Auto-tune is basically an effect that corrects a singer's pitch to match the closest note in a designated key. When a low amount of auto-tune is used, it makes the singer sound like he or she is hitting every note perfectly. When a high amount of auto-tune is used, it corrects every pitch that is even a tiny bit out of key, eliminating transitions from note to note, and making the singer's voice sound mechanical, or even robotic. Auto-tune was first used in 1998 on the single "Believe" by Cher. Even though it was only used a few times in the song, it caught on and soon became more popular. This culminated in 2008 with the huge success of T-Pain, who uses auto-tune in all of his hits and has become famous for doing so. In the examples of Cher and T-Pain, it is obvious from their "robotic" vocals that they use auto-tune. But music producers have said that nearly every pop artist has used lower amounts of auto-tune to simply cover up their mistakes without people noticing. Auto-tune has been criticized by lots of musicians and producers who think that it is simply used to compensate for lack of talent. But is this a bit of an overstatement?
Well, I think so. For one thing, the outcry against auto-tune has, in some cases, been WAY too dramatic. For example, Death Cab For Cutie wore blue ribbons at the Grammy awards to protest the use of auto-tune. Are you a little bit pissed off by that? No? Well I'll say it again. Death Cab For Cutie wore blue ribbons at the Grammy awards to protest the use of auto-tune. If you don't think that's really kinda fucked up, then I'll break down why I think it is. DCFC (I don't feel like writing out their name again, although writing this little aside took up more time and space) could have protested anything they wanted at the Grammy awards. If they had their hearts set on wearing ribbons, they could have protested AIDS or breast cancer by wearing red or pink ribbons. Or if they felt like supporting some other cause instead, they could have done what Sean Penn did and spoken out against homophobia (although it might not have had the same relevance at the Grammys that it did at the Oscars, it still would have been great). Or they could have raised awareness of global warming, or poverty, or nuclear proliferation, or TONS of other stuff. They chose to protest auto-tune. Does anyone else agree with me that this is SO FUCKING ARROGANT!!!??? To quote the band, "I think over the last 10 years, we've seen a lot of good musicians being affected by this newfound digital manipulation of the human voice, and we feel enough is enough." Such heartfelt words. I have to thank them for raising awareness of this horrible societal ill. I didn't know that so many good musicians have been having their voices manipulated against their will. Enough is enough! I, for one, will continue to fight this battle against the evil manipulation of the human voice.
Actually I won't, because if I want to be a pompous asshole while supporting a political cause, I'll at least pick a good one to support. Shit, at the very least I'll pick one that actually fucking matters. I didn't really like DCFC before, but now I like them even less. I mean, if anyone could benefit from auto-tune it's them.
If you take a good look at the words they chose to use in their "political" statement, it's easy to see where all of their many logical gaps are. For one thing, they describe a "newfound digital manipulation of the human voice" seemingly without any sense of irony. Auto-tune may be a new effect, but digital manipulation of the human voice is nothing new. It's been around since the 40s at least. In an article that I posted to the blog a couple weeks ago, Wired magazine cites 1935 as the earliest example of vocal manipulation, and 1971 as the first time vocal manipulation was used in music. This alone subverts DCFC's idea that vocal manipulation is something new, but the Wired article mainly just talks about the vocoder. If you think about it, vocal manipulation techniques have been around as long as LPs have, since playing LPs at different speeds can dramatically change how the vocals sound. I've heard people say that the reason Robert Plant is able to hit those crazy high notes on Led Zeppelin albums is because he actually sang them at a lower pitch and the vocals were just sped up, and watching Led Zeppelin live footage certainly supports this, since he can't hit those high notes live. Don't believe me? Well, even if that fact about Zeppelin was made up by someone else, these same vocal manipulation techniques were used to create the Chipmunks.
