I actually tune every single vocal that gets sent my way, even if it sounds good in the first place.

@Step You'd do that even if you knew someone had perfect and absolute pitch?

I use Autotune just for a quick fix tuning, especially if I have someone singing harmonies, and ONLY if the vocal takes are near perfect. If I get a bad take, then I make the singer(s) do it again, or I might just Melodyne the shit out of them.

At 8/4/14 09:17 AM, Troisnyx wrote:

I actually tune every single vocal that gets sent my way, even if it sounds good in the first place.

@Step You'd do that even if you knew someone had perfect and absolute pitch?

I don't think there's such thing as perfect pitch. I can't imagine any human can nail pitch to the last cent consistently. I've worked with truly excellent singers whose singing sounds immaculate, but I still felt obliged to tune their voice (even if it meant making entirely negligible pitch shifts). It has just become a force of habit for me now. I've also worked with OK singers who don't hit each note consistently, and tuning was simply a must for them.

I don't feel confident using a vocal track unless I've EQ'd it, compressed it, added suitable effects to it and tuned it, and it's become routine for me to do all that every time I'm working with vocals (or any instrument really... I've tuned saxophones, trombones, trumpets, violins and flutes before!). It's how I work haha.

I've actually kept out of commenting for a while because the old autotune debate can get a bit intense as everyone works differently and has different opinions on what is natural or what can ruin something. I'm not going to go on a diet and shout at a person for eating a doughnut, the same way I'm not going to decide not to use autotune and be mad at somebody who does. I personally think that approaching vocals or live instruments and treating them in a way suited to virtual and electronic instruments can take a lot away from it, of course depending on the mood of the piece itself. There's an art to knowing what needs tuning and when to tune it that is a level above the necessity for something to be precisely pitched. For me, it shouldn't be so much about achieving objective perfection when it comes to a performance because it gets to a point where *too much* can be done and the reason behind a performance, the expression can actually begin to get chipped away at simply to keep someone's OCD at bay.

When writing or covering songs within the world music genre or genres surrounding classical or folk, I'd always steer away from autotune because the idea of it is counterproductive to the nature of performance of these genres. This is why in about 95% of the songs I've recorded, I've not used autotune as I've seen no purpose behind using it. That is not to say that I haven't or wouldn't use it, as in some electronically surrounded genres, autotune as an effect can add to it rather than take away from it. Treating the voice like a virtual instrument among virtual instruments can often tie a track together. That's why I don't think think it's productive to approach autotune in an objective way, for example @Step, when you mentioned that you would always apply it to vocals no matter what. I see it more as a spice that can either add to a dish or overwhelm it. Cinnamon would taste like crap when added to a margherita pizza, but tastes amazing with hot chocolate. That all boils down to individual taste though, just like music.

So many comparisons between food and music, I think I'm gonna go eat now mmm.

At 8/4/14 09:59 AM, TheGoatee wrote:

There is, but not the way you're thinking. Perfect pitch refers more to the ability to create a given tone without reference, which doesn't mean that one can hit that specified pitch 100%. Someone could have it mentally but not be able to recreate it with there voice because they may not be a singer. Me and one other kid I went to High school had perfect pitch, but I was a singer and he wasn't, so he was simply very fast on the note not necessarily 100% on the pitch.

A music teacher in London once told me I had perfect pitch after testing my ability to name notes that were being played. Fun fact of the day XD

At 8/3/14 07:28 PM, midimachine wrote:

At 8/3/14 07:03 PM, Ectisity wrote: So we can have singers featured on our tracks even though we didn't enter as a team?

yes. because you could just as easily replace the vocals with another instrument if you can't sing, but you can't replace a shitty mix with a good one if you can't mix.

I see. I guess that also mean that we can't use pre made acapellas from sites like looperman as we didn't decide how it should sound? Just making sure X3.

At 8/4/14 09:50 AM, etherealwinds wrote:

That's why I don't think think it's productive to approach autotune in an objective way, for example Step, when you mentioned that you would always apply it to vocals no matter what. I see it more as a spice that can either add to a dish or overwhelm it. Cinnamon would taste like crap when added to a margherita pizza, but tastes amazing with hot chocolate. That all boils down to individual taste though, just like music.

