An Observation about Auto-tune...

[Delta]

You guys appear to be confusing the gimmick part of a tool with it's sum and total ability. It's really more intelligent and subtle than that when used correctly.

That is because the gimmicky part is more noticable. Plus, it is the one that provides the fun stuff, like auto-tuned dogs:


The thoughtfully-applied part is why I wonder why people call live performances superior to studio recordings - How can something be objectively better if it relies on more primitive tools?
Then again, I am no music enthusiast.

[Wolfboy]

That is because the gimmicky part is more noticable. Plus, it is the one that provides the fun stuff, like auto-tuned dogs:

Mishka!!
She continues to amaze me

The thoughtfully-applied part is why I wonder why people call live performances superior to studio recordings - How can something be objectively better if it relies on more primitive tools?
Then again, I am no music enthusiast.

When things go wrong in the studio you can always adjust them, on stage however, if you perform live, you have to use your skills/talent.
For most (if not all) Music enthusiasts it is nice to know if a favorite band/musician can actually play the instruments (which you have heard them/him/her play on studio recording) live
It proves their talent

[Fitz1980]

I used to be a huge concert buff and the thing about a good live show is that it's more raw than a studio mix.

When you're mixing an album in the studio you can do multiple takes & each instrument or voice is on a different audio track.  That means that if the bass guitar player comes in a second and a half too late on one verse the engineer can adjust it.  If the singer is off key or pitch you can adjust it with autotune or just do another take until you get it right.

At a live show you've got to do it right the first time; but sometimes your fav band will slip up live and than they have to move on their feet as it were to recover, and that's cool to watch as well.  Sometimes a band will try something different with one of their songs at a live show.

At "live" shows today lots of pop acts today lip sync to prerecorded voice tracks of the singer that were recorded in the studio and tweaked by a sound engineer.  Britney Spears is known for doing it.  She defends it by saying that it's too hard to actually sing while doing the elaborate dance numbers that her shows are famous for.  Of course just listening to one of her songs makes it pretty obvious that her vocals have been electronically tweaked.  Most rock acts won't voice track at a live show because their fans wouldn't stand for it.

[Delta]

When things go wrong in the studio you can always adjust them, on stage however, if you perform live, you have to use your skills/talent.

This is what I mean - you can get closer to perfection with additional tools available, so if the appeal stems from imperfections, why not design it to be imperfect?
You see I am not good at all this "human" stuff. But I guess the more science-y your mindset is, the more difficult it becomes to judge art.

[Wolfboy]

This is what I mean - you can get closer to perfection with additional tools available, so if the appeal stems from imperfections, why not design it to be imperfect?
You see I am not good at all this "human" stuff. But I guess the more science-y your mindset is, the more difficult it becomes to judge art.

Don't know about that
My mind isn't science-y set
When I see a band/artist perform live I don't ask for perfection, nobody is perfect, even the best guitarist can miss a tune...
For example, the last time I saw the French Synthesizer virtuoso Jean Michel Jarre perform live his famous Laser Harp didn't worked, at a certain moment, as it should work:



But this also proves he is playing live and it adds more of that "live feeling" I enjoy so much when I am at a concert 

[Delta]

Like when Simone got hit into the face by some jewelry thrown onto the stage and the song started without vocals before being aborted?

Yes, it does show that the quality of the performance is derived directly from the ability of the artist - but regarding that argument, I cannot help but wonder - why does that affect the product? Is, by that logic, a fire made with nothing but a block of dry wood and a stick superior to one simply lit by a match or *gasp* a lighter? Sure, it shows that the fire starter is more skilled at making fires, but the fire is still a fire, an exothermic reaction of the organic molecules in the wood with the oxygen gas from the air that provides the surroundings with warmth and light. Who would prefer the "hand-made" fire, at least after the novelty wears off?

There is actually something similar in the domain of video games. There is a community that specializes in "speedruns" - playthroughs of a game that aspire to reach the shortest time from turning on the system to the end credits. More accurately, there are two communities - one that does this by hooking up the console to a VCR (or a DVR, or whatever), grab the controller and play the games with their human skill, to compete for the fastest player. The other ones, they reproduce the game on a computer (usually by emulation), and optimize it frame-by-frame: they cut down the game to the shortest possible unit of time using technology, to see if they can shave 1/60 of a second off the total time spent in the game. And, during artificially slowed sections (such as the stomping pillar room in the first castle of Super Mario world), they sometimes entertain the viewers with over-complicated and needlessly risky stunts that would result in certain in-game death if those were attempted by a being with natural reflexes - after all, if they lose, they can just rewind the game for a tenth of a second and correct themselves. Those "tool-assisted" speedruns obviously do not showcase playing skill as much (though much like with music, it is necessary to a certain degree to create the base material and to find the optimum you try to approach), instead relying greatly on production to give an entertaining display of near-perfection.

