirdest things.

[jens]

I'm a proud Luddite. How about just actual musicianship? Not too much to ask.

What about you and me both share a song here to compare our actual musicianship?

(Pitch correction is all over my vocals these days)

[vurt]

im on the it's a tool camp.

i don't use it myself (wouldn't help my vocals, i reckon id make yoko cringe) and im not a fan of the overuse chipmunk effect.

but, many folk do enjoy that sound, and there are more subtle uses, but music, it's entertainment, if people enjoy it, good for them!

[Bombadil]

I'm a proud Luddite. How about just actual musicianship? Not too much to ask.

What about you and me both share a song here to compare our actual musicianship?

(Pitch correction is all over my vocals these days)

No. Whatever musicianship I have was earned the hard way. I don't feel the need to compete on that level with anyone. AT is a cheat. Rationalizations aka 'everything within a DAW is a cheat' do not logically follow.

[jens]

What about you and me both share a song here to compare our actual musicianship?

Just to make sure: you of course need to have done it all yourself.

Quantization - what about musicianship?

Drum-software - what about musicianship?

Arpeggiator or MIDI-sequencer - what about musicianship?

Asked a buddy to play this or that on your song? What about musicianship?


You see just how silly this gets?

[mellotronaut]

Hard tuning effects are synonymous with Autotune but they needn't be. A few billion people had no clue Autotune was being used at all because the engineer dialed back the settings and automated it so that you'd never know it was doing its thing. It's almost as if some people in this thread have little experience with it.

Since someone brought up the Eventide H910 we are now going as far back as 1974. That's 49 years where we've been mucking with pitch correction. You'd think we'd have it sorted by now.

Think of all of the innovations to music making that have happened during the past 50 years that have changed audio production or given rise to entire genres of music. How many of you have ever used quantizing to tighten up a performance, used a sampler and arranged your beats, how about changing the entire structure of a song with a few keystrokes. Hell, I put a band in a stone church in Norway and they didn't leave my basement . I suppose that makes any of us who have used a DAW, a sampler, virtual instrument, harmonizer and countless other tools a fraud. It seems nonsensical to me that Autotune gets singled out as the harbinger of musical doom.

Creative people will make noise. Not all of it will be good, not all of it will be tasteful. Some of it will be cliche. Some musicians will accuse others of being cheaters as they hypocritically caress tiny imperfections in their own mixes using any of the hundreds of plugins that they have installed on version 12 of their current DAW.

A rare few will make art that stands the test of time and will use the tools of the day to do so. Twas ever thus. Perspective people.

that's it in a nutshell.

[jens]

No. Whatever musicianship I have was earned the hard way. I don't feel the need to compete on that level with anyone. AT is a cheat. Rationalizations aka 'everything within a DAW is a cheat' do not logically follow.

I think your argument is bollocks in its entirety. I mostly do all my music all on my own and I strive to make something I am happy with. I use the tools I have available to achieve that to an extent I consider appropriate. Nobody else can make that call. And of course I can't do everything perfectly, nobody can.

So it's always a compromise where in search of an optimal quality you balance authenticity and what you feel is still organic enough with other less authentic means to achieve your artistic objective.

Bringing in session musicians is not authentic. You didn't come up with what they play; at least not exactly that. I also means your music is less organic. It's pieced together basically.

Comping is neither perfectly authentic nor organic.

And also, perhaps the most important point:

the more you seek to avoid situations where your valued "musicianship" doesn't cut it, the more likely you are to stay on the safe side and the more likely it is that your music will suffer from being boring, derivative, stale and overly simple.

[vurt]

i just wonder, how cher feels about the war she started?

[Bombadil]

What about you and me both share a song here to compare our actual musicianship?

Just to make sure: you of course need to have done it all yourself.

Quantization - what about musicianship?

Drum-software - what about musicianship?

Arpeggiator or MIDI-sequencer - what about musicianship?

Asked a buddy to play this or that on your song? What about musicianship?


You see just how silly this gets?

My best recordings were done without a click track. In my life, I learned with a lifelong friend. He did the keys and drums, I did the guitars and bass. We both sang. Now, I have no one to play drums, so I use a drum program. No other choice. Same for keys, though I can manage well enough there.
Never used an arp on any of my songs, or any other midi effect. That's not to say I won't.
But you get the idea. If I use sample-based instruments it,s because I have no other option.

[jens]

And yet again:

this thread is a cheap opportunity for many a lesser musician to feel all smug about those who might have their skills, talent, industriuosness and artistic ability tenfold.
Steven Wilson recently freely admitted in an interview with Rick Beato that he makes use of pitch-correction. His stance was that it's perfectly fine as long as it's unnoticeable.

[Bombadil]

No. Whatever musicianship I have was earned the hard way. I don't feel the need to compete on that level with anyone. AT is a cheat. Rationalizations aka 'everything within a DAW is a cheat' do not logically follow.

I think your argument is bollocks in its entirety. I mostly do all my music all on my own and I strive to make something I am happy with. I use the tools I have available to achieve that to an extent I consider appropriate. Nobody else can make that call. And of course I can't do everything perfectly, nobody can.

So it's always a compromise where in search of an optimal quality you balance authenticity and what you feel is still organic enough with other less authentic means to achieve your artistic objective.

Bringing in session musicians is not authentic. You didn't come up with what they play; at least not exactly that. I also means your music is less organic. It's pieced together basically.

Comping is neither perfectly authentic nor organic.

And also, perhaps the most important point:

the more you seek to avoid situations where your valued "musicianship" doesn't cut it, the more likely you are to stay on the safe side and the more likely it is that your music will suffer from being boring, derivative, stale and overly simple.

And I think you're overly defensive. Must have hit a nerve.

[jens]

Now, I have no one to play drums, so I use a drum program. No other choice.
[...]
If I use sample-based instruments it,s because I have no other option.

And where in God's name do you think would be the difference with pitch-correction?

[vurt]

And yet again:

this thread is a cheap opportunity for many a lesser musician to feel all smug about those who might have their skills, talent, industriuosness and artistic ability tenfold.
Steven Wilson recently freely admitted in an interview with Rick Beato that he makes use of pitch-correction. His stance was that it's perfectly fine as long as it's unnoticeable.

doesn't surprise me with wilson, i think id be more shocked if he was against it. he's always been quite open and experimental