"thereby negating the human expression and negating the validity of the pretense."
And all the people who love the recordings are...wrong?
Quite the burden of proof you've set for yourself. Abandon ship.
The use of digital pitch correction software on vocal recordings
To my mind, this practice is fraught with dishonesty.
The most obvious issue is:
- with digital pitch correction software applied to it, a vocal recording presented to the listener is done so under the pretense that it presents the human voice singing, when in fact any number of moments therein are the result of a program shoehorning the human-produced tones into a “perfect” tone” (whether it may be a Bb, C, F#, Db, or whatever), thereby negating the human expression and negating the validity of the pretense.
Much like a photo portrait of a human body post-airbrushing ceases to be a “true” presentation of that body, the viewer is not being presented with a faithful representation of that human form.
The next issue is:
- rampant apologia within the industry.
I’ve even heard an industry insider say, “pitch manipulation software does nothing we couldn’t do in the ‘70s and ‘80s. It just lets us do it for a lot less money.”
That’s a cute thing to say, but incorrect.
The finished vocal recording that was changed by the implementation of pitch correction software is, by definition, different from the finished vocal recording featuring none.
I am welcoming the thoughts of Audiogon members regarding this practice.
- ...
- 53 posts total
@hilde45 If the vocal recording was “airbrushed” by software before it hit the listener’s ears, the thing that ultimately hit the listener’s ears (vocal recording) was not the totality of the human expression that occurred when the vocalist moved air with sound waves via their singing. This is the meaning of the words you’ve scrutinized. The adjudication of ”right” or “wrong” is not applicable to matters of subjectivity, but my opinion, as stated above, remains. |
All the people who love this music will say that there is both human expression and that it's valid enough. So, nothing has been negated for them. Only for you. Thinking about your phrase "totality of the human expression," we would have to say that the initial vocalization was processed by a microphone, cord, mixer, digital tools, and more. So, it's already been diminished in "validity," to use your term. The fact that there is now pitch correction on top of those other adjustments seems to negate the "validity" for you, but this standard is idiosyncratic and, one has to imagine, quite arbitrary, especially to all the people who love the music and find expression in it. |
I think we should be clear about language. The validity of a person’s feelings is unassailable. Feelings just…are. The validity to this hypothetical statement, “this is me singing musical tones (‘notes,’ i.e. Gb, F, C#, etc.)” is indeed negated if that person’s record (or live performance as the case may be) is not that. Again, a person’s feelings regarding a vocal, with-or-without the use of digital pitch correction software, is unassailable. I’ll now describe two different things: Two different things. Of course “listening to a person singing in your living room sans microphone” and “listening to a vocal recording,” or even “listening to live vocals at a show” are not the same things. Outside of the intentional use of such software for dramatic alteration to the vocal (Cher’s ‘Believe’ in ‘98 & seemingly some 85% of hip-hop records the last 15-odd years), digital pitch “correction” software is not an effect like reverb, delay, etc. Yes, some effects added to the vocal may have an effect on pitch, but the effects are so noticeable (as intended) that it is still a different thing from a person saying, “listen to my singing on this record” and then presenting a sort of underhanded misrepresentation of their actual expression of tones (musical notes) themselves. |
The craftmanship is in the integrity of the work itself, not in his appreciation... This integrity in the case of singing is a trained gesture which is so specific for each voice that his "nuances" define the art itself versus a commercial product designed to be an artificially polished marchandise... I doubt sufi singers, Indian traditional singers or classical singers or Billie Holiday will use this DSP for voice... They consider their gesture so "imperfect" it could be an ethical and an esthetical gesture not a product to be sell first and last... Soon the "soul" of a person , his voice will be perfectly imitated and sold as a manufactured product by A. I. As the genes of any living being can already be sold... As seeds can be patented... This is not civilization, this is technocratic hell... Saying this and criticizing all that it is not judging and condemning each consumer or those who eat the patented seeds, it is stating a very meaningful and powerful fact related to humanity future choices journey.. We must become conscious of what we eat and hear as of what we think... I listen a philosopher this week who claim that human had no free will and i realized that this thinker i admired had no idea of what is free will ....He was confusing free will with the determinism acting on our choices... He was not conscious that we create our freedom , the question is not knowing if human had free will or not, the question is : which thought content will i put in my mind , in my most intimate home, this thought content is MY OWN FREE WILL CREATION and i will observe it , if i create hate i will stay a slave and if i created forgiveness i will liberate myself of any determinism... Thinking is freeing ourself...Thinking is a real free or unfree gesture in the world it is a seed which will produce fruits...i can be posessed by my emotions and by another will than mine, or i can liberate my thought process in a complete free way as Christ and Buddha did and many others... Prayers and geometry are the same free will meditations... We are free when we decide to be free not before...Even tortured and crucified we can be free, Christ did ... I think my post is gone too far... Art is a spontaneous and trained at the same time free will act not an artificial product but it can goes in this direction ...I can like some artificial product it does not means that i am wrong... But there is consequences to my free or unfree will choices...As i pick an object i pick my thought as i pick my thought i pick also a real object ... 😊 Consciousness result from the act by which we observe our own thought process and content AFTER we had produced it, then we can say it is me who think this ... Free will is born from this seed and the fruits coming from it ... |
- 53 posts total