4 ms·
Auto-tune has done to singing what photography did to painting - if anybody can be in tune, then being tuneful is no longer impressive. So other qualities becom
by blowski 3y ago
Auto-tune has done to singing what photography did to painting - if anybody can be in tune, then being tuneful is no longer impressive. So other qualities become important, such as timbre and authenticity.
- herval 3y agoAlso created entire new genres of music, and enabled artists that don’t have a good voice but can do cool music. I don’t know why anyone sees it as a bad thing
- 101008 3y agoI dont think anyone sees it as a "bad thing" per se. They just get mad when someone says X is better singer than Y, when X clearly uses auto-tune and Y doesn't (or at least not in the same amount).
- iinnPP 3y agoTaste is an opinion though. Getting mad about it doesn't help anyone, especially not yourself.
- lesuorac 3y agoTaste is an opinion but whether or not a singer can hit certain notes on cue is objective. Not using computers to assist with your artistic creations is largely foolish but measurable things aren't opinions. Somebody can be a better artist but also a worse singer.
- vintermann 3y agoMost of all it enabled artists who can't hold a tune to save their life but look good on TV.
- rzzzt 3y agoThey appeared before software support was available, the technique is called "someone else is singing".
- vintermann 3y agoI think that was mainly a film phenomenon, and the playback singers were credited. It's really damning when you look back how technically good 80s pop singers were, compared to 90s. Even artists obviously promoted by the music industry as eye candy for teenagers - think Samantha Fox and Morten Harket - had really solid vocal skills. The Spice Girls, not so much...
- rzzzt 3y agoWell, I only have one international example (and some local ones), so I agree that this wasn't a widely applied practice: https://www.biography.com/musicians/milli-vanilli-lip-sync-scandal https://www.biography.com/musicians/milli-vanilli-lip-sync-s...
- vintermann 3y agoIt's kind of famous for being a scandal, and also for their technical difficulties in faking live shows. It's kind of the waterline: they tried to do something a lot of later acts succeeded at with technology, but the technology wasn't there yet and it led to embarrassment.
- fsagx 3y ago"Milli Vanilli"
- otabdeveloper4 3y agoPainting never aimed to be photorealistic. Paintings always present a fictional unrealistic visual that tricks the mind into perceiving it as "real". That is the true measure of an artist's skill - to make the unreal seem real.
- jenadine 3y agoSome painting were aimed to be photorealistic though (but not all painting were)
- RecycledEle 3y ago> Painting never aimed to be photorealistic Untrue. You might be looking back at this as someone who lived in a era when photography was for documentaries and painting was for art. Are you autistic? I do not mean to be offensive. I'm an aspie.
- otabdeveloper4 3y agoPainting was always first and foremost for spiritual and religious purposes, not for documenting things. Secular painting became a thing only very recently, two or three hundred years ago. And even then, it was always used to whitewash or vilify something or someone. Bias was (and is!) its primary purpose.
- RecycledEle 3y ago> Painting was always first and foremost for spiritual and religious purposes, not for documenting things. There was a time (most of human history) when painting was the most realistic way we had of conveying images.
- otabdeveloper4 3y agoTechnically true, but irrelevant - practically nobody used painting for that purpose throughout history. (People didn't care about "realism" at all, that is a recent 20th century fixation.)