What exactly is this anyway and why does it make people mad? I'm not familiar with music production, I just hear a lot of people online ranting about fake Autotuned singers.

>>126975431 (OP)
It's that throat punching effect introduced on "Believe." Basically it became an overused effect on tracks that annoys people because nobody likes hearing "Weuhuhuhell" on songs.

>>126975431 (OP)
when you play paino, each key plays a note and if you play the wrong note then your song sounds off. When singing, you are playing the same notes except you have to develop muscle memory to find each note since it's not a physical instrument. Most people can't sing a whole song while singing the exact notes required so what auto-tune does is that it adjusts the notes sung into the correct notes. People don't like it because they think it allows for un-talented singers to sing songs well since they don't need to sing the correct notes as a computer just fixes it for you.

>>126975591
>>126975311
how come boomer singers were able to sing without needing pitch correction? why was that not a problem then but it is now?

>>126975431 (OP)
it's awful but the new thing to bitch about is AI which i imagine more pop singers will use in the future just so they don't have to go in the studio

Have you heard what Katy Perry sounds like live? It's pretty horrifying.

>>126975723
Pitch correction's got nothing to do with nothing. It can't make you actually sound good and she sounds bad on the records as well. Just loud with no technique.

>>126975689
well that's the issue. Boomer singers had to practice non-stop to be able not not make mistakes so that's why people hate it. It allows for sub-par talent to succeed.

>>126975689
well you know in the 50s they loved flexing their vocal technique to show off, it was a "oh look at what I can do" thing like here. now I highly doubt Katy Perry could do this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCKODPHGi8A

>>126975689
Overdubs and primitive pitch correction techniques

>>126975744
But I'm still not sure about that because >>126975727. At best PC would just be a Band-Aid it can't actually turn you into Capitol-era Sinatra.

>>126975431 (OP)
>HOLY SHIT

>>126975689
Most singers back then developed their technique singing church hymns but not so many people attend church anymore outside the South so the talent pool of singing isn't nearly what it once was.

that's not fair. i mean Chappell Roan can sing pretty well maybe not as great as boomer singers but it's not like nobody born after 1960 has no pipes.

>>126975761
people don't know that though. In practice you still need a good voice but people think that it turns bad singers into good ones magically. There is still skill involved in singing in tune which involves a lot of practice so the idea is not entirely wrong.

>>126975788
I mean yeah but she did grow up in a conservative Midwestern state with churchgoing parents so she probably did get some early exposure to that stuff even if she won't really admit it.

>>126975744
Actually you can hate hip-hop more for that because it allowed a lot of otherwise talentless black kids to get a music career when they never would have made it in the 50s or whatever if they couldn't sing or play an instrument.

>>126975727
Taylor Swift has really bad pitch control, I don't think any editing was actually done to her songs because she's extremely warbly. She has volume and can project her voice but her technique is shit.

The rock era tended to deprecate really florid singing but there was a comeback starting with Whitney Houston. Everyone hated that generation of pop girls so much though that there was another reaction against it in the 2000s.

>>126975431 (OP)
I see a ton of people defending it with the typical "move on, it's 2025!" non-argument. As if as time moves on we should continue to dumb down the arts... just cause? Same people who defend autotune, lose their mind over AI slop. When in reality they're not that different. Both are just progressively higher stepping stones used to reach the total death human art and creativity and let any fucking asshole do something without practice or drive. If your soul is in it you'll practice, if it isn't you'll cut corners for profit.

>>126975955
>I see a ton of people defending it with the typical "move on, it's 2025!" non-argument.
Fantano is not "a ton of people."

>>126975689
ok. that will be take 139...

>>126975431 (OP)
so can a completely tone deaf singer be made to sound great through autotune?

>>126975955
Both AI and autotune are just tools, and the way they are used is a reflection of the artists creativity. Autotune and other vocal processing can be used for hiding a lack of talent just as it can be used for achieving a creative vocal effect that makes a song unique. The reason people lose their mind over genAI specifically is because the majority of its use right now is enabling untalented people to churn out mediocre slop with 0 effort.

>>126978641
no, they can be made to sing in tune. but thats just like having your guitar in tune, it doesnt make you a great guitarist. theres way more to being a talented singer than just hitting notes, thats just one part of it.

>>126978200
Nobody back then needed 139 takes to do a song, zoomer.

autotune as a corrective is an abomination but autotune as a deliberate musical style (eg T-Pain) is kino

>>126975431 (OP)
It moves each note you sing to its closest pitch on the standard A440 equal temperament system. It's used to correct out of pitch singing which is why a lot of pop singing since the early 2000s sounds soulless. Autotune by nature reduces the potential for expression by turning your voice essentially into a piano. Not that pianos aren't expressive but they lack the ability to slide between notes that the human voice has.
Autotune turned up to 11 can be a cool effect though. Sounds like a vocoder on steroids. Listen to Lost by Avenged Sevenfold. It's a pretty good song that uses the effect.

