|
Post by Panther on Jan 11, 2015 22:06:05 GMT -5
There is no such thing as an inherently bad genre of music. There is just good and bad music.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 11, 2015 22:22:59 GMT -5
I'm more disheartened about the sorry state of pop and R&B. Pop is more about flash and showing a new dance move. R&B is that smooth slow stuff with the same beat in every song. There is some good rock out there, it is just so back burnered that you never hear it.
I work at UofL. I hear more young people saying today's music sucks than I hear older people.
Well, not counting on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 12, 2015 0:39:11 GMT -5
Rap and/or Hip-Hop has its artists and its fans. I do not care for it at all nor am I interested in the music of this thread; but if Paul wants to link up with Kanye to perform or help keep him (Paul) "au courant", that is fine. Clearly both artists repect each other. Their fans could learn something from that. I am sad to see and read of the fans of both artists who display their ignorance of either artist's musical history or background. or their criticism of either artist's musical genre. Music is like food. You either like it or you don't. Matter of taste in both. It is not racist to opine one's dislike of a genre of music. There are many white artists who embrace and perform Rap and Hip-Hop. The Beatles once embraced and covered much of the rhythm & blues music many of the Black American artists of the 1950's & 60's performed. It was racist to keep those early black artists records off the playlists of many mainstream radio stations of the day because of the color of their skin. The Beatles helped correct that sad fact of musical racism. I don't recall this much discussion going on when Paul linked up with Michael Jackson or Stevie Wonder in the 80's for a few joint songs. So you'd think Beatles fans would get it about Paul working with Kanye. But they didn't, many went nuts when they thought Kanye's fans dissed Paul and crossed the line, insulting Kanye and Hip Hop. I blame it on the Macca Mad Hatters though, not true Beatles fans, because the MMH don't believe in "The Beatles," just Paul.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Jan 12, 2015 1:44:24 GMT -5
Rap and/or Hip-Hop has its artists and its fans. I do not care for it at all nor am I interested in the music of this thread; but if Paul wants to link up with Kanye to perform or help keep him (Paul) "au courant", that is fine. Clearly both artists repect each other. Their fans could learn something from that. I am sad to see and read of the fans of both artists who display their ignorance of either artist's musical history or background. or their criticism of either artist's musical genre. Music is like food. You either like it or you don't. Matter of taste in both. It is not racist to opine one's dislike of a genre of music. There are many white artists who embrace and perform Rap and Hip-Hop. The Beatles once embraced and covered much of the rhythm & blues music many of the Black American artists of the 1950's & 60's performed. It was racist to keep those early black artists records off the playlists of many mainstream radio stations of the day because of the color of their skin. The Beatles helped correct that sad fact of musical racism. I don't recall this much discussion going on when Paul linked up with Michael Jackson or Stevie Wonder in the 80's for a few joint songs. So you'd think Beatles fans would get it about Paul working with Kanye. But they didn't, many went nuts when they thought Kanye's fans dissed Paul and crossed the line, insulting Kanye and Hip Hop. I blame it on the Macca Mad Hatters though, not true Beatles fans, because the MMH don't believe in "The Beatles," just Paul. Can we not put ALL Beatles fans into one little box? I'm a Beatles fan. I get it. Some Beatles fans didn't. Don't tar everyone with the same brush. And LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Because 'Macca Mad Hatters' and 'true Beatles fans' are mutually exclusive, right?! You can't possibly be a 'true' fan (and where do people get off, judging how 'true' a person is as a fan, anyway!?) and be a person labelled a 'Macca Mad Hatter'. Do tell me which category I fall in. Seeing as I've been called a Macca Mad Hatter before, I can't wait to discover the sordid truth that I'm not a Beatles fan at all. Should probably go and dump all my Beatles records, books, magazines and pictures right now, to be honest. In My Life, what's that!? Jealous Guy, who!? George what now?! Please. RME.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 12, 2015 6:44:27 GMT -5
I cannot stand rap myself, but I will defend it as a form of music. Proper is a descriptive word left mostly to the listener to define a type of music they like. Or prefer. But it hardly applies to all types of music. I will happily defend rap as a valid urban art form incorporated spoken wordplay sey to a rythmic backing, but the absence of any meoldic or harmonic structure means that it doesn't fit my personal definition of music. That also goes for a number of other things within what you mention - Bartok, Schoenberg, Cage etc. - I don't regard clicks, pops, bangs, gurgles and unmelodic noises generally as music, no matter which highly respected purveyor of "musical" Emperor's New Clothes they have come from. And I'm always happy to make a devil's advocate statement in order to stimulate discussion!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 12, 2015 6:58:12 GMT -5
