Performance-Enhancement is killing music

[Afn]

Hamilton should know: He and his peers are the ones doing the manipulating. A computer-literate sound engineer has become a must for any musician or band today — especially a band whose singer has trouble hitting, and holding, certain notes. Pitch correction, real-time processing and harmony generation don't sound very rock-and-roll, but Britney Spears, Cher, even art-rockers Radiohead would sound lousy — or, depending or your tastes, lousier — without the computer-based help.

"The analogy would be airbrushing," says Hamilton. "It's the same thing as in Playboy."


Performance-enhancement for pop stars, especially on a high-tech scale, is a relatively new trend. In 1997, Antares Audio Technologies — a godsend to some, the death of authentic music to others — developed revolutionary pitch-correction software called Auto-Tune, which allows a sound technician to smooth out a singer's voice, no matter how wobbly or screechy or off-key that voice may be. Just punch the desired key of a song into the computer, and the gizmo will adjust the pitch to the closest note in that key.

Auto-tuning, which is now being used onstage as well, did nothing less than change how pop music is made.


A good article. If you wanted to know why pop music sounds so unreal this explains the process. Digital manipulation can be used to help an act, now it is used to create talent from untalented actors. No wonder the music sounds bad.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6369371/

[muffenme]

:fire

The singer should sing from the heart and that it, everything else is fake.

:hole

[Mels_Smileys45]

Well the Beatles were once thought to be fake for their studio "magic". I'm not trying to defend new "artists" really, because I think most new music sucks, but its not the technology to blame so much as its the way "artists" are packaged. People buy the pretty face not the musician. A modern day Brian Wilson could write a master piece with modern tech but would go unrecognized from the glare of J-Lo's bling bling.


Radiohead being lumped in the same pile with those others pieces of shit is a travesty.

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

I find it interesting that this kind of thing killed Milli Vanilli's (spelling?) careers, but it doesn't seem to have hurt Ashlee Simpson's. In fact she seems to be even better known, because of it.

Performance enhancement appears to be acceptable to the modern audience.

Interesting...Can we extrapolate from this where the music industry is heading? Let's play science fiction.

It appears we may not need anything like singer-songwriters anymore. All we need is a pretty face, either on stage or video.

Wouldn't it be possible to use already existing sung notes and words to create a song? Perhaps someday a computer program could actually write the song. With CGI and holographics it may be possible to eliminate the necessity for the performer as well.

The music industry could maybe someday get their wish. They could present music they actually owned, because it would be created, manufactured and presented souly by their own machinery. They wouldn't have to extort creative minds into signing over their copyrights and performances. At that point the music manufacturing industry could tell us filesharers "you are stealing from our personal creativity", and actually be telling the truth.

[MushroomheadXIII]

I agree, a singer singing someone elses lyrics isn't singing from their heart, i don't think beyonce rights her own songs, heck she doesn't even know what the hell she's singing why bother? If you ask britney spears what one of her songs is about she'll reply: '..it's um...about a girl who...', as far as i know, we should bring back artists like Fats Domino and Louis Armstrong, Robert Randolph is alive and well so that's good! Who's with me?

[nukehella]

People wonder why record sales are down.Off the top of my head I can't think of anything that came out this year that didn't suck so bad I wouldnt even download it.

[Afn]

Wouldn't it be possible to use already existing sung notes and words to create a song? Perhaps someday a computer program could actually write the song. With CGI and holographics it may be possible to eliminate the necessity for the performer as well.

With on-demand internet and existing technology, it is questionable if the recording and production cartels can even exist, or make a profit. In specialized markets, perhaps.

When experience becomes a clone of everything else, and same producing technology is in every computer or pda, would you still want to listen to any of it?

[Siskabush]

I find it interesting that this kind of thing killed Milli Vanilli's (spelling?) careers, but it doesn't seem to have hurt Ashlee Simpson's. In fact she seems to be even better known, because of it.

Performance enhancement appears to be acceptable to the modern audience.

Interesting...Can we extrapolate from this where the music industry is heading? Let's play science fiction.

It appears we may not need anything like singer-songwriters anymore. All we need is a pretty face, either on stage or video.

Wouldn't it be possible to use already existing sung notes and words to create a song? Perhaps someday a computer program could actually write the song. With CGI and holographics it may be possible to eliminate the necessity for the performer as well.

The music industry could maybe someday get their wish. They could present music they actually owned, because it would be created, manufactured and presented souly by their own machinery. They wouldn't have to extort creative minds into signing over their copyrights and performances. At that point the music manufacturing industry could tell us filesharers "you are stealing from our personal creativity", and actually be telling the truth.


