The Autotune Thread

[send me a picture and i'll tell you]

Really? How so?

And did/does anyone hear pitch correction on Fallon's show?

Nope.  And I didn't hear it on the Beacon GV clip either.

Drives me crazy too when people say BW's vocals were somehow processed, but not necessarily pitch-corrected.  (facepalm)

To that, I ask: how many other forms of processing/chorusing/whatever cause the pitches of the notes to be affected in such a way that they fall neatly into the 12 chromatic slots of the Western scale?

I'm guessing the answer is none.  Why would something that's not pitch correction change pitches?

Count me in among those who would be absofreakinglutely thrilled to hear NO pitch correction.  I'm calling it as I see it, not as I want it to be.  Therein lies the difference; I think the anti-Autotuners have decided in advance that it's not happening, and to them any evidence to the contrary must be faulty or just a matter of opinion.  

Folks, those slowed-down samples I posted are evidence, not opinion.  And the conclusion is not one that pleaseth me. But I'd rather be accurate than happy.

[Wirestone]

Someone offers a dodgy technical explanation as to exactly why Autotune would make someone who sings a B instead of an F sound like they're singing the wrong note.

It's not a dogdy technical explanation. It's how the program works.

Autotune is tuned to a scale -- probably the chromatic scale, which gives you all the sharps and flats. Think of a giant piano keyboard. If Brian is singing a pitch that's in between two keys on the piano, autotune will move the pitch of his voice to whichever note is closer. But Brian sings very, very flat sometimes. So the program "corrects" him to the lower, incorrect note.

People are getting way too hung up on the name of the program. It's more accurate to say that in a live context, autotune is a "pitch mover" and "pitch smoother" rather than a pitch corrector.

[send me a picture and i'll tell you]

Really? How so?

"They're not using Autotune, because Brian is singing flat!  Autotune wouldn't allow someone to sound flat, and I'm not talking a whole step or two whole steps.  I'm talking, say, 30 cents flat!! It's called AUTOTUNE, for Christ's sake!"

Someone offers a dodgy technical explanation as to exactly why Autotune would make someone who sings a B instead of an F sound like they're singing the wrong note.

"But he's not singing a wrong note, he's singing a few cents flat!  Autotune wouldn't allow someone to sound a few cents flat if it was doing it's job. It's called AUTOTUNE, for Christ's sake!"

Someone offers a dodgy technical explanation as to exactly why Autotune would make someone who sings a B instead of an F sound like they're singing the wrong note.

I haven't heard Brian sing 30 cents flat on any sustained note.  It has ALWAYS flipped between half steps. Show me where someone explaining Autotune has said that the notes falls ANYWHERE except on a specific note.  Go back and listen to my samples again, and follow the notes with a keyboard. Play along with the pitches I notated.

B and F?  No. B and B-flat, maybe. No one ever suggested any interval larger than a half-step. The explanations have not been dodgy-- in what way have the explanations been dodgy?-- they've generally been provided by people who have used pitch correction software.  Have you?

I'm afraid your analogy contains inaccuracies which are purposefully put there to make your point sound valid.  If I correct the B-F thing and the 30-cents thing, we have:

"They're not using Autotune, because Brian is singing flat!  Autotune wouldn't allow someone to sound flat, and I'm talking a half step flat!! It's called AUTOTUNE, for Christ's sake!"
Someone offers a technical explanation as to exactly why Autotune would make someone who sings a B-flat instead of a B sound like they're singing the wrong note.
"But he's not singing a wrong note, he's singing a few cents flat!  Autotune wouldn't allow someone to sound a few cents flat if it was doing it's job. It's called AUTOTUNE, for Christ's sake!"
Someone offers a technical explanation as to exactly why Autotune would make someone who sings a B-flat instead of an B sound like they're singing the wrong note. And no one can point out where a sustained note is 30 cents flat, rather than being exactly accurate or a half step off.
"But he's not singing a wrong note, he's singing a few cents flat!  Autotune wouldn't allow someone to sound a few cents flat if it was doing it's job. It's called AUTOTUNE, for Christ's sake!"
Someone offers a technical explanation as to exactly why Autotune would make someone who sings a B-flat instead of an B sound like they're singing the wrong note. And no one can point out where a sustained note is 30 cents flat, rather than being exactly accurate or a half step off.

[LostArt]

Someone offers a dodgy technical explanation as to exactly why Autotune would make someone who sings a B instead of an F sound like they're singing the wrong note.

It's not a dogdy technical explanation. It's how the program works.

Autotune is tuned to a scale -- probably the chromatic scale, which gives you all the sharps and flats. Think of a giant piano keyboard. If Brian is singing a pitch that's in between two keys on the piano, autotune will move the pitch of his voice to whichever note is closer. But Brian sings very, very flat sometimes. So the program "corrects" him to the lower, incorrect note.

People are getting way too hung up on the name of the program. It's more accurate to say that in a live context, autotune is a "pitch mover" and "pitch smoother" rather than a pitch corrector.

Again (please read carefully), his voice isn't a half step or a whole step or two steps flat.  It's less than half a step, so why isn't the pitch correction moving that note that's 30 cents flat up to the note that he's trying to sing, or down to the note one half step lower?

