Topic: Pop Music. (Read 14623 times)

Morpheus Laughing · « **Reply #105 on:** March 29, 2010, 04:23:27 AM »

Quote from: CeeGBee on March 27, 2010, 07:42:42 PM

Rather than a pre-recorded backing track, I meant...

...um, watch: I find this very clever. It's just the one performer, truly playing
"live", but using technology to create a much more layered sound...
(I'm told she developed the technique while busking on sidewalks and in train stations...)

Sure, but it is essentially the same problem so I lump the two togethor... Also, it's not necessarily a big problem by any means and it can be a very effective way to create music. The main difference with any kind pre-recording is that the parts will not be playing to each other and it is that which makes a performance feel all the more unified. This isn't essential to a good show but it can really bring out a song.

The KT Tunstall approach probably has more credibility than other types of prerecording because it goes down well with fans that like the idea of "live" being something unique to that moment. It also looks (and is) impressive because any mistake would be on repeat indefinately.

Quote from: tanqgirl on March 28, 2010, 04:34:28 PM

if you're that close to a note and miss it? then you need to practice more...i think we will never agree on this...it's probably because i am such a perfectionist when it comes to music that i feel like you should work as hard as fucking possible to be able to do it correctly, and also as far as the never missing notes, as long as they're inside the persons range i know many people who have no problem hitting them spot on granted if they're trying to sing something not in their range it's different

No one ever hits the exact frequency the same each time. It will be close enough to be acceptable but the auto-tuning process (at that level) will be used to ensure that all parts are standardised for maximum effect. In fact, vocal doubling exploits the natural variance of vocal pitch so that the sound can be thickened. Autodoubling creates a mathematical variation of the frequencies to imitatate double-tracking and effectively leaves you with two or more pieces of audio that will sound very much the same if listened to separately. In this instance, auto-tune will be applied to ensure that the variant pieces are not more out of tune than they need to be. Because of this, it is easier for a good singers sense of pitch to shift without anyone noticing, especially if autotune is routinely used on live performances. Admittedly, tuning near-perfection to perfection is not something that people will be especially bothered about but there is a degree of anal retentiveness about things like this when it comes to audio engineers justifying high rates. Also, in the same way that glamour magizines can make attractive people doubt their appearance, autotune can instill a nagging sense of doubt in a good singer because the musicians themselves are often the biggest critics of their work.

tanqgirl · « **Reply #106 on:** March 30, 2010, 03:46:13 AM »

^ yes i know all that but i strive to work hard to get it exact with my own voice, i dont need a machine to fix it when i can do it myself, and although the 2 notes will never be exactly the same as long as they are indeed as close as possible that's good enough for me

Morpheus Laughing · « **Reply #107 on:** March 31, 2010, 05:47:49 AM »

^Sure and that's the ideal route…

The most likely scenario of good singer using auto tune is not for the kind of perfection I described there. That's just the stage where people begin to encounter the industry obsession for perfection and it can make them take precautions that they would never have taken in years gone by when they perform live.

The pitch drift risk is more likely to happen when people reach a stage where they try to overstretch themselves and include elements in their live performance that can make them concerned about their vocals suffering. They might include energetic dance movement or wear fashions that prevent an ideal breathing technique; Add in a heavy touring schedule and fatigue puts people at risk at greater risk of mistakes. These types of things are examples of when singers might decide that it gives them confidence or an edge even though ordinarily they wouldn't need it.

There are other bad habits that should perhaps be avoided by professional/semi-professional singers which are all too often succumbed to and might necessitate auto tune as a safety net: Drinking Alcohol, eating spicy foods, drinking too much coffee and having to speak/shout loudly over noise at venues. All these put a strain on a voice that might make a singer feel concerned about delivering.

tanqgirl · « **Reply #108 on:** March 31, 2010, 01:52:15 PM »

i still disagree, it's one thing to just work towards singing correctly-i'm well aware that it will never be 100% perfect but i can still try and i will not stop taking risks just because i'm afraid i wont hit a note, i personally dont work that way if someone else does well that sucks for them

and honestly if i were to start using autotune for whatever reason i would feel shitty about myself as a singer, not get a confidence boost

also i dont drink alcohol often at all, i'm not a fan of spicy foods, i hate coffee and if im in somewhere noisy and i know it will mess with my voice then i'll either not talk or text someone if i REALLY need to talk to them and they cant hear me

Morpheus Laughing · « **Reply #109 on:** March 31, 2010, 04:13:58 PM »

I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with in particular but I'll try my best to answer what I think might be your point...

Using auto-tune for the reasons I described is an individual's decision and entirely subjective to their preferences. You have a sense of pride in your authentic approach (I’ll never knock that) but others don’t mind cheating a little because it is a means to an end. Some people feel bad about cheating and others don’t.

