And we strive for..... what ?

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.

Zaikesman, it's interesting that 4 of 5 musical examples you picked are
multitrack studio creations. Do you really think the band members
stood in the same room and played the songs in real time? Don't be
naive.

The technology is completely nuetral and is simply a tool for getting the
musical vision in its final form. I think some of you are objecting to the
lack of a compelling musical vision/imagination and not the technology
employed. Musical taste may vary, but the following is a list of groups
that IMO have acheived musically satisfying results while making
extensive use of studio technology (EQ, compression, MIDI, synths,
sequencing, multitrack, overdubbing, comp tracks, samples, reverb,
etc.): Beatles, Paul Simon, Micheal Jackson/Quincy Jones, Blues Nile,
Steely Dan, Lauryn Hill, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Annie Lennox, Daniel
Lanois, Bjork, Bryan Ferry, Peter Gabriel, Radiohead, Miles Davis, Dwight
Yoakam, Joni Mitchell, Stevie Wonder, Rolling Stones, Seal and Frank
Zappa.

BTW, James Brown would fine his band members for every mistake they
made. There's a great concert video where the band is laying down a
groove and JB is doing his thing when suddenly James turns towards the
drummer and says "I caught ya'."

Did I claim they played the tracks live in the studio? (Actually, they did, at least much more so than is common practice these days, but I digress.)

Onhwy61, I think you miss my point - my first sentence above was supposed to be a disclaimer regarding my opinion of the exploitation of available technology in the making of pop records: I'm all for it, inasmuch as it can be deployed in an artistically productive way. I'm not arguing against the use of the autotuner, and didn't in my first post. And even if I were, I see no real analogy between the use of an autotuner, and the use of mutlitrack capability, or being fanatical about rehearsing one's band.

What I am arguing against is the present-day requirement of the marketplace that pop music be created in such a way as to be totally devoid of all human variation and spontaneity. Modern pop recordings do not have the individualistic 'flavor' of those by the artists I mentioned, or many of the other ones you did.

The Beatles are a great example, because their productions pushed the boundaries of their times so far, yet I am dead certain that if the most important rock band ever were to come out today, their records wouldn't be allowed on radio, simply because they're too human. Which is f***ed up, because I subscribe to the theory that the one of the reasons why people still like to hear 'flawed' old performances that radio will play (due to the songs' entrenched position in our culture), is to receive some of that very feeling they can't get from today's 'perfect', but ultimately unsatisfying, recordings.