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

Two YTbers I follow, Rick Beato and Fil of Wings of Pegasus, have videos talking about auto tune ( others too ). Very enlightening and educational, if so interested. Our recordings that we listen to, are vastly manipulated by the folks involved who are making the recordings. To name the many characteristics I am speaking of, would be another area to examine and research, on the net. For those who have spent time in a recording studio, know of what I am speaking. But the point of it all.....if you enjoy the end result, this is all that matters. So, Enjoy ! My best, MrD.

@frogman

Here is a result of a 5-second use of the Google search engine:
Definitions from Oxford Languages.
adjective: pompous
- affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important.

I consider someone introducing themself to a conversation with this,
Let’s bring this discussion ‘down to earth.’ A little reality check, if you will,”
to be assuming a somewhat pompous tone.
It’s not like this conversation became so grossly off-topic as to be silly and worthless or anything like that.
Thusly, that intro was unnecessary and, to me, sounded kinda pompous.
I see that introduction to insinuate that the speaker (introducing themself with a self-important tone) has knowledge of “reality,” and the other participants in the conversation are babbling glib nonsense.

Here’s my comment that you scrutinized the way a child when chastised by an adult authority figure (‘bUt…bUt…I wAsN’t bEiNg MeAn!! HEEEE - pointing finger at the other kid - wAs bEiNg MeAn FIRST!!!’):

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

I am a singer who sings on pitch (an innocuous statement akin to a mechanic saying, ‘I’m a mechanic who knows how to use a wrench’) and have perfect pitch.
I certainly don’t wish to be patronizing or didactic, but, if I may, “perfect pitch” is a commonly used term to describe the ability to recognize tones by hearing.
A bit of genetic “luck” (nature) and long-term commitment (nurture).

My dissemination of this, aside from merely being a statement of fact, was to show that I’m not talkin’ out my rear end when I say, “I know what off-pitch tones sound like.”

You have, thusly, incorrectly accused me of showing pomposity with those statements.

You are correct that, as a matter of course, I find the use of digital pitch “correction” software to be objectionable in all instances, for the reasons I stated.

 

Perhaps I’m ignorant, but my impression is that one is most likely to encounter this in contemporary Pop. As such music is heavily processed to begin with, why would this be a concern to its fans?

I have difficulty envisioning Classical or Jazz vocalists going this route but given the accelerating pace of technology, who knows?

@stuartk May I ask what you mean when you say, “…contemporary pop…is heavily processed…” ?

Any processing of music will decrease some spontaneous vibe in the expression...

The fact that we like the singer or not is beside the point...

The central point is the loss of integrity, meaning in the expressive gesture itself...

This is how i read the OP thread... It is not about taste or about a useful tool in some case in my not so humble opinion ...😊

It is about the essence of this emotional micro dynamic in the human voice that can move us ....My experience is that the greatest singers in any genre are not "perfect" or "imperfect" so much as they had learn how to control the fine line between these two zones...

Processing their voice to adjust it will degrade their performance and not just their integrity even if the final product may seems more appealing in the short time...

Maria Callas will never accept any correction to improve his performance nor Marian Anderson nor Billie Holiday...

Am i wrong ?

It is my notion of what true artistry is... Once this said as anybody here i can enjoy a corrected or processed piece of music as everybody here without even knowing it... A product can be appealing even with NO ARTIST, an A.I. composing and singing it for example... 😊

But Art is not a mere electronic craftmanship so perfect it could be...

 

And dont look for someone pompous, it is not the OP neither our friend frogman , everybody knows here it is me the philosopher of the north american territory... 😁😊😉😊 I plan to keep the title and the adjective associated to it...BEWARE  any contender for pomposity master title ...I will keep it...