DCFC also make absolutely no sense when they talk about how "good musicians" have been affected by auto-tune. Actually, by their logic only bad musicians are affected by auto-tune. But there's more to analyze in those two words than just that simple contradiction. They specifically mention "musicians" in their statement, but they never mention producers. This shows a huge level of ignorance. There's a strong view held by many music fans (snobs is a better word) that music is only worth listening too when it is musician-oriented; that is, when it's listened to because the musicians are talented. The epitome of musician-oriented music is music by incredibly skilled musicians that shows no signs of production after recording. Most jazz falls under this description, as does a lot of rock music, especially if it features solos. Because musician-oriented music is understandably more respected among musicians, many musicians look down on producer-oriented music. I've met tons of music snobs (mostly jazz fans) who have dismissed producer-oriented music simply because they don't understand its merits; they think that production is only something used to cover up a lack of musical talent. Now, there's definitely something to be said for musician-oriented music; some of my favorite bands are the Sparta Locals, Steely Dan, and Black Sabbath, who I like because they're insanely good musicians. But musicianship doesn't necessarily make music good. It's impossible to deny that the Van Halen brothers, for example, are incredibly talented musicians, but it's also hard to deny that their songs are totally generic and cheesy, not to mention misogynistic. Likewise, music doesn't have to feature incredible musicianship in order to be good. There's a lot to be said for good songwriting, for example, or for originality. And there's also a lot to be said for producer oriented music; if you ignore the importance of producers, then you ignore the importance of producer-oriented genres like dub, rap, and any form of electronic music, all of which have dramatically shaped music as we know it. And you also ignore the fact that music production is an art in itself. A good producer can take a few instrumental tracks and turn them into something entirely different and unique. Yes, producers can make bad musicians sound good by doing this, but that's not an issue when you listen to music created by a talented producer simply because of its production. Production has been accepted as an art by some, as certain producers have released their own albums that were acclaimed for pioneering techniques and creating entirely new sounds, which is more than can be said for many great musicians. Plus, it's hard to dismiss the work of great producers by saying that production is easier than performance; it's an entirely different set of skills that requires just as much persistence and innovation to master. Lots of great musicians, such as Elvis Costello, have tried producing albums and failed miserably. Just listen to the albums that Elvis Costello produced for the Pogues and the Specials and you'll see what I mean. When a good producer shows high levels of talent and creativity, it's more than fair to call them an artist. Don't buy my argument? Then just ask Lee "Scratch" Perry, Brian Eno, and Dr. Dre what they think.
DCFC made the horrible mistake of ignoring producers in their statement, which is probably why they hate auto-tune so much. From the perspective of an "authentic" musician who ignores any form of production (except production techniques to make the recording sound more lo-fi and therefore more authentic), auto-tune is the epitome of producers' indulgence, and it shows just how much a producer will do to compensate for an untalented musician. But from a producer's perspective, auto-tune is an incredibly useful tool that can be used in many creative ways.
By ignoring producer-oriented music, DCFC ignores the creative ways vocal manipulation techniques such as auto-tune can be used, simply dismissing it as a program that does nothing more than make bad singers sound good. As Cher and T-Pain have showed us, auto-tune can also make your voice sound fucking weird and cool. And this in itself shows us the limits of musician-oriented music. Production technologies such as auto-tune allow musicians to create sounds that they would never be able to otherwise. Yes, auto-tune can be used to compensate for lack of talent, but it can also be used in really creative, interesting ways. I'll provide two examples of ways that musicians and producers have actually done great things with auto-tune to illustrate my point.
1. Daft Punk – "One More Time"
Everyone knows this song is heavily auto-tuned. But many people don't know just how auto-tuned it is, and just how creative this song is. Daft Punk went through a very interesting process when making it. First, they invited a horrible R&B singer to record a song for them. If you listen to what they recorded, it's really really terrible. Then they took his horribly out of tune vocals and put heavy auto-tune on them to make them sound like robot vocals (that's why they sound so electronic; he was so out of tune that auto-tune had to compensate so much). Then they chopped up his vocals to create the lyrics they wanted (you'll notice he never says "one more time we're gonna celebrate" during the original song). This shows how auto-tune can be used in unique ways to create really cool effects that wouldn't be the same otherwise. And it also shows how innovative producers can be. Notice how in this example we don't care who the singer is, and his (lack of) talent is irrelevant. But we care who the producers are, and we listen to this song because the producers are talented, and because they found a new, creative use for auto-tune (and also because you can dance to it). Producers are often times more creative than musicians.
2. Radiohead – "Kid A"
Now, I heard about this example from a pretty unreliable source, and I wasn't able to fact check it (mostly because every google search for "Radiohead Kid A" leads to reviews of the entire album featuring indie kids describing how many times a day they masturbate to it). But it makes sense, and even if Radiohead didn't use auto-tune to create this song, the process described is still a great idea that someone else should definitely use. I know for a fact that Thom Yorke hated the lyrics to this song and didn't want his voice to be associated with them, so he filtered the vocal track through a vocoder. But someone else told me that he also put it through auto-tune in a really cool way. Apparently, he just spoke the lyrics and put them into auto-tune, so that every syllable was randomly assigned a note in the proper key. If you listen to the song it sounds like this could be true; the vocal track is totally in tune but contains no distinct melody. Even if Radiohead didn't actually do this, it's just another great idea for how auto-tune can be used in a creative way that has nothing to do with compensating for lack of talent.