Can we not put ALL Beatles fans into one little box? I'm a Beatles fan. I get it. Some Beatles fans didn't. Don't tar everyone with the same brush. And LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Because 'Macca Mad Hatters' and 'true Beatles fans' are mutually exclusive, right?! You can't possibly be a 'true' fan (and where do people get off, judging how 'true' a person is as a fan, anyway!?) and be a person labelled a 'Macca Mad Hatter'. Do tell me which category I fall in. You, Nicole, are a classic Macca Mad Hatter.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 12, 2015 6:59:53 GMT -5
That may be because Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson both did proper music rather than spoken rhymes over rhythms. There you go; "proper music". What does that mean? Are African tribal drums proper music? There is no vocal line, no key, no harmonic structure. Is Japanese Kabuki proper music? No traditional Western tonal structure at all. Much of sounds like what Yoko does when she decides to shreik out her winey voice in her idea of music. Is the classical music of Schoenberg, or Alban Berg proper when it is serial in structure, atonal aurally with no hint of any key structure. Berg's Opera WOZZECK is considered one of the great operas of the 20th Century. Schoenberg's GURRELIEDER is considered one of the great modern choral works. Rap has no key or harmonic structure, but it does contain rhythm and lyrics, two key fundamental items found in many of the styles I mentioned above, which are all considered to be legitimate music. I cannot stand rap myself, but I will defend it as a form of music. Proper is a descriptive word left mostly to the listener to define a type of music they like. Or prefer. But it hardly applies to all types of music. I applaud Paul for wanting to experience as many different types of music as he can in his lifetime. Rap, Hip-hop, symphonic, ballet, rock, rhythm & blues, ballads, hard metal, jazz, nightclub crooning, etc., etc. You don't have to like it, or want to listen to it, but it is all "proper" music as we define the art form. I don't think cRap is "music" either. And no amount of back and forth is going to convince me that it is. I agree with vectisfabber when he said that Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson both did proper music.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Jan 12, 2015 8:27:22 GMT -5
Can we not put ALL Beatles fans into one little box? I'm a Beatles fan. I get it. Some Beatles fans didn't. Don't tar everyone with the same brush. And LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Because 'Macca Mad Hatters' and 'true Beatles fans' are mutually exclusive, right?! You can't possibly be a 'true' fan (and where do people get off, judging how 'true' a person is as a fan, anyway!?) and be a person labelled a 'Macca Mad Hatter'. Do tell me which category I fall in. You, Nicole, are a classic Macca Mad Hatter. I don't think I actually mind that label, as dismissively and condescendingly as it's used. So, as a 'Macca Mad Hatter' am I therefore not a 'true Beatles fan' is the next question? I am able to give you long lists of John's positive attributes, Paul's failings, what songs of John's are better than Paul's, why George's bitterness towards Paul was justified, etc, and yet I'm a 'Mad Hatter'? The whole implication of that phrase suggests insanity and a complete lack of objectivity, along with a blindness to Paul's faults, right? I genuinely think that sometimes assumptions and misreadings play a large part into this tendency to judge certain fans as 'Mad Hatters' if they apparently favour Paul and defend him too much. Do we have an equally patronising name for uberfans of John or would that not be cool? Because, yeah, I think it's a bit childish, frankly, the constant usage of that term to diminish the opinions of those with differing views. YES, there are McCartney fans who are ridiculously extreme; I've come across them as well. I just think it unnecessary to constantly use that phrase, especially in a pejorative sense, which is often the way it IS used.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 12, 2015 12:27:13 GMT -5
Would you settle for Sane Hatter?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 12, 2015 14:27:46 GMT -5
I cannot stand rap myself, but I will defend it as a form of music. Proper is a descriptive word left mostly to the listener to define a type of music they like. Or prefer. But it hardly applies to all types of music. I will happily defend rap as a valid urban art form incorporated spoken wordplay sey to a rythmic backing, but the absence of any meoldic or harmonic structure means that it doesn't fit my personal definition of music. That also goes for a number of other things within what you mention - Bartok, Schoenberg, Cage etc. - I don't regard clicks, pops, bangs, gurgles and unmelodic noises generally as music, no matter which highly respected purveyor of "musical" Emperor's New Clothes they have come from. And I'm always happy to make a devil's advocate statement in order to stimulate discussion! There is nothing wrong with what you wrote and there is nothing wrong with our friend JoeK calling Hip Hop(or Rap) cRAP! These articles I have been reading the past few days (and I linked to one above) suggests that some Beatles fans(no one here) have gone beyond denouncing that genre of music and attacked the culture and people primarily behind it. The article refers to "Beatles Bullies" and that makes us all look bad. nicole, it was unfair of me to blame it all on the MMHs but as I sat and thought what kind of Beatles' fans would cross the line, I remembered that this was about the alleged defense to the honor and name of Macca so bingo, it seemed clear! Who irrationally defends Paul at ever turn, who places on a pedestal every song, every word, every action of Paul, who pretends that Paul's family is their family and who never misses a chance to marginalize the other Beatles, especially John? Why the MMHs, of course! It was a rather easy conclusion, really.
