And we strive for..... what ?

Ikarus, by musical tastes I ment that you may play the types of music that does not often use all these types of tricks as pop, rock, new age, electronica types of music do and would maybe be less aware. You seemed to be surprised by all this doping and performance enhancer stuff. I don't always seem to transfer my thoughts to words very well.

Dave

I wonder what effect this thing would have on BB King when he bends his guitar string? One of things a blues player will do is to actually hit certain notes thate are MEANT to be out of tune (e.g., "blue" thirds and sevenths). I would like to think that a great blues player would confuse the device so much that it would just blow up a la The Simpsons. BUT . . .

This phenomenon is probably a reflection of what most Americans want: to be fooled, duped, hoodwinked, politely lied to, etc.--and have the honor of paying even more money for it! The truth hurts too much; let's just clean it up and not worry about reality. And hey, did you SEE what Britney Spears was (not) wearing?! Music? Whu?

As far as studio recordings go the use of autotone type devices is NOT cheating. Musicians, producers and engineers are at liberty to use whatever technology at their disposal to further their shared musical vision. Technology (synthesizers, sequencers and MIDI programming) have made it possible to separate the ability to actual play an instrument to make music versus being able to program a computer to make music. Each requires an active musical imagination and each is a perfectly valid method of producing music.

In pop/rock recordings it is typical for a vocal or instrumental solo on the record to have never actually existed as a real performance in the first place. The vocalist might record six different lead vocal tracks. The producer and engineer will then "cut and paste" the best snippets of the six recordings into one composite vocal track. The final "comp" track is a performance that never really took place. If done correctly, the comp track is far superior to any of the individual tracks used to create it. Comping can be done in either the digital or analog domain. Is it cheating? The alternative is to have a performer who can perfectly perform their material. While that sounds attractive, in practice it usually doesn't result in great performances. Knowing that things can be fix later "in the mix" frequently gives musicians the cushion they need to just relax and let the music flow. The stretch out and try a few thinks that they might not if they didn't have their saftey net of studio tricks.

Onhwy61, while I don't disagree with you in theory at all, there is one other alternatinve you don't mention: Drop the 'requirement' for 'perfect' performances altogether. Put the human element back in record-making, and the accidental element too. To me, the best rock/pop was made in the days before the use of such digital 'correctives', or even the click track for that matter. I generally find only negative correlation between the artistic quality of work and the 'correctness' of its execution and recording. A lot of the interest and distinctiveness is in the 'flaws' - imagine how reduced the impact of anything from "Rock Around The Clock" to "I Want To Hold Your Hand" to "Papa's Got A Brand New Bag" to "Whole Lotta Love" to "Anarchy In The UK" would be if were laid down in the anal, boring, souless manner of today's corporate product.

Zaikesman: Thank you! Music is performance, not product (in the commercial sense). Seriously, do you ever thing James Brown would "fly in" correctives or effects for his performances? I didn't think so either.