SERIOUSLY, especially on songs like "Storm", good christ! I'm skeptical tbh...
The End All To Auto Tune Thread
- Thread starter joeymusicguy
- Start date
- Status
SERIOUSLY, especially on songs like "Storm", good christ! I'm skeptical tbh...
Glenn Fricker
Very Metal &Very Bad News
This one's going back 5 years, so guitar tone & drum sound ain't what it is today (this was tracked before I discovered this awesome forum!), but we did this with ZERO pitch correction.
http://www.betrayer.ca/cgi-bin/dl.cgi?id=016
I wish there were more singers like this. Unfortunately, he's the exception these days.
I finally get to do a full length with these guys, starting at the end of July. We're taking the "zero pitch correction" approach again.
But Joey, don't let anyone shit on your methods. What works for you is obviously working well. Stick to your guns & fuck the critics.
http://www.betrayer.ca/cgi-bin/dl.cgi?id=016
I wish there were more singers like this. Unfortunately, he's the exception these days.
I finally get to do a full length with these guys, starting at the end of July. We're taking the "zero pitch correction" approach again.
But Joey, don't let anyone shit on your methods. What works for you is obviously working well. Stick to your guns & fuck the critics.
Zombietakeover
Member
Well you wouldn't want to autotune a singer like that anyways....It would sound like shit...He has way to much Vibrato and you wouldn't want to kill that.....were talking 1981 vs 2009....
Glenn Fricker
Very Metal &Very Bad News
KeithTidd
Robot Penis.
Which album are you talking about; coz there really aint much singing on the first one!
and the reason it would sound unautotuned is because it was mildly Melodyned.
Ask me why i know
the ablum i'm referring to is this is where the fight begins.
Again, not a vocoder. Vocoders dont change notes in real-time....they stay on one note unless you change it manually. This my friend, is a full on multi-timbral vocal processor, very likely a Digitech Vocalist. I do agree that it is a similar effect, but indeed, tis not the same thang.
iekobrid
Authorized XSr Dealer
http://remixmag.com/mag/remix_imogen_heap/
' Containing only her vocoded voice, Hide and Seek is an unlikely first single born in a flash of inspiration. My favorite computer blew up on me, Heap explains. But I didn't want to leave the studio without having done anything that day. I saw the [DigiTech Vocalist Workstation] on a shelf and just plugged it into my little 4-track MiniDisc with my mic and my keyboard and pressed Record. The first thing that I sang was those first few lines, Where are we? What the hell is going on? I set the vocalist to a four-note polyphony, so even if I play 10 notes on the keyboard, it will only choose four of them. It's quite nicely surprising when it comes back with a strange combination. When it gets really high in the second chorus, that's a result of it choosing higher rather than low notes, so I ended up going even higher to compensate, above the chord. I recorded it in, like, four-and-a-half minutes, and it ended up on the album in exactly the structure of how it came out of me then. I love it because it doesn't feel like my song. It just came out of nowhere, and I'm not questioning that one at all. '
' Containing only her vocoded voice, Hide and Seek is an unlikely first single born in a flash of inspiration. My favorite computer blew up on me, Heap explains. But I didn't want to leave the studio without having done anything that day. I saw the [DigiTech Vocalist Workstation] on a shelf and just plugged it into my little 4-track MiniDisc with my mic and my keyboard and pressed Record. The first thing that I sang was those first few lines, Where are we? What the hell is going on? I set the vocalist to a four-note polyphony, so even if I play 10 notes on the keyboard, it will only choose four of them. It's quite nicely surprising when it comes back with a strange combination. When it gets really high in the second chorus, that's a result of it choosing higher rather than low notes, so I ended up going even higher to compensate, above the chord. I recorded it in, like, four-and-a-half minutes, and it ended up on the album in exactly the structure of how it came out of me then. I love it because it doesn't feel like my song. It just came out of nowhere, and I'm not questioning that one at all. '
KeithTidd
Robot Penis.
lol when I read that it almost looks like an insult. Like saying someone is a big pot head or coke user.
Let it burn...