[send me a picture and i'll tell you]

Where?

Read my post above.  It's on-pitch or a half-step off, not 30 cents off.  Please give me an example of what you're hearing.

[LostArt]

I haven't heard Brian sing 30 cents flat on any sustained note.  It has ALWAYS flipped between half steps.

Not true.  I shouldn't need to point them out.  They're everywhere, just as they were on TWGMTR on Fallon.  If I have time when I get home later, I may just have to find an example for you. It shouldn't take more than a few seconds to find one.

[send me a picture and i'll tell you]

And it has never been 2 steps flat, and I doubt that it's been a whole step off either.  

Pitch correction ALWAYS moves the note to the closest half-step, whether up or down, and Brian sings close to a half-step off at times, but rarely if ever beyond that.

[LostArt]

And it has never been 2 steps flat, and I doubt that it's been a whole step off either.  

Pitch correction ALWAYS moves the note to the closest half-step, whether up or down, and Brian sings close to a half-step off at times, but rarely if ever beyond that.

You're right, but I've heard people try to make that argument here.

[guitarfool2002]

And we're back to the Oswald photo...

Pages ago there is a post taken from my own Autotune rackmount ownership which describes how it is programmed to either do the chromatic scale (which is most used for the deliberate robotic effects), a full major scale (which is more accurate and transparent), or partial scales containing only select notes from that scale to be tuned and the rest of them to go unaffected (which would allow for a more 'human', natural sound and works best for singers who may have pitch issues on a few high or low notes in their range but are generally in tune).

If you want it to correct every single note, program the chromatic scale. That is how the "T-Pain Effect" is done, combined with maxing out several parameters so the thing deliberately overworks. That is where you want that deliberate effect. If you're wanting to fix only a few notes, you'll program it to only hit on a few notes, not every single thing that the singer does. In that scenario, some will be perfect and some may be a bit out. But unless the singer is truly bad and can't pitch a note within a 1/4 step accuracy, you should be able to set it so the Autotune itself is not obvious.

[send me a picture and i'll tell you]

I haven't heard Brian sing 30 cents flat on any sustained note.  It has ALWAYS flipped between half steps.

Not true.  I shouldn't need to point them out.  They're everywhere, just as they were on TWGMTR on Fallon.

Re the Fallon example, EXACTLY.  The people who hear the pitch correction in the live concerts have pretty much to a person said it was apparently not used on Fallon.  Don't ask me why it wasn't-- that's not the question, and I have no freaking idea, but I'm so glad it wasn't used...I never wanna hear it used on Brian live again.

[anazgnos]

Fallon show is mixed by Fallon show sound crew, not the BBs touring sound crew.  Fallon show sound crew did not elect to autotune Brian.

[LostArt]

And we're back to the Oswald photo...

Pages ago there is a post taken from my own Autotune rackmount ownership which describes how it is programmed to either do the chromatic scale (which is most used for the deliberate robotic effects), a full major scale (which is more accurate and transparent), or partial scales containing only select notes from that scale to be tuned and the rest of them to go unaffected (which would allow for a more 'human', natural sound and works best for singers who may have pitch issues on a few high or low notes in their range but are generally in tune).

If you want it to correct every single note, program the chromatic scale. That is how the "T-Pain Effect" is done, combined with maxing out several parameters so the thing deliberately overworks. That is where you want that deliberate effect. If you're wanting to fix only a few notes, you'll program it to only hit on a few notes, not every single thing that the singer does. In that scenario, some will be perfect and some may be a bit out. But unless the singer is truly bad and can't pitch a note within a 1/4 step accuracy, you should be able to set it so the Autotune itself is not obvious.

Thanks for that, Craig.  That would definitely explain why some notes sound pitch corrected to some folks, while other notes are allowed to go slightly off pitch.

[Wirestone]

Even though I'm firmly in the "there's autotune all over these recordings" camp, I want to make my position clear. I don't really care if they process Brian's vocals.

My general outlook has always been that Brian's prime contribution to the Beach Boys, to his solo career, and to the music industry as a whole has been his work as a songwriter, arranger and producer. In that order. While his early work as a singer was great, it was never the most important thing he did.

So when Brian re-emerged in the 90s on record and in concert, I never minded that he was doubled by Jeff in concert, let's say, or tuned on his records. His voice was limited, his patience in the studio was shot, whatever. Better to allow those records to be made and concerts staged in the best way possible, with the least stress on Brian.

And I think the outcomes of the last 14 years justify this position. Brian has toured, and seemingly enjoyed it. He's done masterful shows. And he's been constantly supported and filled in for by his backing band. And as he got older, he passed on some leads to the band members, all of which supported the notion: The song, the arrangement, the production is the thing.

And his records have been better than anyone would have dared hope in the mid 90s. He's produced collections of original songs that are great and put out some outstanding cover records. He's kept writing (on and off, admittedly), kept playing, and stayed engaged in the studio.

In other words, technological and band supports have allowed Brian to thrive beyond all expectations in his late 50s and 60s.