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Jan 12, 2015 18:09:02 GMT -5
Hey, the new song is #8 in Australia in its first week.
In the U.K. it is at #28, up from #35. Not much of a jump really. I thought it might do better.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 12, 2015 18:42:01 GMT -5
You, Nicole, are a classic Macca Mad Hatter. I don't think I actually mind that label, as dismissively and condescendingly as it's used. So, as a 'Macca Mad Hatter' am I therefore not a 'true Beatles fan' is the next question? I am able to give you long lists of John's positive attributes, Paul's failings, what songs of John's are better than Paul's, why George's bitterness towards Paul was justified, etc, and yet I'm a 'Mad Hatter'? The whole implication of that phrase suggests insanity and a complete lack of objectivity, along with a blindness to Paul's faults, right? I genuinely think that sometimes assumptions and misreadings play a large part into this tendency to judge certain fans as 'Mad Hatters' if they apparently favour Paul and defend him too much. Do we have an equally patronising name for uberfans of John or would that not be cool? Because, yeah, I think it's a bit childish, frankly, the constant usage of that term to diminish the opinions of those with differing views. YES, there are McCartney fans who are ridiculously extreme; I've come across them as well. I just think it unnecessary to constantly use that phrase, especially in a pejorative sense, which is often the way it IS used. You could say Young and Beautiful is Yuk and Boo-able and be accused of not being a true McCartney fan like I was when I said I didn't like it.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Jan 12, 2015 19:05:38 GMT -5
Frankly, people who go around policing who is and isn't a true fan, based on their other musical preferences or the abominable sin of preferring Electric Arguments to Imagine, for example, annoy the hell out of me. It's a smug sense of superiority that often permeates judgements like that which really gets on my wick. Even if I don't like Kanye's music (and no, I'm not a big fan) I don't see the need to call an entire genre crap. Surely one can say 'I don't like it' rather than 'it's crap' - it's the difference between legitimate personal taste and a subjective opinion masquerading as fact.
As for who has reacted the worst to this Kanye collaboration, the majority seem to be male, middle-aged white Beatles fans. Or young 'classic rock' fans who think they're too cool and above hip hop and other 'young' music. However, online comment sections are nearly always a cesspool of unthinking, judgmental, stereotyping, over the top statements so whatever.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 12, 2015 20:12:19 GMT -5
I was not a fan of Kanye's. "Beyoncé deserves this award not Taylor", "George Bush doesn't care about black people", his performance on that show, the Kim Kardashian Konnection, etc.