I wholeheartedly agree. I think auto-tune, when used in moderation (and tastefully), can be a fantastic tool. However, as you and @Troisnyx have stated, it struggles to blend well with certain genres of music. It can be used, sure...just with mixed results. Going back to what you said about world, classical and folk music, where raw performance is often the best, auto-tune can stick out like a sore thumb. Fire it into an electronic style, and it probably sounds fitting. I really like how you mentioned that it boils down to taste because ultimately, everyone enjoys something different. Even if it is all sardines and ice cream (that would be disgusting).

At 8/4/14 10:28 AM, Ectisity wrote:

At 8/3/14 07:28 PM, midimachine wrote:

At 8/3/14 07:03 PM, Ectisity wrote: So we can have singers featured on our tracks even though we didn't enter as a team?

yes. because you could just as easily replace the vocals with another instrument if you can't sing, but you can't replace a shitty mix with a good one if you can't mix.

I see. I guess that also mean that we can't use pre made acapellas from sites like looperman as we didn't decide how it should sound? Just making sure X3.

Wouldn't that fall into duplo music, and therefore be against the rules?
Unless, of course, you get said acapella, and transform it into something completely original, slice it up, etc., etc.

At 8/4/14 10:19 AM, TheGoatee wrote:

At 8/4/14 10:14 AM, etherealwinds wrote:

At 8/4/14 09:59 AM, TheGoatee wrote:

There is, but not the way you're thinking. Perfect pitch refers more to the ability to create a given tone without reference, which doesn't mean that one can hit that specified pitch 100%. Someone could have it mentally but not be able to recreate it with there voice because they may not be a singer. Me and one other kid I went to High school had perfect pitch, but I was a singer and he wasn't, so he was simply very fast on the note not necessarily 100% on the pitch.

A music teacher in London once told me I had perfect pitch after testing my ability to name notes that were being played. Fun fact of the day XD

It's all fun and good at first, until all your friends and classmates play the Guess That Note game every single day....so annoying lol...

Ugh, you lot should start playing Wii Music.

There are mini-games like that, mainly on deciding which pitch is correct, which is lower, and which is higher (testing your ears rather than your ability to read notation). Have a few doses of this, and it's fine. Keep playing it, and it gets annoying, long and drawn-out.

At 8/4/14 10:28 AM, Ectisity wrote: I see. I guess that also mean that we can't use pre made acapellas from sites like looperman as we didn't decide how it should sound? Just making sure X3.

basically what troisnyx said, you can edit and chop up vocals from a royalty free acapella site so that they're not recognisable. there were a couple of auditions that did this really nicely.

At 8/4/14 08:59 AM, JacobCadmus wrote:

At 8/3/14 08:20 PM, SoundChris wrote:

At 8/3/14 07:46 PM, Step wrote:

I have to admit that i mostly would prefer virtual instruments these days because they really do what i want and dont try to interprete themselve.

Is that your preference in context of this tournament, or in general?

I am honest - it would be my preference in general. Its true that today there stil quite a lot of situations where a real performance just is better (if you are able to pay a big sum) - e.g.;

- Choir. If you want to achieve a vivid, warm and dynamic sound i would prefer to work with a pro choir here. But if you would imagine future vstis (e.g. an imporved version of 8dios requiem with the ability of an improved ewql symphonic choirs wordbuilder ... :D ) even wordbuilding should become much easier soon.

- With solo vocal performances its the same, but with 1 big dfference: Every voice is quite unique. Even you would have the perfect vsti here it will always be more interesting to find the one special voice out there. But if you are a beginning composer and wanted very strong performances for less money than the vsti is mostly the better alternative (atleast within the next 2-4 years of vsti evolution).

- Improvisations and compings in jazz

- Orchestral: Its stil very hard to get a very warm and personal orchestral sound - especially within the string section. But i think EWQL Hollywood Strings and other liraries can be seen as a very big milestone here. In 5 years they will be super realistic and will have a far more human touch. Then i really would prefer the vsti. If you are working with professionals then you know most of them are very good musicians with their very own vision of the track and it can take quite a long time to finally let them play exactly like you wanted the piece to sound and not the :D

- Sounddesign: Its always cooler to be able to create this kind of stuff yourself - also the sfx. But thats stil something i am not able to do - i guess within 2 years this will change.