>>126980781
>autotune as a deliberate musical style (eg T-Pain) is kino

>>126980862
fuck you im doubling down
HOW MANY TIMES YOU GON GO TO MIAMI

Autotune originally was invented to locate the bottom of bodies of water or some bullshit. People (used to) hate it because it pitch corrected singers’ voices, so they were perceived as more inauthentic, plus not everyone had the means to use it. People like it now because gay musicians use it as part of their artistry + nostalgia

Guys don’t talk like we need to go back to the ‘50s…

https://youtu.be/XHnED0MCsfA

What current artist would have the balls to go solo acoustic no mixing no track just one take all alone…
>>126975822
lol son the decade when hip-hop was most popular (‘90s) there were many elite vocalists… so many that missy Elliott was considered a bad singer…

https://youtu.be/cWHicFCKxVE

And yet she mogs every zoomer pop star.

>>126981002
The 90s was a decade when cursive singing had a major resurgence.

>>126981002
>Guys don’t talk like we need to go back to the ‘50s…

>>126980850
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4sVwnTB-qE

I mean there were 50s songs too that did that metronomic piano effect. Georgia Gibbs did a lot of them.

>>126980850
I don't think Taylor Swift's tracks use that though, at least they don't sound like it to me.

>>126981079
it depends on the arrangement, this one clearly lent itself to a staccato singing style whereas you could have had a string ballad with gushy flowing vocals

>>126975431 (OP)
really anon? the name is pretty self-explanatory

I think he means like Avril Lavigne or Katy Perry their tracks sound plastic as fuck.

AI is the real enemy, not autotune. autotune is a tool, AI is a cheat code

>>126981197
the significance of AI is overrated, it's a meme/gimmick and i've never taken it took seriously

>>126981177
bro do you really want to hear Avril Lavigne doing 50s showtune shit? no you don't.

>>126981644
I would. but only once

>>126979167
>thats just like having your guitar in tune, it doesnt make you a great guitarist.
that's true. kek. your guitar can be totally in tune but you can still play totally out of key

>>126975689
>how come boomer singers were able to sing without needing pitch correction?
nobody needs pitch "correction". this is a lie that is perpetrated by the corporate music industry. autotuning a voice strips away any personality and subtlety from the performance, which is perfect for the current soulless, corporate, board room, assembly-line "content" that gets passed off as pop music these days. pop singers used to become famous because they were exceptional singers, now they get famous because they're some producers niece that fits a certain "look" the corporation is going for

>>126984946
thanks for the protip, Reddit

>>126984946
oh, and the other thing I want to say is: people seem to think that singing passionately or using vibrato or whatever is the hardest part of singing, but that's actually the easiest part. the hard part of singing is staying on pitch. so all of this pitch adjustment software removes the actual hard part that takes talent and practice from the art form, which really makes you wonder why these performers are getting paid all of this money. singers used to get praised for their skill at their craft, now they get praised for, what, being hot?

>>126984970
nigger, I would snap you in half.

>>126984976
I have no idea if PC was used on Taylor Swift's songs but it doesn't sound like it because she has obviously poor pitch control and can't stay in tune for shit.

>>126984946
>>126984976
You guys aren't getting it. They did have a wave of overboosted cursive vocal singers starting with Whitney Houston. Everyone complained about it and Whitney became a meme. It's not as if the industry didn't try but everyone hated it so much they said well fuck it we'll just use non-singers and sort of vaguely patch them up with PC to sound passable.

>>126985043
>overboosted cursive vocal singers
what the fuck does that mean

>>126985068
What he said, Whitney, Mariah, Celine etc. Everyone complained that they were obnoxious so they caused a huge overreaction of non-singers.

>>126985024
>I have no idea if pitch adjustment was used on Taylor Swift's songs
it was. every single singer you hear on the radio has been pitch adjusted, without exception. it is the industry standard.

>>126985085
>Everyone complained that they were obnoxious
is that why Mariah Carey had like 10 number one hits in the 90s?

>>126985024
Swift can at least sing a little bit while someone like Katy Perry sounds like an AI singing.

>>126985107
the backlash came a little later, mainly in the 2000s. but if you were not a zoomer you would remember that "I Will Always Love You" was a widely detested meme back in the day.

Chappell Roan actually can sing and you guys clown on her for it.