I cut him a little slack for recording with Paul. I like his vocals on Only One. I'm interested to hear what else they did together.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Jan 12, 2015 20:33:35 GMT -5
Oh, he's extremely arrogant. But plenty of male white rockstars of the 60s and 70s were, and that arrogance doesn't seem to be treated or talked about in quite the same way, in my experience. Arrogance isn't the worst crime - plenty of artists I admire from the 70s were real dicks, treated people abominably and dated questionably so... I think the autotune wasn't used particularly effectively on Only One, though he has done so to better effect elsewhere. I'd prefer the autotune to his natural singing voice though, probably. I'm definitely interested in further collaboration. I've often wanted Paul to have a hand in tracks instrumentally without vocals, actually. I think guest playing allows him to stretch and sit outside of his comfort zone a little more than usuaul, and I like that.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 12, 2015 21:25:20 GMT -5
There you go; "proper music". What does that mean? Are African tribal drums proper music? There is no vocal line, no key, no harmonic structure. Is Japanese Kabuki proper music? No traditional Western tonal structure at all. Much of sounds like what Yoko does when she decides to shreik out her winey voice in her idea of music. Is the classical music of Schoenberg, or Alban Berg proper when it is serial in structure, atonal aurally with no hint of any key structure. Berg's Opera WOZZECK is considered one of the great operas of the 20th Century. Schoenberg's GURRELIEDER is considered one of the great modern choral works. Rap has no key or harmonic structure, but it does contain rhythm and lyrics, two key fundamental items found in many of the styles I mentioned above, which are all considered to be legitimate music. I cannot stand rap myself, but I will defend it as a form of music. Proper is a descriptive word left mostly to the listener to define a type of music they like. Or prefer. But it hardly applies to all types of music. I applaud Paul for wanting to experience as many different types of music as he can in his lifetime. Rap, Hip-hop, symphonic, ballet, rock, rhythm & blues, ballads, hard metal, jazz, nightclub crooning, etc., etc. You don't have to like it, or want to listen to it, but it is all "proper" music as we define the art form. I don't think cRap is "music" either. And no amount of back and forth is going to convince me that it is. I agree with vectisfabber when he said that Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson both did proper music. I just saw the movie "Selma" today. A rap song plays over the final credits which is very "au courant" with lyrics referring to Ferguson, Mo. as well as the events from 1965 which I found done quite well, even though I usually hate listening to Rap. Guess I have found the the first rap song that I actually liked!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 12, 2015 21:27:51 GMT -5
I think it's Kanye's natural voice on the whole song. Paul's vocals are the autotuned vocals in the back.
Well, according to wiki, Ty Dolla Sign sings backup. It doesn't say there are Paul backing vocals.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 12, 2015 21:39:52 GMT -5
Auto-tuning a singer is a technique used to make up for the deficiencies of a singer unable to sing in tune on recordings. The technique is discussed at length in the movie "20 Ft. From Stardom" (Oscar winning documentary of the history of back-up singers in pop music) by recording engineers forced to apply the technique to sometimes very famous artists (like Britney Speers?) who cannot sing in tune. The engineers genuinely abhor using it as it is usually used for "singers" with no real vocal talent.
In Paul's case it may be used to cover up his aging voice which causes his tones to be unsteady in pitch on recordings.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 12, 2015 21:41:48 GMT -5
Auto-tuning a singer is a technique used to make up for the deficiencies of a singer unable to sing in tune on recordings. The technique is discussed at length in the movie "20 Ft. From Stardom" (Oscar winning documentary of the history of back-up singers in pop music) by recording engineers forced to apply the technique to sometimes very famous artists (like Britney Speers?) who cannot sing in tune. The engineers genuinely abhor using it as it is only used for "singers" with no real vocal talent. The first time I heard it was on Cher's Do You Believe in Love. I think Cher can sing in tune.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 12, 2015 21:44:53 GMT -5