In order to bring this very long post full circle (thanks for sticking with me if you've made it this far), I'd like to discuss T-Pain again. While I can't say I like his music, I have to defend his use of auto-tune, simply because he's not trying to hide the fact that he uses it. He may not be the best singer, but he's not using auto-tune to compensate for this without listeners noticing; he's just using it to create a really fucking cool, unique sound. I would even go so far as to call his use of auto-tune original, since he's really the first person to use it this prominently. So while auto-tune can be used to create boring music, it can also be used to create original music. There are a lot of great singers out there, but not all of them are original.
And one final word to all those whiny, self-righteous pricks who think that there is no cause more noble than stopping the manipulation of the human voice: enough is enough. Auto-tune is more than just a cover-up. It's a useful production tool, and how it's used distinguishes the creative from the non-creative.
So one of my friends just informed me as to what exactly the deal is with Robert Plant's vocals being sped up on Led Zeppelin records. Here's what he said:
There is a little manipulation of his voice but not to the extent that it was used purely to make him sound higher. The first four albums are completely legit, the ridiculous screams on stuff like "Friends" and "Since I've Been Loving You" are all peformed in real time. Early Zeppelin shows, though there aren't too many recordings of them, do show a Plant who can hit that kind of stuff. He's not always intonated perfectly, as is to be expected in an era with giant fucking amplifiers behind you with no monitors in front of you that leaves you singing completely deaf to yourself, but he shows he can get up there.
The problem arises after four albums and three years of extensive touring, and, after trying to hit those ungodly notes every night for that long, basically began the long decline of his voice. Their next studio album, Houses of the Holy, has Plant's vocal tracks sped up, he having performed his takes to a slowed down recording. If you listen to the album, it's pretty obvious. By their next album, though, he's singing everything at real time again, but he stays much lower. Think "All of My Love" or "Kashmir." When he goes kinda high on the latter, his voice is obviously really grainy.
Plant's a testament to what overworking your voice will do to it. Operatic singers who go that high are vary wary of how they do that and strive to protect their voices, thus ensuring themselves lengthy careers. Robert Plant just blew his load after two. To be honest, I'm surprised he sounded as good on his new record as he did. In the nineties he could hardly fucking speak.
Jake
March 10, 2009 at 12:29 AMHere's something someone else sent me about auto-tune that supports some of my claims and has some really good quotes about auto-tune from various musicians and producers:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/musical/2008/06/09/080609crmu_music_frerejones?currentPage=all
Jake
March 10, 2009 at 12:37 AMI'll have to say you took your side a bit too far. As a musician myself and also a producer/engineer for local acts, I've seen so many people rely on it. Sure, if you are going for a produced and obviously tuned sound, the Auto Tune is your friend. But when used by musicians who want traditional melodies, it sounds awful.
In defense of DCFC, I'm sure they are well aware that producers are part of the problem, but didn't go into specifics in their brief statement on auto tune. And as to your comment on how auto tune would enhance DCFC, that's absolute bullshit. Not everyone like's Ben's voice, but nowhere on their records would auto tune enhance his voice.
Sure, they could have worn ribbons to support another cause, but as musicians it makes sense that protesting an overused technology is an issue close to heart. Music is a form of art that is a huge part of their lives. There is nothing wrong with speaking out against the overuse of auto tune if it means preserving integrity in your main focus of art.
Like any other technology out there, it should be used in moderation. I personally only feel it should be used to achieve obvious vocal effects in way that the listener knows it's intentional. Using it to correct near spot on performances is useless. I can see sparingly correcting a phrase or two, especially for logistical reasons (artist can't do another session). but most of the time, just do another take, or take it as is. If the heart and soul of the performance is there and the pitch is close, that's what matters.
I'll take a performance with character any day over a perfectly tuned take.
Alex Hoffman
March 19, 2009 at 7:59 PMAlex, thank you for reading and discussing the post. In response to your comment:
The reason I was criticizing DCFC is because they're a mainly musician/songwriting oriented band, and since auto-tune is a production technology, they're essentially criticizing it from an unfair perspective. I know they incorporate production techniques into their music sometimes, but from their statement it's obvious that they're ignoring producers, or at least producers of electronic music and modern R&B, when they criticize auto-tune. I think the best way to view auto-tune is simply as yet another tool available to producers. I'm in no way arguing that it's an amazing piece of technology (although it is very innovative), but at the same time it is in no way a threat to music, especially since before its creation there were other ways to make recorded music sound better and less real.
I still stand by my statement that DCFC's protest of auto-tune was incredibly arrogant, especially since they essentially appropriated the ribbon image from, for lack of better words, more worthy causes. My statement about them benefitting from auto-tune, however, was a joke that I didn't mean in any seriousness, and I probably shouldn't have put it in my post. While I can't say I approve of their protest of auto-tune, there's no way I can criticize them for being hypocritical.
