Auto-Tune vs. Guitar Effects, what's the difference?

[Scott Bails]

AutoTune, as an effect, is fine, if you're into that sort of thing. AutoTune used to correct a singer who can't sing in key is just fraud.

[Yodelgoat]

I dont mind Auto Tune used to correct obvious flaws in a voice. The song 'Survival" by Yes would be a much better song if they used one. the out of tune harmonies on that song are as painful as anything I have ever heard. The song is great, but I am jsut climbing the wall when those backing parts kick in.

[SteveSly]

It can be used as an effect rather well. Alice Cooper used it to add a really creepy feel to the opening track ("I Am Made of You") of Welcome 2 My Nightmare, which caused me to reconsider it more positively.

Agreed, a great example how it can be used as an effect.

[Tributary Records]

AutoTune, as an effect, is fine, if you're into that sort of thing. AutoTune used to correct a singer who can't sing in key is just fraud.

Why is it more fraud than someone calling themselves a musician who can only paste sound files on a computer? Why is that ok, but autotune for a singer not ok?

[Scott Bails]

That's a good question, TR. I guess it comes down to philosophy, and honesty. Or, how you would define "musician." Many sources don't demand that you actually play a traditional instrument. Assuming that one writes their music using a computer, they could still qualify.

But, tell me that you are the "singer" on a recording when your voice is digitally altered in a way that changes the actual notes that you sing in an effort to hide your shortcomings just seems fraudulent to me. It's cheating. Almost like steroids or PEDs in athletics.

YMMV



And then I read Mr. Keneally's comment in my signature, and now I'm not even sure of that.

[mjudge]

But, tell me that you are the "singer" on a recording when your voice is digitally altered in a way that changes the actual notes that you sing in an effort to hide your shortcomings just seems fraudulent to me. It's cheating. Almost like steroids or PEDs in athletics.

Understand the "YMMV," but why? How is Autotuning a singer any more or less fraudulent than using compression and noise gates and reverb, or quantizing (and I don't know your background, so maybe you're aware of this already, but way more people quantize than the average listener would probably guess), or editing together multiple takes, or whatever?

[A. Scherze]

"The great benefit of computer sequencers is that they remove the issue of skill, and replace it with the issue of judgement."

Brian Eno

[kid_runningfox]

The most popular guitar effect is the fuzz box, which degrades the signal.

From a strictly technical point of view, perhaps, but not necessarily from the point of view of the listener or the musician. Of course, YMMV.

[StevegSr]

John Lennon was too lazy to double track his vocal so he asked Abbey Road engineer Ken Townsend to invent a technical solution, Automatic Double Tracking.

Yes, to be honest, Abbey Road is chock full of studio signal manipulation and some studio effects that, IMO, date the album a bit. I loath the thick heavy presence of McCartney's bass, but it was still quite a feat to record it in 1969.

[proggy_jazzer]

To my ears, guitar effects are effective () in adding warmth or presence to the original signal. Auto-tune has the opposite effect on voice, though, rendering it sterile, cold, and completely un-natural. It's a sound I can pick out immediately, and it's like nails on a chalkboard to me. Not saying it's inherently bad, or that it can't be used creatively though. It's just a tool which, like any other, can be used effectively or mis-used.

I dont mind Auto Tune used to correct obvious flaws in a voice. The song 'Survival" by Yes would be a much better song if they used one. the out of tune harmonies on that song are as painful as anything I have ever heard. The song is great, but I am jsut climbing the wall when those backing parts kick in.

Ah, but using auto-tune on the vocals of this album would have sucked all of the "1969" out of it, and the result would have been less than the music we all came to know and love. Yes as a band is actually a great case for not using auto tune, as their vocals, flawed as they could be, were a huge part of the unique character of the band, and I for one wouldn't have changed a thing.

[Zeuhlmate]

Ah, but using auto-tune on the vocals of this album would have sucked all of the "1969" out of it, and the result would have been less than the music we all came to know and love. Yes as a band is actually a great case for not using auto tune, as their vocals, flawed as they could be, were a huge part of the unique character of the band, and I for one wouldn't have changed a thing.