In any other cases i would prefer the vsti solution. I just want to have controll over my whole project and the general sound. I also believe the industry of the future will prefer to pay a bigger sum to just 1 composer/sounddesign guy or a small team without the big costs which scoring stages, orchestras, choirs etc would produce. Maybe i am wrong here, but i think those times in an oeconomical thinking industry are almost over. If not plz tell me!

At 8/4/14 11:14 AM, SoundChris wrote:

At 8/4/14 08:59 AM, JacobCadmus wrote:

At 8/3/14 08:20 PM, SoundChris wrote:

At 8/3/14 07:46 PM, Step wrote:

I have to admit that i mostly would prefer virtual instruments these days because they really do what i want and dont try to interprete themselve.

Is that your preference in context of this tournament, or in general?

I am honest - it would be my preference in general. Its true that today there stil quite a lot of situations where a real performance just is better (if you are able to pay a big sum) - e.g.;

- Choir. If you want to achieve a vivid, warm and dynamic sound i would prefer to work with a pro choir here. But if you would imagine future vstis (e.g. an imporved version of 8dios requiem with the ability of an improved ewql symphonic choirs wordbuilder ... :D ) even wordbuilding should become much easier soon.

Alternatively, if you enjoy Enya or anyone doing her genre of music, layer your vocals. Don't use the same vocal track over and over again -- basically, if you're a good singer, or if you have a good singer at hand, get said vocalist to record his/her voice OVER AND OVER AGAIN until it sounds like a warm choir. Basically, you're doing what a choir does, except now, it's your own voice. Of course, the question now is, will we all be able to EQ and pan that till we get the same wide sound effect that a live choir does?

In any other cases i would prefer the vsti solution. I just want to have controll over my whole project and the general sound. I also believe the industry of the future will prefer to pay a bigger sum to just 1 composer/sounddesign guy or a small team without the big costs which scoring stages, orchestras, choirs etc would produce. Maybe i am wrong here, but i think those times in an oeconomical thinking industry are almost over. If not plz tell me!

If you have a comparison between a set of instruments that doesn't cost much, e.g. tin whistles and flageolets, and VSTi for said instruments... I would go for learning the instruments myself. The piece needs to have a personal touch, even if you're not the best instrumentalist out there.

Also, about getting one composer against scoring stages, orchestras and choirs -- there's been one exception to the rule, and hopefully one that will pave more for choirs in general:

Have you ever heard of Skala and the Kolacny brothers? (might be Scala, but look them up anyways). They had their music featured in some British soap or sitcom (I hardly ever watch TV, so don't look at me) -- and their popularity skyrocketed. It just takes one spark to get the fire going, in any case.

Heck, the same argument could be used against me, a choir would be preferred over someone who does vocal layering and doesn't do concerts -- but a musician has to fight for that spark and not count the time or the cost (not necessarily the fiscal aspect, but other things mainly). There is always a place for any kind of musician, or group of musicians, if we should only strive to make one.

Wait, isn't autotune technically unnoticeable if you only use it for fine tuning?
I'm a bit confused by the - use autotune for some genres over others- bit.

I've never done any serious vocal work, so I wouldn't know, but I thought (I can always be wrong) that the super super super vast majority of studio productions use autotune on vocals by default (regardless of genre, with very few exceptions) and that, unless you go crazy with it, it doesn't add any distinguishable features to the voice; just snapping the pitch to the desired key.

Yes, No, Maybe?

At 8/4/14 11:33 AM, LunyAlex wrote: Wait, isn't autotune technically unnoticeable if you only use it for fine tuning?
I'm a bit confused by the - use autotune for some genres over others- bit.

I've never done any serious vocal work, so I wouldn't know, but I thought (I can always be wrong) that the super super super vast majority of studio productions use autotune on vocals by default (regardless of genre, with very few exceptions) and that, unless you go crazy with it, it doesn't add any distinguishable features to the voice; just snapping the pitch to the desired key.

Yes, No, Maybe?

Problem is, with a lot of studio productions (and I'm talking mainstream studio productions), I can still hear the slight robotic/electronic quality about the voice, rather than something raw. My ears pick it up as an electronic instrument for some reason, rather than a physical instrument or a VST thereof.