That said, I really think the entire debate about auto-tune (which, in my own hypocritical opinion, I feel is too irrelevant to exist), boils down to a matter of what kind of musical aesthetics a musician or producer wants. Obviously it sounds better in electronic music than in, to use your words, "traditional melodies," but for that very reason it's unfair for DCFC to criticize other musicians who use it. And maybe they weren't criticizing people like T-Pain, Daft Punk, or Radiohead, who have actually found original uses for auto-tune. But rather than simply not criticizing them, they were entirely ignoring these uses for auto-tune and portraying it simply as the equivalent of a steroid for musicians. From your comment, it seems you at least agree with me that if people choose to criticize or praise auto-tune then they should do it in a nuanced way, acknowledging that while auto-tune can be used to deceive people, it can also be used in interesting ways. Which is why I have to criticize DCFC for making such a broad, sweeping statement that only focused on the former. While I don't agree with your statement about DCFC's protest, I greatly appreciate the fact that you acknowledge all of the uses for auto-tune and clearly separate the good from the bad. And that's something that DCFC failed to do.
Jake
March 25, 2009 at 6:46 PMJake,
First off, thanks for treating this like a dialogue rather than a sequence of back and forth name calling.
I'm always terrible at sensing jokes or sarcasm on line. I tend to get very defensive about the bands I like :)
I can understand that you still think the ribbon image was arrogant, considering where it stemmed from. I just feel that it was still appropriate that at the grammys a band would protest a technology they feel is ruining the integrity of music. Music is a deeply personal art, and that's why I feel protesting in the name of what you love is a completely appropriate action. Maybe if they did it in a different, and more specified manner, it would have been more effective. But I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
As to DCFC's perspective as singer/songwriters, what you said isn't entirely accurate.
Ben Gibbard, while not a producer has co-written and been involved on numerous non DCFC projects, and is very familiar with the recording and production process. Guitarist Chris Walla as actually a notable producer in the indie music community, and even produced albums for The Decemberists and Nada Surf. He is well aware of the numerous production tools out there.
But like you said, it comes down to aesthetics and the sound you want. Auto Tune really has little place the the types of music Chris Walla produces. And who knows, there could be some creative way he could utilize it without ruining the integrity of the music. I think their protest comes down going against musicians and producers who rely on it and use it as a fall back.
Alex Hoffman
April 2, 2009 at 12:46 PMI was one of the weird ones who actually read this entire thing. But anyway...
I personally am a big fan of a lot of, as you put it, musician based music but I am also quite a fan of producer based music. And honestly I love and hate auto-tune.
I love the creativity that can spawn from it in electronic music but, from my musician based stand point I just don't feel it belongs in R&B or in Pop. Except maybe as part of the "instrumental" part of that music. Which can be associated with the way that T Pain uses it in the background in several songs he makes appearances on. But I strongly feel that a singer shouldn't use it for the "meaningful" lyrics if you get what I mean. I feel that auto-tune should only be used in a creative way. I'll give you it that in songs like Radiohead's where it is used like, once and only for creative purposes it's alright. But use in every song feels like abuse and it loses the creativity for me.
Basically, I am all for the creativity that is possible with it, but I don't like it being used as a handicap to help produce better. And I don't like the abuse that I feel some artists do with it. I feel it's a great tool but can be way over used.
Sorry if this seemed too much like a rant
Unknown
April 6, 2009 at 1:17 AMI'm a violinist myself, so my point of view is probably much different than yours.
That said, I'm pretty against Auto Tun. To me, the thought of altering or enhancing your intonation seems kind of ridiculous. Opera singers (mainly sopranos), as mentioned before, pride themselves on their range. They hit the same high C every night they perform. In classical music, intonation is not an additional quality per say, it's expected. In any music school, it isn't uncommon in the least to spend 7+ hours a day on practice, everyday. Throughout those long hours, you practice so that every single note is in tune. Again and again and again until it is right. To repeat myself, using Auto Tune to alter a faulty pitch in a singing is complete fucking shit. Classical musicians aren't "above" popular ones by any means, but again... I see no reason to "lower the bar" in terms of work. Practice makes perfect ;)
Again, I understand how some may not relate to this. But to me, if the world of classical music can contain so many artists, famous and not, who can sing in tune... I see no reason that "popular music" has to, of sorts, lower the expectations out there. If you can sing well, do so. If you can't, then you can't. In the end, it's all about the collaborative sound that is creating, the vocals only being a part of it.
That was all about actual singing. As far as using it for effects, be my guest. I find a lot of that music to have an edgy, unique sound to it. It's not often I listen to the radio for the simple fact that a great deal of the music sounds highly manipulated and repetitive. That's just my own personal opinion though! (Thank god for MP3 players)
Unknown
August 29, 2009 at 5:47 PM