On the other hand - It could be interesting to know what autotunes could do to Steve Howes album 'Beginnings'

[Scott Bails]

Understand the "YMMV," but why? How is Autotuning a singer any more or less fraudulent than using compression and noise gates and reverb, or quantizing (and I don't know your background, so maybe you're aware of this already, but way more people quantize than the average listener would probably guess), or editing together multiple takes, or whatever?

Quantizing is a good comparison, though I can't see how the other effects are comparable?

On the other hand - It could be interesting to know what autotunes could do to Steve Howes album 'Beginnings'

A simple mixing adjustment is all that's needed here.

[Zeuhlmate]

A simple mixing adjustment is all that's needed here.

You mean mix Steves voice out and someone else in ?

Actually I dont mind his voice per se, but he cant hit the notes song after song.

[Scott Bails]

You mean mix Steves voice out and someone else in ?

[Koreabruce]

You mean mix Steves voice out and someone else in ?

As I prefer Steve Howe instrumentally to Steve Howe vocally by many orders of magnitude, this question is exactly four words too long.

[GuitarGeek]

Yes - if you want to be a singer, learn to sing in tune, in tone and in time. Or get ready to be mocked..

And pick a genre where Auto-tune isn't widely used (paging Adele).

[GuitarGeek]

Difference in a nutshell: Guitar effects don't cover up an inability to play.

Believe me, they can, and Autotune isn't just used to cover up the inability to sing. That's like saying overdubs are morally wrong.

I've never actually understood how that's supposed to work. I know in the early 70's, there was a lot of talk among guitarists that effects were used to cover up lame playing (judging from the interviews that appeared in Guitar Player at the time), but I've never been able to understand that logic. I mean, if you're a boring musician, a wah wah pedal or distortion pedal isn't going to make you sound better.

I can maybe buy the idea that delay units can "transform" mundane playing, but then, if you're able to use the delay unit well enough, wouldn't that be just another skill, same as learning how to use play really really fast, or "play over changes" or whatever playing technique that you supposedly "have" to have before you can even think about playing professionally. But beyond that, no pedal is going to make you sound better if you're incapable of playing something interesting to begin with.

[GuitarGeek]

"The great benefit of computer sequencers is that they remove the issue of skill, and replace it with the issue of judgement."

Brian Eno

The problem being, that most people don't have the judgement to use any a lot of these things wisely.

[Scott Bails]

And pick a genre where Auto-tune isn't widely used (paging Adele).

You can't blame Adele for the ineptitude of her peers.

[A. Scherze]

turntables are not instruments.

https://archive.org/details/C_1969_11_21_2

The Premiere Performance of John Cage's 33 1/3

Published November 21, 1969
Usage Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
Topics New music, Music, Participatory art, KPFA-FM


A live recording of the premiere performance of John Cage's "33 1/3" at the University of California at Davis on Nov. 21, 1969. The work was really a sort of participatory sound installation in which 24 turntables with independent stereo speakers and almost 300 LP records were placed around a large room without any chairs. The audience that entered the room didn't get any instructions, although there was an "attendant" on hand to assist with operating the equipment if needed. The end result was that after a while, people started putting records on the phonographs and making sounds of their own as well. In classic Cageian style this indeterminate work breaks down the barriers between audience and performer, and sound and music, all the while requiring nothing more from the audience/participant than an open ear and curious mind.


Run time 43 min

[Sputnik]

I've never actually understood how that's supposed to work. I know in the early 70's, there was a lot of talk among guitarists that effects were used to cover up lame playing (judging from the interviews that appeared in Guitar Player at the time), but I've never been able to understand that logic. I mean, if you're a boring musician, a wah wah pedal or distortion pedal isn't going to make you sound better.

I can maybe buy the idea that delay units can "transform" mundane playing, but then, if you're able to use the delay unit well enough, wouldn't that be just another skill, same as learning how to use play really really fast, or "play over changes" or whatever playing technique that you supposedly "have" to have before you can even think about playing professionally. But beyond that, no pedal is going to make you sound better if you're incapable of playing something interesting to begin with.

I think you can hide behind fairly heavy distortion that both disguises lack of ability and produces a sound that is "bigger" than your skills could produce on their own. This isn't to say that every player who uses heavy distortion does that, but I think there are many who do.