And the moral of the story is: Do not try to get an aspiring engineer to understand art.

[crasher35]

I don't really like speed runs in the first place (I have a friend who's obsessed with them), however, if I were to watch a speed run, it wouldn't be a tool-assisted speed run. It's a preference, but I just don't find them compelling. What really makes a speed run interesting to me is that, with enough practice, someone is actually able to do that. Watching a tool-assisted speed run is just not that impressive just because it feels like anyone can do that with the tools provided. With the non-tool-assited speed runs you get to marvel at the skill of the player and all of the work they put into doing something like that. That is much more compelling to me.

I guess the same is true with live concerts. You really ascertain the skill of the artist as a musician as opposed to their skill as a performer (two different things) or them just making catchy songs. Not that there is anything wrong with catchy songs or people who are just good performers. A lot of artists I like fall into the latter two categories. Sometimes it's just cool to admire someone for their musical talents, though.

[Wolfboy]

Yes, it does show that the quality of the performance is derived directly from the ability of the artist - but regarding that argument, I cannot help but wonder - why does that affect the product? Is, by that logic, a fire made with nothing but a block of dry wood and a stick superior to one simply lit by a match or *gasp* a lighter? Sure, it shows that the fire starter is more skilled at making fires, but the fire is still a fire, an exothermic reaction of the organic molecules in the wood with the oxygen gas from the air that provides the surroundings with warmth and light. Who would prefer the "hand-made" fire, at least after the novelty wears off?

To go further on this example
It depends of course from person to person
Some people are happy just hearing the song (the fire), they don't care how it is made (the block of dry wood and the stick or the lighter).
Other people (like me) like to know more, ok, the fire is good... but how was it made, with wood or stick? What kind of wood? What does the stick looks like? Where does the wood come from?
We also like to see how the fire (the Music) is made, if they are doïng it with a lighter, or what we prefer, the wood or stick (the real instruments).
When we see someone making fire with a lighter: "ok, not bad", but when we see someone making the fire with wood an stick: "yes! This is what it's all about"

[Nude_not_rude]

Yes, it does show that the quality of the performance is derived directly from the ability of the artist - but regarding that argument, I cannot help but wonder - why does that affect the product? Is, by that logic, a fire made with nothing but a block of dry wood and a stick superior to one simply lit by a match or *gasp* a lighter? Sure, it shows that the fire starter is more skilled at making fires, but the fire is still a fire, an exothermic reaction of the organic molecules in the wood with the oxygen gas from the air that provides the surroundings with warmth and light. Who would prefer the "hand-made" fire, at least after the novelty wears off?

To go further on this example
It depends of course from person to person
Some people are happy just hearing the song (the fire), they don't care how it is made (the block of dry wood and the stick or the lighter).
Other people (like me) like to know more, ok, the fire is good... but how was it made, with wood or stick? What kind of wood? What does the stick looks like? Where does the wood come from?
We also like to see how the fire (the Music) is made, if they are doïng it with a lighter, or what we prefer, the wood or stick (the real instruments).
When we see someone making fire with a lighter: "ok, not bad", but when we see someone making the fire with wood an stick: "yes! This is what it's all about"

Too the words outta my mouth there Wolfie! Couldn't agree more.

[Nude_not_rude]

I'd really like to see a return to using acoustic instruments and distorted guitars in popular music, and less reliance on technology like Auto Tune.  

The blacks created jazz, gospel, soul, Motown, funk, blues, ska and reggae - why doesn't the radio push these genres more and the record companies invest their money in people who don't need all these gimmicky gadgets in order to produce music that's got guts, grime and soul?

That music is around. Sometimes you just need to look for it. Record companies are much less influential these days than say 5 years ago. Trying to keep up with the fast changing trends, they've tended to move more towards selling soft drinks (low substance pop music) rather than fine wine (classic music that's got "guts, grime and soul") which takes much longer to mature and bear fruit. To be honest they are more about marketing and promotion than substance at the moment.