I personally think, however, its necessity will be tested among us vocalists pretty soon...

Hm i really think there is no right or wrong way - its just 2 very different approaches with lots of advantages and also weakpoints. What i forgot is the advantage to be able to create your own aleatoric effects. I always envied jerry goldsmith who was able to do such awesome custom aleatoric effects with his orchestra. Maybe a real performance is always better in cases where "unpredictable elements" are included in music.

Concerning the self made choir: I always wanted to try out this. I am a baritone with classical solo voice training who sang lots of years in a cathedral choir which was traveling around the world and this has been a very awesome experience. I love ecclesiastical music very much btw. Like you said - i fear that i am not good enough in preparing the single tracks with EQs or other effects well . I hope i will learn this someday. When it comes to pitching - i am not sure if you could pitch a low voice like mine very high - e.g. to the alto or even soprano altitude with melodyne or other tools without getting a quite strange sound? :D

If you have a comparison between a set of instruments that doesn't cost much, e.g. tin whistles and flageolets, and VSTi for said instruments... I would go for learning the instruments myself. The piece needs to have a personal touch, even if you're not the best instrumentalist out there.

Now when you mention the whistle: Here is my tip and one of my personal favourite vstis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqLTOHcCcxA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJKyxFvaLzw

I just love this stuff <3 Even i played alto and soprano recorders in my childhood i am quite sure i would not be able to produce such a good sound. But off course a real player who knows what he is doing takes preference.

Hm - i havent heared from scala or the kolacny brothers but it sounds interesting. I definitely will take a listen!

At 8/4/14 11:50 AM, SoundChris wrote: Concerning the self made choir: I always wanted to try out this. I am a baritone with classical solo voice training who sang lots of years in a cathedral choir which was traveling around the world and this has been a very awesome experience. I love ecclesiastical music very much btw. Like you said - i fear that i am not good enough in preparing the single tracks with EQs or other effects well . I hope i will learn this someday. When it comes to pitching - i am not sure if you could pitch a low voice like mine very high - e.g. to the alto or even soprano altitude with melodyne or other tools without getting a quite strange sound? :D

Falsetto? Some baritones and even basses (but mostly tenors) are able to go to the male equivalent of alto or soprano by simply singing in the falsetto range. I'm not sure what yours is like -- I haven't heard it (I secretly wish I could!), but there's that option to consider. Which puts male vocalists at an advantage in most cases, especially with regards to pitch range.

But with Melodyne, or Audacity, or whatever pitch-bender we use, whether I change my voice to bass or you change your voice to a sop, it's still going to sound..... weird. XD

Now when you mention the whistle: Here is my tip and one of my personal favourite vstis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqLTOHcCcxA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJKyxFvaLzw

I just love this stuff <3 Even i played alto and soprano recorders in my childhood i am quite sure i would not be able to produce such a good sound. But off course a real player who knows what he is doing takes preference.

Trust me, I'm only learning... and if I were to play a melodic riff on a tin whistle, you'll probably hear someone with a trying breath. ^_^' But I'd like to use it nonetheless.

Same with the recorder and the other percussions I have in the stash; I'd like to dig them out.

Now on a side note @Step @Echo it's almost 12:00 EST and I am really, really racked with nervousness, so can someone please release the results already?

Aww. Let's all go home then...

Where is the good old racoon elite reaction force action? We wanna be entertained :D

At 8/4/14 11:56 AM, Troisnyx wrote: Now on a side note @Step @Echo it's almost 12:00 EST and I am really, really racked with nervousness, so can someone please release the results already?

12:00 as in noon, not 12:00 as in midnight, so the results will be out any time within the next 12 hours. That's all I'm giving away!

At 8/4/14 11:40 AM, Troisnyx wrote:
Problem is, with a lot of studio productions (and I'm talking mainstream studio productions), I can still hear the slight robotic/electronic quality about the voice, rather than something raw. My ears pick it up as an electronic instrument for some reason, rather than a physical instrument or a VST thereof.

I personally think, however, its necessity will be tested among us vocalists pretty soon...

Ah, I see. Fair enough.

I've never been able to tell, though admittedly the vast majority of vocal-including music that I listen to involves angry men screaming their spleens out into the microphone, so not a lot of ear training going on there.