Like I said, the majority of these pop artists are just using music so they can advertise their cheesy new clothing lines, shoes, or perfumes. Yes, most have absolutely no talent, but these kids dont seem to care. Horny teens would rather see JLo dance half naked on stage then see she has no talent. All pop artists should just work at strip clubs, then I would respect them for putting thier sleazy talent to use.

The RIAA could care less too. They are bent on ending child porn (Not really), but they dont care if some 12 year old is influenced to have sex by Ja Rule or some other skank. My cousin fell victim to that pop culture.

American pop music is just a sex commercial now.

[moneoa]

I find it interesting that this kind of thing killed Milli Vanilli's (spelling?) careers, but it doesn't seem to have hurt Ashlee Simpson's. In fact she seems to be even better known, because of it.
Not quite the same, Milli Vanilli lost thier careers because they were lip synching
the difference being that those two lip synched to another singer belting out the tunes
they took credit for. Alot of the shit acts today lip synch to thier own voice thats touched up by computer. So its still their voices but the vocal talent comes from an audio processor.

[kmo911]

Ashlee simpson lipsyncs,so her career should be over!It's one thing to enhance your voice,but totally another ,when it isn't your voice to begin with.
It was fraud what she did,and she and the people that promoted her should be charged with such.Think about all those poor saps who bought her album thinking she was the real deal.
It's funny how the music industry says people are stealing from them,and then go and promote a fake.

[eivioolla]

This is one argument I will never understand. If something sounds good, then it sounds good regardless how it's made. To care about the methods seem overly pretentious to me.

It's like "While I was under impression that this fine looking chick created this stuff I thought it's was great, but now that I know it's made by some fat, old producer guy I think it suxors!"

"The real deal" is what you hear with your ears, either you like it or you don't.

[The Hunter]

Sorry, but i cant agree. After doing a lot of sound work over the years, and hearing bands play live. When I say hearing them play live, i mean running the mixer for them, it doesnt take too long to see who is a real band, and who is a studio band. When April wine played live when they first started out, people walked out on them, as the live songs sucked. Matt Minglewood on the other hand was better in person, than on the album. No fake crap, just pure clean rock. Even Chubby Checker was a great performer. What you see is what you get with both Matt, and Chubby. Do a search for Matt, and check out his music. He is the real thing. A few years back i heard he was playing a local pub, and I dropped in. He came out, and said hang on folks, we wernt supposed to play here tonight, so we partied had last night, but if you wait untill we get our shit together we are going to have a hell of a party. Can you imagine one of these studio fakes trying this?

[eivioolla]

I just have to disagree with that.

"What you see is what you get" - Music is not about seeing, it's about sound.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=music
mu·sic
1. The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
2. Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.
6. An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds: the music of the wind in the pines.

The sound is the only relevant element in music. How "skilled" someone is with an instrument is pretentious nonsense, imo. Who cares if you can play a guitar with your teeth if it still sounds like shit. You can enjoy music full well even if you never saw the artist who created it, all you need to do is to insert the disc and press play, sit back, close your eyes and enjoy. If a computer could generate music that I would like - all the better, I'd have more good music.

Equally funny argument that you often hear is something like "Music has to played with real instruments" - What the hell is a real instrument? I mean, is it something like "...as opposed to e.g. synthesizer that is a man-made device to produce a certain sound, real instruments can be found in sub-tropical areas in nature...for instance, guitar-trees can be found in certain areas in west Africa..." :)

[The Hunter]

Nope, what Im talking about is actually playing your own instrument, and sounding good. What a novel idea, to actually be able to play live, and not sound like shit. I dont care if its drums, guitar, synth, voice, or whatever, as long as it is not faked.

[moneoa]

Nope, what Im talking about is actually playing your own instrument, and sounding good. What a novel idea, to actually be able to play live, and not sound like shit. I dont care if its drums, guitar, synth, voice, or whatever, as long as it is not faked.
Unfortunatly the glory days of such things have been killed off
by the current pre packaged musician trend.

Music used to be about the next big talent
now its about the next big look and how it will sell merchandise
(read tits, ass and gyration)
Now talent is second to the ability of a face and personality of a person
in regards to sales.

Used to be if you had no talent you had no career in entertainment.

now we have william hung...at least with that guy everyone knows its shit
no pretenses...though his minute already faded months ago

[ratbag]

what ever happened to real music? today's music all sounds the same wheather it be pop rock country etc etc lately ive been downloading a lot of old blues and jazz like muddy waters leadbelly bb king etc etc i havent heardanything in recent memory that i care for or want to own

[The Hunter]

I guess Im kind of a fossel as I still dream of a musician that can actually perform live. You know the kind.. As a sound man, i go in and do a few sound checks, figure out where the dead spots are, and run with it. Shit, i have done everything from metal to a country fiddle player with socks on his hands, and they could all play well. Jim Hamm is a player that comes to mind. He played with Hank Snow, and is a true pro. Thats a name most here dont know, but Hank was a local boy, and dated my aunt.