Orgasm Donor
Aaron Smith
Envisage Audio
I was interested to see that this thread had already exploded out to five pages since I last saw it, but to be honest this entire thread up to this point was incredibly boring to read...all just rehashed rehashed Auto-Tune debating that had basically nothing to do with Joey's original post.
Joey, first of all I'm not entirely understanding everything about your question. Are you getting complaints just from random fans/music listeners/people on the internet? Or are you getting complaints from inside the bands you're working with? Considering that there is such an extreme majority of music these days that's Auto-Tuned without any kind of flame-war about it, it's weird to me that you're getting picked on. I would assume that it's mostly internet folk who pick on you for "over-Auto-Tuning", but if they're the same internet folk who pick on everyone else's Auto-Tuning, then it's obvious that you have nothing to worry about. However, if you are absolutely sure that the people who rag on you every day about Auto-Tune do not also rag on other commercial releases, then there's something you're doing wrong/different that's making your Auto-Tuning more obvious than everyone else's. I'm not incredibly familiar with your work, but everything that I have heard sounds great, and although the singing parts I've heard sound "perfect", I haven't heard anything yet that sounded overdone with the tuning. That For The Fallen Dreams rough mix you put up had a singing part towards the end of the song, and listening to it again right now, those vocals sound great to me. I don't know how intensely you're tuning things, but my own approach (which is not unique to me) has always been to use the graphic mode (set to the default retune level), hand draw the notes, and don't draw the beginnings and endings of notes too perfectly. If the singer took a little bit too long to level out near the pitch he was aiming for, then don't go in there and draw a really intense/strong beginning...leave a bit of the trail-up, or at least draw a line that's more gradual. It's always been obvious to me when you're pushing the tuner too hard... If it sounds awful without drawing something drastically different than the singer actually sang, then you should have spent more time during tracking. Otherwise, I've always been able to make Auto-Tuning undetectable when I want to be.
I also spent a day at the studio with Aaron Sprinkle back in 2004 (before I had really discovered my love for audio engineering), and the entire day he was just tuning Hawk Nelson vocals. I didn't pay close attention to what he was doing really, I mostly just sat in the room and discussed different recording-related topics with him, but he was definitely using Antares Auto-Tune, and I remember him telling me that he hand draws all the notes (no line tool), and actually prefers that the lines have a bit of imperfection to them, as to him it sounded more realistic. I mean, if you think about it, deviating slightly from an absolutely perfect line wouldn't likely be perceived by the human ear as "out of tune", so as long as it sounds "in-tune", then why push something so far that it actually starts to sound fake and synth-like? I know that the "retune" control on Auto-Tune basically tells the software how closely to tune the notes to the lines you've drawn (the highest being exactly on the lines you've drawn, the lowest probably just barely nudging the notes so that it doesn't even create an audible change), which sounds like the same concept of hand-drawing or using the line-tool, but if Aaron Sprinkle is right, then there is also some value to avoiding the line tool.
I realize that you've probably spent more time tuning vocals than I have, so you probably know everything I've already just typed (especially software controls and functionality), but hopefully there's some kind of helpful thought in there for you!
Joey, first of all I'm not entirely understanding everything about your question. Are you getting complaints just from random fans/music listeners/people on the internet? Or are you getting complaints from inside the bands you're working with? Considering that there is such an extreme majority of music these days that's Auto-Tuned without any kind of flame-war about it, it's weird to me that you're getting picked on. I would assume that it's mostly internet folk who pick on you for "over-Auto-Tuning", but if they're the same internet folk who pick on everyone else's Auto-Tuning, then it's obvious that you have nothing to worry about. However, if you are absolutely sure that the people who rag on you every day about Auto-Tune do not also rag on other commercial releases, then there's something you're doing wrong/different that's making your Auto-Tuning more obvious than everyone else's. I'm not incredibly familiar with your work, but everything that I have heard sounds great, and although the singing parts I've heard sound "perfect", I haven't heard anything yet that sounded overdone with the tuning. That For The Fallen Dreams rough mix you put up had a singing part towards the end of the song, and listening to it again right now, those vocals sound great to me. I don't know how intensely you're tuning things, but my own approach (which is not unique to me) has always been to use the graphic mode (set to the default retune level), hand draw the notes, and don't draw the beginnings and endings of notes too perfectly. If the singer took a little bit too long to level out near the pitch he was aiming for, then don't go in there and draw a really intense/strong beginning...leave a bit of the trail-up, or at least draw a line that's more gradual. It's always been obvious to me when you're pushing the tuner too hard... If it sounds awful without drawing something drastically different than the singer actually sang, then you should have spent more time during tracking. Otherwise, I've always been able to make Auto-Tuning undetectable when I want to be.