So in that context -- with that back story -- tuning effects added in the live situation don't bother me much in principle. If it allows Brian to contribute to live renditions of his classics in a pleasing way, why not add it?

The issues come about when and if the effects compromise the performance the audience hears. Some online clips have therefore worried me. Other clips, while the tuning is audible, bother me much less. It's always been a question of extent and blending in the overall house mix.

The issue is ultimately perplexing, though, for reasons that AGD articulated in his usual but astutely blunt fashion. Why do it live but not on TV? Why do it on Brian but no one else? And why would this seem needed after 14 years of BW touring with an entirely adequate safety net -- and one that has followed him on this very tour?

Anyway, I trust a balance will be found. The Beacon clips sound promising. We shall see.

[send me a picture and i'll tell you]

Oh poo.
0:37 - 0:39
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqhnmKDateo&feature=autoplay&list=UL-PIPxyjVlZ8&playnext=3

Dialed back but not gone.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I honestly didn't hear it there.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Two things:

1 - I've noticed some folk are now saying "well, sometimes they use it, sometimes they don't" - presumably these techs can predict when Brian will sing 'off' and switch AT on just in time.  Are you serious ?

2 - more importantly (although there will be those who will dispute what I'm about to post, understandably so), I'm informed by the legendary Someone Who Would (Most Assuredly) Know that Brian is not being autotuned. Said individual has never sold me a pup before, thus I believe them.

[ontor pertawst]

2 - more importantly (although there will be those who will dispute what I'm about to post, understandably so), I'm informed by the legendary Someone Who Would (Most Assuredly) Know that Brian is not being autotuned. Said individual has never sold me a pup before, thus I believe them.

Sure.  But there are MANY similar systems. Now ask them, "Ok, so they aren't using Antares Auto-Tune, but they are using voice processing, right? Which system, then?"

[send me a picture and i'll tell you]

Two things:

1 - I've noticed some folk are now saying "well, sometimes they use it, sometimes they don't" - presumably these techs can predict when Brian will sing 'off' and switch AT on just in time.  Are you serious ?

2 - more importantly (although there will be those who will dispute what I'm about to post, understandably so), I'm informed by the legendary Someone Who Would (Most Assuredly) Know that Brian is not being autotuned. Said individual has never sold me a pup before, thus I believe them.

Someone more informed than I can chime in, but I think there's a range of settings as far as how quickly it kicks in, and how aggressive of an adjustment is made.

Is it possible that Someone has been misinformed, or has not heard the performance from the audience's perspective? Or that Someone will be lynched by Capitol if they breathe a word about this? Ask them why Brian's voice sounds pitch-corrected, and the others don't. And play them my WAV files from a few pages back.  I'll be more than happy to replicate the results.

I don't know why so many people find it unthinkable in 2012 that a tool widely available and commonly used is being implemented on a huge-budget concert tour.  Wouldn't it be much more unthinkable that it's NOT being used?

[freedomaspirer]

Looks like they're still fiddling with it. It's off the start of H&V/Good Vibrations now because it was ridiculously obvious, but it's clearly still there most of the time. We'll see what happens. IMO it takes something away from the song performed whenever used. e.g, the first recording of IJWMFTT, urgh! that song needs passion note electronica, for lack of a beter phrase!

And no it should not be used despite having a big budget, I can name no other band bar T-Pain/Black Eyed Peas or similar acts with autotune recordings who do.  McCartney doesn't even use it live, and he autotuned his last live release to pieces!

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

1 - I've noticed some folk are now saying "well, sometimes they use it, sometimes they don't" - presumably these techs can predict when Brian will sing 'off' and switch AT on just in time.  Are you serious ?

Actually, yeah...I don't think it's used on every song. And, as I've mentioned previously, the only honestly say with 99.9% accuracy that there was some definite manipulation of some sort (not necessarily AT) was on that clip of California Dreamin' (specifically the 'sky is gray' part).  That was a good quality recording as well, near soundboard-quality.  There's always the possibility that whoever uploaded the video doctored the audio first, but to what end?

[Wirestone]

1 - I've noticed some folk are now saying "well, sometimes they use it, sometimes they don't" - presumably these techs can predict when Brian will sing 'off' and switch AT on just in time.  Are you serious ?

Anyone who has been to a Brian show knows that there are some songs he sings better than other songs. If (and it's a big if) a vocal effect is switched on and off during the show, it's easy enough to identify which songs he struggles with (hint -- they're going to include Sail on Sailor, which I don't think he's ever sung in tune). This is not an implausible assertion, regardless of its truth.

[anazgnos]

1 - I've noticed some folk are now saying "well, sometimes they use it, sometimes they don't" - presumably these techs can predict when Brian will sing 'off' and switch AT on just in time.  Are you serious ?

I have no idea whether they're doing that or not, but that would be a thousand times more sensible than leaving it on all the time, and not a crazy approach at all.  A good soundman could certainly be expected to develop an understanding, song-to-song, of which lines Brian has trouble on, or which notes he has trouble hitting.

[Zach95]

These Beacon clips and the Fallon show are promising steps towards a better sounding Brian, let's hope this continues.

[runnersdialzero]

[Andrew G. Doe]

Exactly.