[eivioolla]

Nope, what Im talking about is actually playing your own instrument, and sounding good. What a novel idea, to actually be able to play live, and not sound like shit. I dont care if its drums, guitar, synth, voice, or whatever, as long as it is not faked.

Do I think it's lame to claim the music is done by someone who hasn't done it? Sure, it's lame. But the actual music is the same as it always was regardless. To stop liking something because it was done by someone else you thought it was is pretentious, because it sounds exactly the same...

Of course this is all hypothetical since Ashlee Simpson like all MTV pop-crap sounds like shit no matter who did it. :)

PS. I guess my perspective is a bit different since I mostly listen to psychedelic trance music and "live" to me means more like a party where people dance to the music & shit. :)

[The Hunter]

That would be a very different perspective, as I not only worked many different venues, but also play metal, and everything right down to country. I gotta get that hair pic for you folks. Im used to grabbing a guitar, and playing live. A bit of sabbeth, or country, it doesnt matter. If you really want to know who the real musicians are it is the studio musicians. Just try and tell some of the new stars we are going to jam in A and see what happens.

[nukehella]

Umm-------people dancing to recorded trance music does not count as a live performance.

[The Hunter]

Agreed, as to me live actually means live. Im not shitting on those actually doing advertised overlayed tracks, but the pieces of crap selling tickets to live? concerts, and dont have a clue what the concept means. That is why all of the unplugged albums are so popular. They are being done by actual musicians, that can truly preform live.

[moneoa]

Agreed, as to me live actually means live. Im not shitting on those actually doing advertised overlayed tracks, but the pieces of crap selling tickets to live? concerts, and dont have a clue what the concept means. That is why all of the unplugged albums are so popular. They are being done by actual musicians, that can truly preform live.
Shit Hunter you got that right.

Eric Clapton Unplugged is still one of my faves...that man is a demi god on guitar
even Alice in Chains unplugged is a good listen...if you like that sort of thing.

Whats funny is I havent listened to generic 93.z 95.3 (take your pick of shit)
in years....music as an expression is almost dead.
not like the 60's and 70's where most of it had something to say
now its mostly get laid ya ya hip, hip, bling bling
ok not ALL modern music sounds like it but most follows that formula.
Then you have the angry teen rebel scene with its cookie cutter bands
frankly alot of it is not fit to wipe out collective asses with.

[eivioolla]

Umm-------people dancing to recorded trance music does not count as a live performance.

Agreed but obviously there's more to trance artist playing live than just pushing play button.

But that is not really my point. For me the whole "live" concept is irrelevant to what comes to music. I listen to music all day every day at home and go to see artists live maybe a few times a year. Even if some artists do not give a great live performance, I don't stop listening to their music because of that. The music doesn't just magically turn into bad from great because of a bad live performance.

[The Hunter]

In my opinion Brad Paisley kind of sums it up in the song Celebrity.

[eivioolla]

For me the measure of musician is not how he "performs live" but the actual music that he creates. If the music sounds good, then the artist is a good musician, it's as simple as that for me. I mean you don't require a painter to paint live, or a writer to write live yet you respect a beatiful painting or a great writing, even though they are both done in the "studio".

[The Hunter]

A musician is one that can create live, a technician is one that can using effects. A programmer that can set tracks to a certain beat is not a musician, but a programmer. The operative term is musician, and that requires an instrument playing scales, or portions of thereof.

[moneoa]

In regards to the concept of a live concert and how it encompasses electronic and modern music, wouldnt be fair to say that weather its a classic type musician who sings with his own skills or a Dj who takes sound bits and makes his own sound from it both are still musicians and weather we would like to admit it or not even the lip synching shit heads are still at the very least "entertainers"

I do mean that in the minimal sense of the word.
Now its not vocal or instumental but in many ways people buy thier music
for the image they present. People go to thier concerts to be cool damn...half the time in most of those concerts the singing is hard to hear anyways with all the screaming and its really just a bunch of people being there because A) its cool B)The guys paid to see thier favourite guy\girl jump around and show/sing about thier bling\booty and wow them with lots lights and effects to entrance and hypnotize. C) The girls paid to see thier favourite guy/girl jump around and show/sing about thier booty/bling, girl power whatever.