Auto-tuning a singer is a technique used to make up for the deficiencies of a singer unable to sing in tune on recordings. The technique is discussed at length in the movie "20 Ft. From Stardom" (Oscar winning documentary of the history of back-up singers in pop music) by recording engineers forced to apply the technique to sometimes very famous artists (like Britney Speers?) who cannot sing in tune. The engineers genuinely abhor using it as it is only used for "singers" with no real vocal talent. The first time I heard it was on Cher's Do You Believe in Love. I think Cher can sing in tune. Often you cannot tell on the recording if it has been used. That is the whole point. Do you know for sure it was used on Cher? I would doubt she would admit to it. Nor would her recording engineers admit to it, since it is usually embarrasing to admit it was done.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 12, 2015 21:58:25 GMT -5
The first time I heard it was on Cher's Do You Believe in Love. I think Cher can sing in tune. Often you cannot tell on the recording if it has been used. That is the whole point. Do you know for sure it was used on Cher? I would doubt she would admit to it. Nor would her recording engineers admit to it, since it is usually embarrasing to admit it was done. I looked it up on Wiki after my last post. Autotune started out as a pitch correction technique. Cher used it to completely alter her voice to give it that robotic sound. Have you heard Believe? That is what people are mostly talking about when they talk about autotune these days. Unless it is used to dog some of the new artists out there by saying they can't sing on key. Pitch correction was used as far back as the Beatles.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 12, 2015 22:08:43 GMT -5
Often you cannot tell on the recording if it has been used. That is the whole point. Do you know for sure it was used on Cher? I would doubt she would admit to it. Nor would her recording engineers admit to it, since it is usually embarrasing to admit it was done. I looked it up on Wiki after my last post. Autotune started out as a pitch correction technique. Cher used it to completely alter her voice to give it that robotic sound. Have you heard Believe? That is what people are mostly talking about when they talk about autotune these days. Unless it is used to dog some of the new artists out there by saying they can't sing on key. Pitch correction was used as far back as the Beatles. I don't recall ever reading about any autotuning done by George Martin or Geoff Emrick on The Beatles recordings. Do you? John's vocal sound in "Tomorrow Never Knows" is not a result of autotuning as far as I have read. They just ran his voice through a "Lesley Speaker" I belive G. Martin said. Auto-tuning was used all the way back to the 60's when multi-tracking started. Today it is used often to cover up lack of talent in vocal singing. Often that is why lip-singing is done in so-called "live" performances, to cover up artists that cannot sing in tune. As I said, it is discussed a bit by an engineer in the movie "20 Ft. From Stardom" in 2013, a movie I highly recommend by the way.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 12, 2015 22:15:29 GMT -5
Auto-tuning a singer is a technique used to make up for the deficiencies of a singer unable to sing in tune on recordings. The technique is discussed at length in the movie "20 Ft. From Stardom" (Oscar winning documentary of the history of back-up singers in pop music) by recording engineers forced to apply the technique to sometimes very famous artists (like Britney Speers?) who cannot sing in tune. The engineers genuinely abhor using it as it is usually used for "singers" with no real vocal talent. In Paul's case it may be used to cover up his aging voice which causes his tones to be unsteady in pitch on recordings. He sure could have used more of it in the song "Early Days" which sounded like he sang it at 7:00 in the morning after rolling out of bed without warming up......
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 12, 2015 22:30:26 GMT -5
I looked it up on Wiki after my last post. Autotune started out as a pitch correction technique. Cher used it to completely alter her voice to give it that robotic sound. Have you heard Believe? That is what people are mostly talking about when they talk about autotune these days. Unless it is used to dog some of the new artists out there by saying they can't sing on key. Pitch correction was used as far back as the Beatles. I don't recall ever reading about any autotuning done by George Martin or Geoff Emrick on The Beatles recordings. Do you? John's vocal sound in "Tomorrow Never Knows" is not a result of autotuning as far as I have read. They just ran his voice through a "Lesley Speaker" I belive G. Martin said. Auto-tuning was used all the way back to the 60's when multi-tracking started. Today it is used often to cover up lack of talent in vocal singing. Often that is why lip-singing is done in so-called "live" performances, to cover up artists that cannot sing in tune. As I said, it is discussed a bit by an engineer in the movie "20 Ft. From Stardom" in 2013, a movie I highly recommend by the way. I didn't say they used autotune. I said pitch correction. Strawberry Fields was corrected to match the two halves.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 12, 2015 22:35:30 GMT -5
Tomorrow Never Knows is a good example of studio manipulation of vocals though.
