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

[Sputnik]

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).

No, I haven't heard SY in a long time, and what I've heard has largely been that "wall of sound" that I think they're most famous for. The fact they use clean tones occasionally doesn't really diminish what I'm saying. I doubt anything they do when using clean tones requires much technical ability. I think with distortion and other effects, bands like SY, Smashing Pumpkins, and many others are able to produce a signature sound that isn't predicated on a high level of ability on guitar or bass. I'm not saying this is bad or un-musical, I just see it as a fact. That's certainly true of Smashing Pumpkins, who I know far better, and who I like. So it's not a question of denigrating what these folks are accomplishing musically, but simply pointing out a difference in approach.

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.

I think this is a good point. I think it shows the distinction between being a great "guitarist" and being a great "musician." Hendrix was unquestionably the latter, and for his day in the rock sphere, was surely the former. I think there are lots of players who have surpassed him in terms of sheer technique, and I think a lot of Jimi's "wow" factor was his use of effects in ways that nobody had ever heard before that made his strict guitar technique less important. Hendrix changed the game in so many ways, it would be wrong to focus too much on his technique and ignore his broader musical contributions. But it is simultaneously possible to recognize that in some respects he's not really the "greatest guitarist" on a technical level and that his reliance on effects was a factor in his success.

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.

Reverb tends to smooth out the rough edges of guitar playing, making it less stark and brittle. Heavy chorus, flanging, and phasing can cover up a lot of sloppiness in technique, and make simple things sound more full and lush, by simply taking th listner's attention away from the notes and placing it more on the effect. Distortion has the same effect, and also serves to cover up issues of dynamics because as Mike pointed out you can tap notes with your left hand and get a strong signal without having to pick them cleanly. Delay is trickier, because if you're using heavy delay and hit a wrong note or mis-fret something, it is repeated. But lighter delay works like reverb to make the sound more "mushy," thereby making it harder to distinguish individual notes and making it easier to get away with mistakes.

Most rock guitarists get a rude awakening when they turn their effects chain off, or turn it way down.

Bill

[Koreabruce]

Most rock guitarists get a rude awakening when they turn their effects chain off, or turn it way down.
Bill

So true! This is why I tend to play my ES-335 copy unplugged for the most part (when I'm not playing acoustic guitar, that is). It highlights and keeps me focused on the degree of technique that I actually have.

[bRETT]

No, I haven't heard SY in a long time, and what I've heard has largely been that "wall of sound" that I think they're most famous for.

I'd say Sonic Youth were known above all for their unusual tunings, less for the volume of the guitars (Kim Gordon's basslines were equally crucial, least before she stopped playing bass). SY was known as a technically advanced band from the get-go, having basically come into rock from the avant-garde.

[Sputnik]

I'd say Sonic Youth were known above all for their unusual tunings, less for the volume of the guitars (Kim Gordon's basslines were equally crucial, least before she stopped playing bass). SY was known as a technically advanced band from the get-go, having basically come into rock from the avant-garde.

Technically advanced, wow. Not to my memory, but in fairness maybe I need to give their stuff a fresh listen. I'll do that, maybe I'm off base with them.

Bill

[Adm.Kirk]

One of the reasons I've always liked Keith Richards is that he has tended to stay away from effects with the exception of a brief period in the late 70's when he was using an MXR phaser pedal. He stated in a recent interview that he really wished he had not went down that road. He's really just a guitar and amp player and I appreciate that. At the same time, there are people like The Edge and Dave Gilmour who really use effects well and have developed a unique sound because of it. Hendrix was sloppy and he did have more soul and feeling than many guitarists. Page and Zappa are the same as they are both a bit sloppy, Page in particular. I don't mind the sloppiness as they seem to be very much "in the moment". That's where the soul and humanity in music (which is what makes it special, imho) comes from.

Bill

[Bob Drake]

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.

I'd also add that it's an abomination when used for no apparent reason on singers who CAN sing. I like it in electronic music for example, when the voice is supposed to sound completely artificial, or a cartoon character singing. Detest it when an otherwise fine vocal in a pop or rock tune has been ruined by that impossible, scientific, inhuman pitch accuracy.

Singers: don't let an engineer put that on your voice. Warm up, record several takes, and use the best of each, the classic way.

BD
www.bdrak.com

[Bob Drake]

Guitar effects - Just my opinion as a listener and player: I like to hear the character of the guitar, Unless overdone, fuzz and overdrive still let the character through.
In pop or rock music, the sort of things I generally work on and make, I really don't like plug-in effects, especially ones that make weird, obviously computer-ey sounds, and only use the most basic plugin necessities in a mix like compressor, limiter, reverb, echo.