But to some extent this gets back to the discussions we are having about strictly technical ability, and a broader sense of "musical" ability. I'd argue Thruston Moore is not that great a guitarist, and is one who hides behind heavy distortion. J Mascis, same deal. But I don't think either of them really care that much about "technical ability," they're going for a sound, and they are employing those effects to get that sound. I don't think the The Edge considers himself a great guitarist, but he has cultivated a singular style by employing effects, mostly echo, to render the music he wanted to create. So there's a kind of truth on each side of the argument. You can't discuss The Edge and Alan Holdsworth really in the same breath. There's light years between them on a technical level. But I would say The Edge has used effects creatively to compensate for his lack of strict technical ability, and is very effective musically in his chosen milieu.

Bill

[GuitarGeek]

You can't blame Adele for the ineptitude of her peers.

Well, I was referring more to her hissy fit over Tony Visconti's comments about her "possibly" using Auto-tune. If you don't like someone saying, "she probably uses Auto-tune", then maybe you're performing in the wrong genre.

[mjudge]

I've never actually understood how that's supposed to work. I know in the early 70's, there was a lot of talk among guitarists that effects were used to cover up lame playing (judging from the interviews that appeared in Guitar Player at the time), but I've never been able to understand that logic. I mean, if you're a boring musician, a wah wah pedal or distortion pedal isn't going to make you sound better.

I can maybe buy the idea that delay units can "transform" mundane playing, but then, if you're able to use the delay unit well enough, wouldn't that be just another skill, same as learning how to use play really really fast, or "play over changes" or whatever playing technique that you supposedly "have" to have before you can even think about playing professionally. But beyond that, no pedal is going to make you sound better if you're incapable of playing something interesting to begin with.

As Sputnik has pointed out, a lot of people (myself included!) can effectively play certain things on a distorted electric guitar that we could never replicate with a clean tone. I'm a very left-hand-heavy player, and my fret hand is way better than my picking hand, so I've never regarded myself as a particularly good acoustic guitarist. Delay, reverb, phasing, flanging, etc. can all cover up sloppy picking, chorus does a lot to correct bad intonation (for players who tend to push or pull the strings as they fret), and so on.

[mjudge]

Quantizing is a good comparison, though I can't see how the other effects are comparable?

Well, gates and reverb are used all the time to fix the playing of drummers who don't really know how to hit the drums, or who tend to "flutter" the kick drum between strokes (i.e., they don't have great foot control, so the beater of the kick drum pedal is constantly hitting the drum softly before and after intentional strokes). Same thing for gates and EQ with bass players who have weak fretting hands, the whole spectrum of guitar effects in my last post, compression with anybody whose dynamics aren't very good (and it's amazing how many technical virtuosi have terrible dynamics), etc.

[GuitarGeek]

. I'd argue Thruston (sic) Moore is not that great a guitarist, and is one who hides behind heavy distortion

You haven't spent much time listening to Sonic Youth, have you? There's plenty of clean guitar tones on their records. Or at least there were on Daydream Nation, not so sure about their other albums (though I remember one or two songs they did on Letterman in the mid 90's that had clean guitar tones in them).

As Sputnik has pointed out, a lot of people (myself included!) can effectively play certain things on a distorted electric guitar that we could never replicate with a clean tone. I'm a very left-hand-heavy player, and my fret hand is way better than my picking hand, so I've never regarded myself as a particularly good acoustic guitarist.

Yeah, but is that the same thing as being a weak guitarist? Exactly how are we defining "great" guitar playing, anyway?! Jimi Hendrix often tops polls as "the greatest guitarist", but I imagine a lot of people around here would argue that he was a very sloppy player with poor intonation. Others again will argue further that Jimi's work had more soul and feeling and imagination than most guitarists with supposedly "perfect" technique.

Delay, reverb, phasing, flanging, etc. can all cover up sloppy picking, chorus does a lot to correct bad intonation (for players who tend to push or pull the strings as they fret), and so on.

If anything, I would have thought delay and reverb would make sloppy picking sound even worse. Not sure how flanging or phasing is supposed to work in that fashion either.