I also spent a day at the studio with Aaron Sprinkle back in 2004 (before I had really discovered my love for audio engineering), and the entire day he was just tuning Hawk Nelson vocals. I didn't pay close attention to what he was doing really, I mostly just sat in the room and discussed different recording-related topics with him, but he was definitely using Antares Auto-Tune, and I remember him telling me that he hand draws all the notes (no line tool), and actually prefers that the lines have a bit of imperfection to them, as to him it sounded more realistic. I mean, if you think about it, deviating slightly from an absolutely perfect line wouldn't likely be perceived by the human ear as "out of tune", so as long as it sounds "in-tune", then why push something so far that it actually starts to sound fake and synth-like? I know that the "retune" control on Auto-Tune basically tells the software how closely to tune the notes to the lines you've drawn (the highest being exactly on the lines you've drawn, the lowest probably just barely nudging the notes so that it doesn't even create an audible change), which sounds like the same concept of hand-drawing or using the line-tool, but if Aaron Sprinkle is right, then there is also some value to avoiding the line tool.
I realize that you've probably spent more time tuning vocals than I have, so you probably know everything I've already just typed (especially software controls and functionality), but hopefully there's some kind of helpful thought in there for you!
462studio
462 Studio
If you don't have any issues with what you've been doing, keep doing it. If you start to have an issue with something you're doing, and you continue to do it, you need to start a thread.
KeithTidd
Robot Penis.
I'm not saying it as an insult. I was actually a bit defensive when i first heard she uses it. She doesn't just use it to tune her voice, she uses it for harmonies and effects. And yes, she definately can sing without it.
greyskull
Member
- Mar 22, 2006
- 6,072
- 7
- 38
Yeah.. tom doesn't do a HUGE amount of Melodic stuff on that.
Either way, 'Twas editing the best takes and a touch of Melodyne.
Now....
if you've got it on Cd, open it up and look in the production credits.
You'll find me there.
or here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_is_Where_the_Fight_Begins
Ignore the place it was recorded at though, the guy who owns it is a cunt.
P.S buy new hopes new demonstrations, its fucking awesome.
The human hearing developed for two purposes - hearing when something nasty is about to try and eat you, and hearing other people when something nasty is trying to eat them. It's designed heavily around understanding the vocalisations of other people.
That in turn leads to two things; 1) we're good at picking words out of noise and 2) we're immediately suspicious of anything that doesn't sound like a 'natural' voice.
The problem with auto-tuning isn't making the actual pitch spot on, it's the changes in note (or not as the case may be) that cause problems.
On a held note, even the best singers in the world will change pitch to some degree (even if they don't have a pronounced vibrato), and it's when you auto-tune a note that's sliding off pitch that you start to get that synth-y sound, especially if it's a long note. If you auto-tuned a dive-bomb on a guitar so the whole sound was just on one note, that would sound weird too. A slide off pitch just at the end of a long note tends to add an emotional quality too - even in normal speech we go up in pitch when we're excited and down when we're more sombre. When you remove that, you lose the 'tone' of what the person is singing, making it sound unnatural and detached.
The other issue is changing note. Unless you're changing note on a glottal/'hard' consonant, there's always some degree of sliding from one pitch to another (not in the glissando sense, where you do it deliberately), and if auto-tune is applied too harshly you make that slide a discrete step instead. The extreme of that is the Cher effect, but even in less obvious cases your ear will pick up on it because it's a fairly unnatural thing. The lack of 'smoothness' is normally what makes something stand out as obviously or overly auto-tuned.