BD
www.bdrak.com

[WHORG]

One of the reasons I've always liked Keith Richards is that he has tended to stay away from effects with the exception of a brief period in the late 70's when he was using an MXR phaser pedal. He stated in a recent interview that he really wished he had not went down that road. He's really just a guitar and amp player and I appreciate that. At the same time, there are people like The Edge and Dave Gilmour who really use effects well and have developed a unique sound because of it. Hendrix was sloppy and he did have more soul and feeling than many guitarists. Page and Zappa are the same as they are both a bit sloppy, Page in particular. I don't mind the sloppiness as they seem to be very much "in the moment". That's where the soul and humanity in music (which is what makes it special, imho) comes from.

Bill

I see Tab Benoit whenever he comes through Raleigh to get my dose of electric Mississippi/Delta blues. He plays that Tele through a Fender Twin and Super . . . and according to him: "I likes to keep things simple, the guitar goes into the amp, the sound comes out of the amp and bounces off y'alls teeth (because y'all are smiling) - then comes back to me . . . that's how I know things are right in here" . . .

[GuitarGeek]

I'd also add that it's an abomination when used for no apparent reason on singers who CAN sing. I like it in electronic music for example, when the voice is supposed to sound completely artificial, or a cartoon character singing

The problem is it gets used so much, it's ridiculous. A few years back, I saw a promo on PBS, where they took old clips from Mr Rogers Neighborhood and Reading Rainbow, and Autotuned both Fred Rogers and Lavarr Burton. And they weren't even singing to begin with, they just took these little soundbites from their monologues and Autotuned them. Sounded stupid. And then there was a Simpsons episode that had a quit Autotune bit in it. I mean, when you start seeing stuff like that, you know "it's over". Well, in the past, such moments would signify "the end", but apparently Autotune isn't going away.

I always liked what Steve Lukather said about Autotune and quantization: "Nobody sings that perfectly in tune, and nobody plays that perfectly in time".

Damn, if you're gonna use quantization, why don't you just use a drum machine and sequencer in the first place?! Or at least get yourself a Neil Peart disciple to be your drummer.

Thank god, quantization didn't exist back in the 70's. Could you imagine someone trying to quantize Keith Moon, or Charlie Watts, or Simon King, or even Peter Criss, for that matter?!

[mjudge]

Damn, if you're gonna use quantization, why don't you just use a drum machine and sequencer in the first place?! Or at least get yourself a Neil Peart disciple to be your drummer.

Thank god, quantization didn't exist back in the 70's. Could you imagine someone trying to quantize Keith Moon, or Charlie Watts, or Simon King, or even Peter Criss, for that matter?!

That's part of the problem – I think people overestimate how much this stuff is the band's choice. Almost any mainstream rock band making its first big-money, major-label album is gonna get quantized and Autotuned, whether or not they want to, the same way they would've gotten brickwalled for most of the last 15 years. There are exceptions, of course, but this stuff is automatic to a whole lot of producers and engineers, and I've met bands whose members didn't even know that their records were very clearly quantized and Autotuned.

[GuitarGeek]

That's part of the problem – I think people overestimate how much this stuff is the band's choice. Almost any mainstream rock band making its first big-money, major-label album is gonna get quantized and Autotuned, whether or not they want to, the same way they would've gotten brickwalled for most of the last 15 years. There are exceptions, of course, but this stuff is automatic to a whole lot of producers and engineers, and I've met bands whose members didn't even know that their records were very clearly quantized and Autotuned.

But why quantize in the first place? I don't get it. If I was a record producer, I'd use a drum machine in such a circumstance. I don't see why you'd waste time recording a drummer, then run his part through a drum machine, to get the exact same result you'd get from...well, I was gonna say a Linn Drum, but I imagine modern drum machines are way more sophisticated than that, but even still, you might as well just learn how to use the drum machine. Or is that beyond the abilities of today's "record producers"?

I can understand Autotuning singers. It's easier to find a singer who has "the look", who can sing kinda ok, and Autotune them, then to find singers who can actually sing well. For every Frank Sinatra or Freddie Mercury, there must be a million Scott Baios (come to think of it, Scott Baio didn't need Autotune on his record either...or maybe he did, it just hadn't been invented yet).

I can't imagine why anyone would want to be on a major label in the first place. It's now a widely known fact how sleazy that end of the music business is, not just in terms of all you just described, but also in terms of getting ripped off financially, and everything else major labels do to their clients. You're probably better off being on an indie label, or even releasing the music yourself.

[Sputnik]

But why quantize in the first place? I don't get it. If I was a record producer, I'd use a drum machine in such a circumstance. I don't see why you'd waste time recording a drummer, then run his part through a drum machine, to get the exact same result...