>>126985164
her problem isn't her physical skills it's her total lack of mental skills

lol Katy Perry's non-singing was exposed 15 years ago she can't perform live for shit

>>126985118
I never thought so. She's loud and can project her voice and maybe has a little better sense of melody than KP but she doesn't have a good tone and is extremely warbly, as anon said staying in key is really tough and she really can't do it to save her life.

>>126985135
>you're a zoomer
that's pretty rich coming from the guy who says shit like "cursive singing"

>>126985164
I'll never know because I will never listen to one of her songs ever.

>>126985200
that's why I wondered. if they use PC on her songs (and I'll take >>126985095's word for it) it doesn't seem to be doing anything because she still sounds out of key most of the time.

>>126985252
The real answer is that Swift is so shitty that she defeats all attempts at PC and it can't even make her sound in key. (^:

>>126985164
Ariana Grande can sing too but only actually tried it on album one after that she just does a lame monotone blaccent.

>>126985267
They probably didn't want her doing that because the industry was still afraid of the anti-Whitney backlash (no cursive singing please we don't need "I Will Always Love You" comparisons)

>>126985252
I've never heard her sound out of key. can you post an example?

>>126975431 (OP)
Only people who can't drive get mad at this.

>>126985288
nta but asking him to subject himself to a TS song even for research purposes is not very nice. you know better than that.

Well I mean if you read issues of Downbeat from the 50s whatever they obviously mainly talk about the singer's, well, vocals? Nobody actually talks about that in relation to Katy Perry except to ridicule her for non-singing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Yjc5aSgwI

i think you guys are confused with the mastering used on something like this which gives it that flat digital effect. that's not pitch correction it's just the mastering because producers liked that plasticy EDM sound for some reason (why I have no idea though). she's obviously singing on here although not very well/

>>126985506
If you wanted to tell me that KP is a shitty singer you won't find me disputing that, she has very limited technique and no sense of melody to speak of.

>>126975762
goatse lookin ass album cover

>>126985461
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muV5_M6cBGE
Since you mentioned 50s stuff you notice that those records have depth to them they sound three dimensional but >>126985506 sounds totally flat, there's no dynamics to it.

>>126985538
Still had it all the way to the 90s, stuff sounded like you were actually in a concert hall with the singer. I don't get why anyone thought making everything sound completely flatted and digital was a good idea.

>>126981207
tell me this in 5 years

>>126985520
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRBS4slLguE

Some of her live vocals. Variable quality, some of them are ok even decent although the performance of California Gurls is pretty bad. She sounds obviously Whitney-like on many of these which I'd expect of most pop singers of her generation. I do agree the processing on a lot of these albums including hers is pretty bad.

>>126985548
it's a deliberate effect they liked that detached robot sound

>>126985538
Why does this sound like "The Logical Song"?

>>126985759
it doesn't

>>126985759
similar chord progression but that's probably just a coincidence and Supertramp used the same chords because they sounded good. however it really rips off Kitty Kallen's "Little Things Mean a Lot" to the point where she even sounds like Kallen.

>>126985632
She probably could be ok if she got proper vocal coaching.

>>126975431 (OP)
noise

>>126975431 (OP)
cybernetic enhancement to allow negroes to appear to sing competently to 80 IQ's and like a poorly programmed singing robot to everyone else.

>>126985297
I'm not asking him to do research, I'm asking him to name the song he heard where she sounds out of key. I'm interested to hear it.

>>126985506
>that's not pitch correction
yeah it is, listen to how the note "wild" at 0:17 warbles. that's due to the software keeping it from going off pitch. explain to me how mastering would achieve that affect.
pitch adjustment does not necessarily mean the pronounced cher - "believe" warbling. modern producers usually use pretty subtle manual adjusting via something like Melodyne and with someone like katy perry, who can actually sing decently, it's not going to be that noticeable.

>>126985538
>there's no dynamics to it.
it's a club song. there aren't supposed to be.

>>126985538
As anon said it's an intentional stylistic choice to sound like a detached robot. A bad one but an intentional one. I think they're trying to emulate "Blue Monday" except that song still had depth to it and wasn't as totally flat as this.

>>126987989
club songs aren't supposed to be dynamic just a flat beat. Blue Monday was the same way.

I think he's confusing dynamics with something else. Dynamics is more like a song speeding up or slowing down.

>>126987989
because that was the 80s, do you have any idea how much lower the caliber of pop production has gotten since?

Britney Spears actually could sing ok too but they forced her to use that dumb baby voice.

>>126985632
>although the performance of California Gurls is pretty bad
her voice was kinda hoarse in that clip there. maybe she was just having an off day idk.