Again, when people talk about not liking it when Kanye uses all of the autotune he uses on some songs, they are not talking about him correcting the pitch to make him sound on key. If you can't hear it, why would they care? They are talking about the electronic effect on his voice.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 13, 2015 6:43:49 GMT -5
He sure could have used more of it in the song "Early Days" which sounded like he sang it at 7:00 in the morning after rolling out of bed without warming up...... That was the whole point -- Paul deliberately left his voice like that, as it was a song by a wheezy-sounding old guy reflecting back on his "Early Days". So the song was perfect to be sung that way with Paul's creaky and winded voice, even though you obviously don't appreciate it that way.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 13, 2015 6:48:39 GMT -5
Frankly, people who go around policing who is and isn't a true fan, based on their other musical preferences or the abominable sin of preferring Electric Arguments to Imagine, for example, annoy the hell out of me. It's a smug sense of superiority that often permeates judgements like that which really gets on my wick. Much of the expressions you're objecting to result from the frustration of always enduring Macca Maniacs touting their boy and making Paul out to be The Beatles.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 13, 2015 11:16:23 GMT -5
He sure could have used more of it in the song "Early Days" which sounded like he sang it at 7:00 in the morning after rolling out of bed without warming up...... That was the whole point -- Paul deliberately left his voice like that, as it was a song by a wheezy-sounding old guy reflecting back on his "Early Days". So the song was perfect to be sung that way with Paul's creaky and winded voice, even though you obviously don't appreciate it that way. Didn't know Paul wanted it to sound that way. Missed reading that quote from him. His vanity and ego usually do not allow him to be heard in this fashion. If he wanted to sound old and creaky, it worked and the song is absolute perfection..... BTW; it is my favorite song on that album; for the lyrics. Maybe he should have rapped the lyrics!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 13, 2015 11:30:39 GMT -5
Tomorrow Never Knows is a good example of studio manipulation of vocals though. Again, when people talk about not liking it when Kanye uses all of the autotune he uses on some songs, they are not talking about him correcting the pitch to make him sound on key. If you can't hear it, why would they care? They are talking about the electronic effect on his voice. Then perhaps the term autotune has evolved from it's original definition. I have always understood the term to be used when correcting pitch issues, not altering the timbre of the voice artificially. From wiki; Auto-Tune is an audio processor created by Antares Audio Technologies which uses a proprietary device to measure and alter pitch in vocal and instrumental music recording and performances.[2] It was originally intended to disguise or correct off-key inaccuracies, allowing vocal tracks to be perfectly tuned despite originally being slightly off-key. The processor slightly shifts pitches to the nearest true semitone (to the exact pitch of the nearest tone in traditional equal temperament). Auto-Tune can also be used as an effect to distort the human voice when pitch is raised or lowered significantly.[3] The overall effect to the discerning ear can be described as hearing the voice leap from note to note stepwise, like a synthesizer. Auto-Tune is available as a plug-in for professional audio multi-tracking suites used in a studio setting and as a stand-alone, rack-mounted unit for live performance processing.[4] Auto-Tune has become standard equipment in professional recording studios.[5] Auto-Tune was initially created by Andy Hildebrand, an engineer working for Exxon. Hildebrand developed methods for interpreting seismic data and subsequently realized that the technology could be used to detect, analyze, and modify the pitch in audio files.[3]
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 13, 2015 11:52:47 GMT -5
I don't recall ever reading about any autotuning done by George Martin or Geoff Emrick on The Beatles recordings. Do you? John's vocal sound in "Tomorrow Never Knows" is not a result of autotuning as far as I have read. They just ran his voice through a "Lesley Speaker" I belive G. Martin said. Auto-tuning was used all the way back to the 60's when multi-tracking started. Today it is used often to cover up lack of talent in vocal singing. Often that is why lip-singing is done in so-called "live" performances, to cover up artists that cannot sing in tune. As I said, it is discussed a bit by an engineer in the movie "20 Ft. From Stardom" in 2013, a movie I highly recommend by the way. I didn't say they used autotune. I said pitch correction. Strawberry Fields was corrected to match the two halves. I recall G. Martin saying he either sped up or slowed down the opening master tape of SF to get the song's opening key moved into the same key the latter part of the song was recorded in. He did this to accommodate John who upon being told the two takes he wanted were in different keys, said simply to Martin; "Well then, fix it." It was a rudamentary way (in 1967) of getting a song recorded in two different keys to line up in the same key. Expensive Reel-to-reel tape machines of the day had the capability of speed control to alter the recording resulting in this fashion. Autotuning was/is used in classical recordings of opera sometimes when singers had/have problems achieving acceptable high notes in the climaxes of arias or ensembles. The aria can be recorded/sung a tone or semitone lower and then sped up to achieve the desired key and proper high note. Again, used to cover up deficiencies in the artist in the studio. That was it's original purpose and is still used that way today often to the chagrine of the record engineers. They are the ones who really know how truly naturally gifted artists are who are promoted to the public often falsely regarding their musical abilities. That is the point made in the movie "20 Ft. From Stardom."
|
|