You wouldn't run a recorded audio track through a drum machine. If you're concerned about the timing of an audio drum track, you can quantize the drum audio track directly. Understand that there are levels of quantization. You don't have to make it robotic, but you can reign in some stray hits so they're more in time. For what is meant to be a "definitive" take of a track, cleaning up some stay errors is probably OK, really not that differnt from doing a punch-in on tape to fix a mistake in an otherwise great performance.

If you further want to alter the sound of the drums, you can now do a direct sound replacement with samples of super well-mic'd drums to get the sound you want - no need to touch a drum machine anymore. The performance is the same, but you no longer have to be an expert a mic-ing and mixing live drums to capture a live drum performance and get a professional quality sound. Cheating? Well, I guess that depends on your perspective. I personally don't see a huge problem with it, because sound replacement won't make a bad performance sound good, but it would make flat, lifeless raw drum recordings sound good.

I can understand Autotuning singers. It's easier to find a singer who has "the look", who can sing kinda ok, and Autotune them, then to find singers who can actually sing well. For every Frank Sinatra or Freddie Mercury, there must be a million Scott Baios (come to think of it, Scott Baio didn't need Autotune on his record either...or maybe he did, it just hadn't been invented yet).

Again, like quantizing, there are levels of auto-tune. If you think of that step effect as one end of the spectrum, where you turn your voice into a robot, there's another end of the spectrum where you're making almost imperceptible changes to correct notes that stray a certain level out of the intended pitch. I've recently started singing lead vocals in a band, and have done a bit of recording. It's a major pain to have a great take where just one note is a bit out and it's not in a position where a punch-in is not feasible. If you can autotune that note, you preserve all the other great parts of the performance while fixing one minor little flub.

So it isn't really autotune that is the enemy, it's how autotune may be used to make people who basically can't cut their parts sound like they can. But even this I think may be a bit overstated, because if pitch is really way out consistently, you'll get a lot of artifacts when you use pitch correction. So, as you say, the singer can probably sing "OK" to begin with, and the pitch correction is helping expedite the process of getting a decent recording. I don't think autotuning can make someone who literally cannot sing a note sound good, but it can elevate an average performance.

For a studio recording, I'm not really that concerned about that, because they could just do endless takes until the poor singer finally hit *that* not perfectly. For live, it's a bit different, but again you will hear artifacts if the singer really isn't that good. I can tell you that Steve Hackett uses autotune on his vocals in concert. So we're not just talking about the pop-tarts here.

In case you're interested, I experimented with it on my vocals and found that pitch really isn't my problem. Rather breathing and high-end range are my hobgoblins. So live, I do use a vocal unit but not for pitch correction. I wouldn't hesitate to use pitch correction on a few notes of studio recordings, though. Beats doing the whole part over.

Bill

[mjudge]

But why quantize in the first place? I don't get it. If I was a record producer, I'd use a drum machine in such a circumstance. I don't see why you'd waste time recording a drummer, then run his part through a drum machine, to get the exact same result you'd get from...well, I was gonna say a Linn Drum, but I imagine modern drum machines are way more sophisticated than that, but even still, you might as well just learn how to use the drum machine. Or is that beyond the abilities of today's "record producers"?

...

I can't imagine why anyone would want to be on a major label in the first place. It's now a widely known fact how sleazy that end of the music business is, not just in terms of all you just described, but also in terms of getting ripped off financially, and everything else major labels do to their clients. You're probably better off being on an indie label, or even releasing the music yourself.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a good idea, and I'd much rather hear an unquantized band, but there are quite a few factors in play.

1). The radio/top-40 audience is used to a mechanical standard of time and tuning, and stuff absolutely will not get radio play if it doesn't meet that standard. I've personally heard radio DJs say that they won't play a record if the bass doesn't fit within extremely specific parameters. Hence, likewise, brickwalling: radio (and now, Spotify) programmers don't want people having to adjust the volume between songs.

2). Band dynamics. A whoooole lot of bands have at least one member who's notably less competent than the others, but you're going to start a shitshow if you say, "Hey, how about a different drummer?" Much easier just to quantize or sample-trigger the drummer than to risk the breakup of a $$$$ project.

And as to major labels, I wouldn't want to be on one either, but if they come around offering a $2 million advance to somebody who's made a single song (and this is also a real example), that person will seldom start asking about royalty rates, business structure, etc. It's no accident that virtually every huge artist of the '60s and '70s has had a protracted label battle.

[chalkpie]

With some of the "logic" I've read in this thread, a pilot using auto flight or a sea captain using GPS instead if an olde paper map must be frauds too.