Perhaps you are coming from the perspective that good singers would always pride themselves on having an authentic approach? I would disagree there… At some stage or another, many common place approaches have been condemned for straying from tradition only to be absorbed into the arsenal of valid approaches… Compression takes the skill away from controlling vocal dynamics but most singers benefit a little bit from it. Double tracking is also commonplace but it artificially strengthens vocals that would otherwise get lost in the mix and sound weedy. With the latter, it is possible to view it as an aesthetic choice but it is still, for all practical purposes, a vocal strengthening technique. Many vocal effects that are now accepted as creative and stylistic have been used to cover flaws in vocals and people have been criticised for it.

There are, of course, very good reasons for taking the masterful approach to art and it is admirable but if the distinction is not admired by the buying public, what can you do? If someone compromises their vocal ability and the fans accept the fix then it is the end result that those people care about and not the dedication towards conserving the voice.

tanqgirl · « **Reply #110 on:** April 01, 2010, 02:04:50 AM »

ha forgive me sometimes when i try to argue either right after i wake up or before i fall asleep i have a terrible tendency to not finish/compete what i'm saying or not make sense...

i think what it is is that im more into the "this is my voice that i worked really hard to get as near perfect as possible with no cheating" as opposed to many pop and whatnot artists now who are more "yea well i tried and cant really do it so how about you just fix that for me cause i'm a bit to lazy to try harder to fix it myself" or the "i look good on camera so lets use auto tune to completely make it sound like i can sing" that is my BIG issue with it...

for an example of auto tune that im cool with...this chick can sing this whole song completely and totally (i'm learning it btw

) and doesnt need the auto tune and other fun shit that they added in there, they did it for the effect/movie/whatever, but she doesnt NEED it, that is what it should be used for IMO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNpv-VHGDKU&feature=related

ps: i dont mean to say that you're totally wrong, i just disagree so please dont take anything i say the wrong way

Morpheus Laughing · « **Reply #111 on:** April 01, 2010, 06:39:05 AM »

Don’t worry, I’m not taking it the wrong the way. I don’t want you take anything I say the wrong way either but sometimes internet communication makes an opinion look quite coarse.

It’s annoying when someone puts in effort to do something and others don’t but still get the same credit...but it happens and perhaps people are missing something important or perhaps they are not. I recommend an authentic approach where possible because there are things you learn from it that get overlooked. For example: singers use the melisma as a way to get a rise from the audience because it suggests feeling. When people opt for that they miss other important ways of adding emotion. I believe there is a similar truth with the auto-tune situation too. Auto-tune standardises things (depending on which auto-tuning method is chosen) in ways that can take some of the character out of the music. When an engineer manually goes to “enhance” a vocal there are some decisions going on about how natural the tuning should be and it can result in an overly uniform rendition of the vocal. Vibrato, for instance, can be pulled tighter to create a note that is more in-tune sounding overall but it is the engineer that has to make the call. There isn’t a good reason why the engineer’s preference for reduced vibrato should reflect what people might generally like to hear.

So it’s not like my opinion is very different to yours other than that I am perhaps less bothered that people accept mediocrity (and a lot of it).

tanqgirl · « **Reply #112 on:** April 02, 2010, 02:33:33 AM »

yes internet doesnt make communicating easy sometimes...and funnily enough i did recently have a discussion with an ex of mine about mediocrity and how i dont think it should be accepted in things such as music/acting/etc. and he is a mediocre musician so it made him mad, but i have to honestly say that i dont care because im sick of seeing people who are amazing and spend their entire lives working at it get no where while people who either suck or are ok get big because they're willing to sacrifice their dignity and creativeness

simon tongue · « **Reply #113 on:** April 19, 2010, 10:53:10 PM »

Quote from: CeeGBee on March 27, 2010, 07:42:42 PM

Rather than a pre-recorded backing track, I meant...

...um, watch: I find this very clever. It's just the one performer, truly playing
"live", but using technology to create a much more layered sound...
(I'm told she developed the technique while busking on sidewalks and in train stations...)

I saw that performance when it first aired and it tricked me into buying the album which is as bland as something very bland (unlike that performance). I had a friend who used a similar pedal and used it to do a one man show and jumped from metal to jazz to all sorts in-between.

Here is my contribution to recent great pop music. It's pop but it's also quirky and fun. VV Brown on Jools...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/PpgBM2Ei70E" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/PpgBM2Ei70E</a>

News:

Author Topic: Pop Music. (Read 14623 times)

Morpheus Laughing

Re: Pop Music.

tanqgirl

Re: Pop Music.

Morpheus Laughing

Re: Pop Music.

tanqgirl

Re: Pop Music.

Morpheus Laughing

Re: Pop Music.

tanqgirl

Re: Pop Music.

Morpheus Laughing

Re: Pop Music.

tanqgirl

Re: Pop Music.

simon tongue

Re: Pop Music.