In a lot of metalcore-type music, the way the singers tends to write their vocal lines adds to the problem - the screaming parts tend to be made up of lots of short, sharp syllables, and then they break into a big, slow, smooth singing part (see: Killswitch Engage's entire career). That immediately makes us more critical of the sung parts because they're so different from the harsh vocals - our ears expect the singing parts to be smooth and flowing, and breaks in that stand out. Singers like Daryl Palumbo (on Glassjaw's first album at least - since then he's been very guilty of auto-tune abuse) and Brock Lindow (36 Crazyfists), who jump around from singing to screaming and often sing in quite a staccato way can get away with dodgier pitch because our brain doesn't have a chance to lock in on an obvious vocal pattern.
Basically, to make auto-tune really work, it needs to be subtle - that sounds really obvious, but what I mean is the singer has to be 95% of the way there already. The singer should be hitting the right notes; auto-tune should only the helping hand over the finishing line. If you're having to move syllables from a C to a C#, it'll take a lot more work to get the results sounding natural because the change from the D immediately beforehand suddenly won't sound quite right.
Steve
That in turn leads to two things; 1) we're good at picking words out of noise and 2) we're immediately suspicious of anything that doesn't sound like a 'natural' voice.
The problem with auto-tuning isn't making the actual pitch spot on, it's the changes in note (or not as the case may be) that cause problems.
On a held note, even the best singers in the world will change pitch to some degree (even if they don't have a pronounced vibrato), and it's when you auto-tune a note that's sliding off pitch that you start to get that synth-y sound, especially if it's a long note. If you auto-tuned a dive-bomb on a guitar so the whole sound was just on one note, that would sound weird too. A slide off pitch just at the end of a long note tends to add an emotional quality too - even in normal speech we go up in pitch when we're excited and down when we're more sombre. When you remove that, you lose the 'tone' of what the person is singing, making it sound unnatural and detached.
The other issue is changing note. Unless you're changing note on a glottal/'hard' consonant, there's always some degree of sliding from one pitch to another (not in the glissando sense, where you do it deliberately), and if auto-tune is applied too harshly you make that slide a discrete step instead. The extreme of that is the Cher effect, but even in less obvious cases your ear will pick up on it because it's a fairly unnatural thing. The lack of 'smoothness' is normally what makes something stand out as obviously or overly auto-tuned.
In a lot of metalcore-type music, the way the singers tends to write their vocal lines adds to the problem - the screaming parts tend to be made up of lots of short, sharp syllables, and then they break into a big, slow, smooth singing part (see: Killswitch Engage's entire career). That immediately makes us more critical of the sung parts because they're so different from the harsh vocals - our ears expect the singing parts to be smooth and flowing, and breaks in that stand out. Singers like Daryl Palumbo (on Glassjaw's first album at least - since then he's been very guilty of auto-tune abuse) and Brock Lindow (36 Crazyfists), who jump around from singing to screaming and often sing in quite a staccato way can get away with dodgier pitch because our brain doesn't have a chance to lock in on an obvious vocal pattern.
Basically, to make auto-tune really work, it needs to be subtle - that sounds really obvious, but what I mean is the singer has to be 95% of the way there already. The singer should be hitting the right notes; auto-tune should only the helping hand over the finishing line. If you're having to move syllables from a C to a C#, it'll take a lot more work to get the results sounding natural because the change from the D immediately beforehand suddenly won't sound quite right.
Steve
xFkx
gain induction
Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, that's one mofo who can SING. with capital S, I, N and G.
I have absolutely no beef with joey's production method, it's his part as a producer to make the best sound possible. It's just too bad that he has to work with people who shouldn't be called singers at all.
I have absolutely no beef with joey's production method, it's his part as a producer to make the best sound possible. It's just too bad that he has to work with people who shouldn't be called singers at all.
Cyanide_Anima
yooveesevenbeekay
Devin DOES use autotune/melodyne. not a lot, but he does! "babysong" of Synchestra, he has quite the autotune going on there. for effect, he has some r&b-ish vocal things going on there. and "pixillate" has a woman singing on there (it has a synthy sound too, listen in good headphones...), autotuned. he doesnt use autotune to make someone with poor pitch control sound godly, but he enhances already great performances.
- Status