[mjudge]

With some of the "logic" I've read in this thread, a pilot using auto flight or a sea captain using GPS instead if an olde paper map must be frauds too.

I addresse this slanderous Calumnie with the only meet Rejoindre, namely, that all such sham Capitaines and Pilots, otherwise Skiffesmen, are possessèd by Spirits whence do they draw their Expertise in the matter of Navigation, and that all who doe this Denie are Blasphemus.

[Sputnik]

I addresse this slanderous Calumnie with the only meet Rejoindre, namely, that all such sham Capitaines and Pilots, otherwise Skiffesmen, are possessèd by Spirits whence do they draw their Expertise in the matter of Navigation, and that all who doe this Denie are Blasphemus.

[GuitarGeek]

And as to major labels, I wouldn't want to be on one either, but if they come around offering a $2 million advance to somebody who's made a single song (and this is also a real example), that person will seldom start asking about royalty rates, business structure, etc. It's no accident that virtually every huge artist of the '60s and '70s has had a protracted label battle.

That's true. I imagine if someone had offered me a record contract when I was 18, I might not have been aware enough to say, "Wait a minute, let me have my lawyer look at this". I was kind of vaguely aware of all the people who had gotten swindled by record companies (eg Albert King, Chuck Berry, and Mary Wells getting shortchanged by their respective labels) and managers (eg The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Who getting swindled by Allen Klein), but I'm not sure I really knew what one had to do to avoid joining those ranks.

I can also remember reading an interview with Eric Clapton in Guitar Player in the mid 80's, where he talked about being forced to drop three songs from the Behind The Sun album, and replace them with three songs that Lenny Waronker thought were "more radio friendly". Now apart from the fact that I can scarcely tell the difference between Forever Man and Tangled In Love (in so much, that to my ears, they both sport equal amounts of "top 40 potential"). I'm not sure I really understood how common that sort of thing was, ie being called onto the carpet by the A&R henchmen to be told that your record "is nice, but there's no singles, go write some singles", until much later.

I also recall how many instances where some of those A&R goons didn't always know what they were talking about, eg Queen and The Beatles both being passed by practically every record company in the UK, Trevor Rabin being told there was "no place in the market" for songs likes Owner Of A Lonely Heart, and Blondie producing two top ten hits off an album that their label told them "didn't have any hits" on it (those two songs being Rapture and The Tide Is High).

[bRETT]

I also recall how many instances where some of those A&R goons didn't always know what they were talking about, eg Queen and The Beatles both being passed by practically every record company in the UK, Trevor Rabin being told there was "no place in the market" for songs likes Owner Of A Lonely Heart, and Blondie producing two top ten hits off an album that their label told them "didn't have any hits" on it (those two songs being Rapture and The Tide Is High).

I can understand the label freaking out over Autoamerican though. The hits aside, it was a really weird noncommercial album, and one that fans still don't seem to like much.

[GuitarGeek]

I can understand the label freaking out over Autoamerican though. The hits aside, it was a really weird noncommercial album, and one that fans still don't seem to like much.

To be honest, I don't really Blondie's music apart from the hits. I always intended to check out some of their records, but have never really followed through.

[bRETT]

To be honest, I don't really Blondie's music apart from the hits. I always intended to check out some of their records, but have never really followed through.

Parallel Lines is a great pop album from start to finish. Plus, one fairly proggy track with Fripp (whom Debbie Harry apparently dated and then wrote "Dreaming" about).

[chalkpie]

I addresse this slanderous Calumnie with the only meet Rejoindre, namely, that all such sham Capitaines and Pilots, otherwise Skiffesmen, are possessèd by Spirits whence do they draw their Expertise in the matter of Navigation, and that all who doe this Denie are Blasphemus.

What he said. I think. Burp.

[mjudge]

Parallel Lines is a great pop album from start to finish. Plus, one fairly proggy track with Fripp (whom Debbie Harry apparently dated and then wrote "Dreaming" about).

Robert Fripp dating Debbie Harry is one of the weirdest goddamn things I've ever heard, and also the only thing that's ever made me jealous of Robert Fripp.

[mjudge]

Although, on further reflection, Robert Fripp dating Debbie Harry was probably a lot like a duller Videodrome, so it makes some sense.

[chalkpie]

Is that true? That sly dawg!

[Yodelgoat]

I remember after a move 20 years back or so, I was unpacking my music stuff and my 12year old son saw my turntable and he said... "Dad!! I didn't know you played that too!" I had to laugh. He thought turntables were "musical instruments" - it explained why I later had to replace the thing. he ruined the arm... It was a linear tracking turntable...