4 ms·

Because the technical proficiency of a singer, or any musician/instrumentalist for that matter, is not what makes a song interesting or memorable.

yakubin 5y ago
There is no single thing that makes a song interesting or memorable, but technical proficiency is one of factors. Of course, I don't think that being "at the top" in technical proficiency makes a song any better than being just among a broader set of "best performers", but autotune makes people sound flat, generic, robotic, which is on the opposite end of the spectrum. That it doesn't contribute positively to a song is an understatement.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  Does a trumpet with a straight mute contribute positively to a song? Compared to an unmuted trumpet it has reduced dynamic control and a flattened, generic timbre. But using them is common, and the distinctive sound is a key part of many well-known musical passages. The technical proficiency of a trumpeter is completely orthogonal to whether they use a mute on a particular piece, since it is just a simple hardware technique. And the same thing with autotune. Incredible singers can and do use it for its technical effect, because they think that effect contributes to the song. As a listener you can disagree, just as I find the heavy strings vibrato of classic pop a distraction. But you can't assess how good a song is by categorizing techniques used in it. Claims that new techniques rob music of something ineffable, or just sound bad, are ubiquitous for new musical techniques and are as old as instruments at least. If you think autotune is the First Bad One when people said the same things about piano pedals, metal violin strings, geared tuning pegs, electric amplification, I just want you to consider the company you're in here. You can not like it but stop claiming it's objectively bad when it is not.
  - yakubin 5y ago
    You make it sound as if pop singers used autotune selectively, judging when it's better than natural technique. I wrote my comment in the context of large swaths of pop singers who use autotune indiscriminately in all their songs, throughout. (At least that's my impression from songs recommended to me by YouTube in incognito mode.) Now show me an acclaimed pianist who keeps their foot down on a single pedal throughout all their performances. I'd be surprised if the most common motivation for using autotune wasn't being unable to hit the right notes.
    - giraffe_lady 5y ago
      You're making assumptions about the motivations and goals of the people making the music. It's likely they do think it adds something to every song they use it on. The same way almost all contemporary musicians use amplification and digital mastering "indiscriminately." Not using those techniques is a specific, intentional part of the "sound" of some genres, and outside of that they are ubiquitous. I'm not saying autotune is this good. I'm saying that if nearly everyone is using it and continues to use it after, at this point, decades, they must be getting something out of it. Masterful singers also use it, some quite a lot, so it can't be as simple as covering up limited skill or range.

yakubin 5y ago

There is no single thing that makes a song interesting or memorable, but technical proficiency is one of factors. Of course, I don't think that being "at the top" in technical proficiency makes a song any better than being just among a broader set of "best performers", but autotune makes people sound flat, generic, robotic, which is on the opposite end of the spectrum. That it doesn't contribute positively to a song is an understatement.

giraffe_lady 5y ago
Does a trumpet with a straight mute contribute positively to a song? Compared to an unmuted trumpet it has reduced dynamic control and a flattened, generic timbre. But using them is common, and the distinctive sound is a key part of many well-known musical passages. The technical proficiency of a trumpeter is completely orthogonal to whether they use a mute on a particular piece, since it is just a simple hardware technique. And the same thing with autotune. Incredible singers can and do use it for its technical effect, because they think that effect contributes to the song. As a listener you can disagree, just as I find the heavy strings vibrato of classic pop a distraction. But you can't assess how good a song is by categorizing techniques used in it. Claims that new techniques rob music of something ineffable, or just sound bad, are ubiquitous for new musical techniques and are as old as instruments at least. If you think autotune is the First Bad One when people said the same things about piano pedals, metal violin strings, geared tuning pegs, electric amplification, I just want you to consider the company you're in here. You can not like it but stop claiming it's objectively bad when it is not.
- yakubin 5y ago
  You make it sound as if pop singers used autotune selectively, judging when it's better than natural technique. I wrote my comment in the context of large swaths of pop singers who use autotune indiscriminately in all their songs, throughout. (At least that's my impression from songs recommended to me by YouTube in incognito mode.) Now show me an acclaimed pianist who keeps their foot down on a single pedal throughout all their performances. I'd be surprised if the most common motivation for using autotune wasn't being unable to hit the right notes.
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    You're making assumptions about the motivations and goals of the people making the music. It's likely they do think it adds something to every song they use it on. The same way almost all contemporary musicians use amplification and digital mastering "indiscriminately." Not using those techniques is a specific, intentional part of the "sound" of some genres, and outside of that they are ubiquitous. I'm not saying autotune is this good. I'm saying that if nearly everyone is using it and continues to use it after, at this point, decades, they must be getting something out of it. Masterful singers also use it, some quite a lot, so it can't be as simple as covering up limited skill or range.