----------------------

At 8/4/14 12:05 PM, SoundChris wrote: Where is the good old racoon elite reaction force action? We wanna be entertained :D

So uh...speaking of raccooons...we might have a problem.

See a professional hacker activist by the name of Aiden Paws, hell-bent on bringing justice to the people who destroyed his raccoon nomnoms has hacked into very much the wrong server and completely by chance utterly eradicated every trace of the results.

SO YEAH. THAT HAPPENED.

On these modern days almost all the engineers use pitch correction for their singers, no matter the genre or cultural background. It is a tool that lets polish something that it is already good or completely destroy something that is terrible.Those who don't use it are because whether they want a "natural perfomance" or the singer requested it.

I don't think that there's somebody with perfect pitch, just imagine someone that could sing like t-pain without autotune.

Listen to Christina Aguilera (who claims she doesn't uses autotune) her vocals sound perfect, flawless performance. Watch a video of her live now , but do this: minimize the video, don't let the visuals distract you and focus on the vocal tuning only. It is pretty good but it's not perfect like the studio version( of course ignoring the other processing effects). You can hear some small flaws that an engineer could fix with autotune if that was a raw recording for a studio session.

That's why Justin Bieber's vocals sound better than Johnny Hartman's. But now imagine how Mr. Hartman would sound with the tools used today.

It is not the same using the pitch correction at a 20% percent than a 70%. In the end, pitch correction is just another tool like delay or reverb, but i don't see anybody complaining about that. Weird huh?

At 8/4/14 12:41 PM, Acid-Paradox wrote: I don't think that there's somebody with perfect pitch, just imagine someone that could sing like t-pain without autotune.

Listen to Christina Aguilera (who claims she doesn't uses autotune) her vocals sound perfect, flawless performance. Watch a video of her live now , but do this: minimize the video, don't let the visuals distract you and focus on the vocal tuning only. It is pretty good but it's not perfect like the studio version( of course ignoring the other processing effects). You can hear some small flaws that an engineer could fix with autotune if that was a raw recording for a studio session.

Yep thats it. I think the focus today lies on finding interesting voices with a special and unique character. It isnt that important anymore to be a good singer. E.g. listen to lana del rey´s studio albums (wow) and then listen to her live concerts (OMFG???). Thats something we find very often these days. But really - i dont care. As long as the final product is flawless and strong 7 convincing i dont care how it has been created. The result is what counts :D

Hail to technological evolution!

At 8/4/14 12:33 PM, Echo wrote: So uh...speaking of raccooons...we might have a problem.
See a professional hacker activist by the name of Aiden Paws, hell-bent on bringing justice to the people who destroyed his raccoon nomnoms has hacked into very much the wrong server and completely by chance utterly eradicated every trace of the results.

SO YEAH. THAT HAPPENED.

Ehm yeah. Well...

The suspense is killing me :(!

Get it?

Suspense killing me... in the mix...

Get it?

Guys?

...guys?

At 8/4/14 01:46 PM, LunyAlex wrote: Get it?

Suspense killing me... in the mix...

Get it?

Guys?

...guys?

Lol XD. I got it :D. Wait... does that mean I'm a nerd now O_O?

At 8/4/14 12:41 PM, Acid-Paradox wrote:

I don't think that there's somebody with perfect pitch, just imagine someone that could sing like t-pain without autotune.

Would it sound something like this?

At 8/4/14 03:30 PM, etherealwinds wrote:

At 8/4/14 12:41 PM, Acid-Paradox wrote:

I don't think that there's somebody with perfect pitch, just imagine someone that could sing like t-pain without autotune.

Would it sound something like this?

hahah interesting.

That controversy in the comments though , the best way to tell if she's legit or not is to ask her to sing a song WITHOUT using that vocal technique.

Cased closed.

At 8/4/14 12:08 PM, Step wrote:

At 8/4/14 11:56 AM, Troisnyx wrote: Now on a side note @Step @Echo it's almost 12:00 EST and I am really, really racked with nervousness, so can someone please release the results already?

12:00 as in noon, not 12:00 as in midnight, so the results will be out any time within the next 12 hours. That's all I'm giving away!

We be waiting like...
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/4448139/social-network-refresh-o.gif