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.

tylermunns

@frogman

I thought the conversation was cruising at a very reasonable altitude.
People having a civil conversation.
If I may ask, how did this conversation, in your mind, necessitate being “brought back down to earth?”

A reality check, if you will.” Frankly, there is a pompous tone to that statement.
A “reality check”…thank heavens frogman is here to “educate” us.

I don’t characterize this issue as being about “purist” vs. “non-purist.”
As I said in the OP, it is about honesty.
To an artist/producer that releases vocal recordings, or performs “live,” (very intentional use of quotation marks there) under the pretense that the vocalist is…singing…I have a request, “don’t pee on my shoes on tell me it’s raining.”

It’s false advertising.

I love Kraftwerk. Love them.
They, and artists of a similar type, tell me right out: “these vocals are a certain way,” and I know what I’m getting. and it’s all good.

Some kid with an acoustic guitar, wanted me to buy their music, is telling me something different from what the Kraftwerk-type artists are telling me.
They’re saying, “listen to my singing! Buy my record!”
Well, I’d be happy to, kid, but your end of the bargain means not lying to me.

If the “bad part” of the performance is such a tiny segment of the performance, then they can easily punch in that 4-second part and be done with it, and have a vocal recording that actually is the thing they’re advertising: a human expression of vocalization.

It is just lazy and disrespectful to the buyer to do the DPC thing.

Often, the “bad note” wasn’t “bad” at all.

We’ve all heard vocal performances from the past 100 years that caused us to feel deep emotions, all of which had moments of pitchy-ness. All of them.

Pop, opera, all corners of the musical universe…non-perfect pitch is a matter of course with vocal performance, and we all, rightfully, love it.

Personally, I find the vocal performance that was shoehorned into digitally-dictated pitch to be aesthetically ugly and bad-sounding, which makes this practice all the more maddening.

If it actually made vocals sound better, we could have a real argument here.
It doesn’t.

Please, Planet Earth, I beg of you…stop using digital pitch correction software.

I would say a normal person only notices “pitchy-ness” when it’s particularly egregious. Obviously, that is not acceptable in a professional situation, and needs to be remedied.
The idea that such a remedy must be via digital pitch correction software is pure bunk.
The apologia that comes into play at this point, i.e. “recording is too expensive, so we won’t call the singer back in to re-take”….BS.

It’s enough to cause me to wonder if we should actually have a label on the release: “Vocals recorded with digital pitch correction software,” should the proprietors want to be honest.
I’m being semi-serious with that last bit, but I think I’ve made my point.



 

 

It is precisely the vulnerability, fragility and relative imperfection of the human voice, even trained, that give to it his diverse and individualized expressivity potentials and power...

It is the reason why the human voice is the root and grounding musical instrument in speech as in singing which anyway are merging everyday unbeknonwst to us... ...

You can tune a piano externally or/and mechanized it , but the human voice is integral part of your body and  could not be regulated externally save at the price of loosing its specific unique power...It seems to me that saying all that, i am very "down to earth"; as much as tonal rythmic basic speech gesture are down to earth and are imbued with physical and spiritual meanings ...There exist even a specialized field studying it in linguistic .. 😁

Suppressing this individualized always perfectible BUT never perfect gesture by regulating it by external standardized means and tools is killing art and transforming it in marchandise,like perfect Mcdonald fries, and replacing the root and fruit of the expressive tree by artificially genetically modified seeds.... It is the same act...

I think your observation is right OP...

"Imperfection is the peak" René Char...

Pop, opera, all corners of the musical universe…non-perfect pitch is a matter of course with vocal performance, and we all, rightfully, love it.

Personally, I find the vocal performance that was shoehorned into digitally-dictated pitch to be aesthetically ugly and bad-sounding, which makes this practice all the more maddening.

If it actually made vocals sound better, we could have a real argument here.
It doesn’t.

@tylermunns , oh, please! Take a chill pill and relax, man. Obviously, I struck a chord (😊) with you. It should be obvious why I used the phrases that I used. “Pompous”? Really? Read your own words to see pomposity.

I’ll make it short:

The use of pitch correction and its possible attack on musical integrity is a matter of the degree to which it is used. It seemed from many of the responses (including yours) that the use of this electronic tool is considered objectionable in all instances and not only when there is a gross reliance on it by the “artist”. Used very sparingly it can be very useful and not objectionable, imo. That was my point, nothing more.


**** I have perfect pitch. I know what off-pitch sounds like. I’m a singer.
I sing on pitch.****

Pomposity, anyone?

What @tylermunns says sounds like a perfectly reasonable statement to me and bothers me not a jot. 

The OP is Ahab and digital pitch correction is...  We know how that story ends.