With Dj's if its a guy who just plays a cd and looks passive for a few hours
hes the shittiest Dj I have ever seen. However if its a guy with 2 or more turn tables
(hell some even use computers with thier setup for more mixing)
then I would still call him a live musician. Like stated previous he is taking samples
and making a unique sound from it. It does take talent to be a turn table dj
and mixing on a computer. Someone really bad at it can make some really unpalatable shit to listen to and its not something you just sit down and do.

To me it seems this is just another expression in the musical vein except he uses different tools than an instrument or voice.

Live has taken a broader meaning to litterally mean live
as in person. As opposed to live as in dude can sing and wail

[kmo911]

This is one argument I will never understand. If something sounds good, then it sounds good regardless how it's made. To care about the methods seem overly pretentious to me.

It's like "While I was under impression that this fine looking chick created this stuff I thought it's was great, but now that I know it's made by some fat, old producer guy I think it suxors!"

"The real deal" is what you hear with your ears, either you like it or you don't.
It's not about how someone looks or doesn't look,the fact IS they're selling a product to the people in this case a singer.If I listened to her music(which I don't)and payed to see her concert,I'd expect HER to sing the songs.If someone else sang the songs, so be it,but tell the truth and let the actual ARTIST sing it,even if she looked like the hunchback of notre dame if she could sing,great.
The point is it's FRAUD plain and simple,it would be my hard earned money they wasted if I payed to see her concert.

[kmo911]

Nope, what Im talking about is actually playing your own instrument, and sounding good. What a novel idea, to actually be able to play live, and not sound like shit. I dont care if its drums, guitar, synth, voice, or whatever, as long as it is not faked.
I couldn't agree more!

[kmo911]

what ever happened to real music? today's music all sounds the same wheather it be pop rock country etc etc lately ive been downloading a lot of old blues and jazz like muddy waters leadbelly bb king etc etc i havent heardanything in recent memory that i care for or want to own
And that is one of the main reasons why the music companies aren't making as much money as they used to.People will pay for quality music.

[eivioolla]

A musician is one that can create live, a technician is one that can using effects. A programmer that can set tracks to a certain beat is not a musician, but a programmer. The operative term is musician, and that requires an instrument playing scales, or portions of thereof.

I can only but to disagree. I'd say it's very rare that anyone creates live, and even more rare that improvisation sounds good, although possible.

Example, take an orchestra playing a Beethoven's symphony. All the respect to the orchestra members playing their instruments, but you can not deny that the true artist is the one who composed the music, not the ones performing it.

Composing is creating, performance is just an implementation of the creation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=musician
mu·si·cian
One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music.

Out of which I personally respect the composer, creator of the music the highest. Everyone else are simply following the composer's instructions, I don't see how you could call that 'creation'.

[Siskabush]

This is one argument I will never understand. If something sounds good, then it sounds good regardless how it's made. To care about the methods seem overly pretentious to me.

It's like "While I was under impression that this fine looking chick created this stuff I thought it's was great, but now that I know it's made by some fat, old producer guy I think it suxors!"

"The real deal" is what you hear with your ears, either you like it or you don't.

You need to understand that singing is a talent. Now, thanks to this, some schmuck can record thier voice and have it enhanced to sound good. There is no talent involved there.

Trancecore, Trance, Happy hardcore, etc... are great talent made using electronic instruments. Singing comes from the heart, and it should stay that way.

Also, thank you for reinforcing my point. Slim-ass or fat-ass, black or white, the art of singing comes from your voice. Music is not supposed to be visual, or have anything to some skank dancing on stage.

[Siskabush]

I just have to disagree with that.

"What you see is what you get" - Music is not about seeing, it's about sound.



The sound is the only relevant element in music. How "skilled" someone is with an instrument is pretentious nonsense, imo. Who cares if you can play a guitar with your teeth if it still sounds like shit. You can enjoy music full well even if you never saw the artist who created it, all you need to do is to insert the disc and press play, sit back, close your eyes and enjoy. If a computer could generate music that I would like - all the better, I'd have more good music.

Equally funny argument that you often hear is something like "Music has to played with real instruments" - What the hell is a real instrument? I mean, is it something like "...as opposed to e.g. synthesizer that is a man-made device to produce a certain sound, real instruments can be found in sub-tropical areas in nature...for instance, guitar-trees can be found in certain areas in west Africa..." :)


A real instrument is something that is controlled by humans to produce a harmonic beat or sound using talent. Voice enhancers are not instruments. They are enhancers. Simple simple.

[eivioolla]

A real instrument is something that is controlled by humans to produce a harmonic beat or sound using talent. Voice enhancers are not instruments. They are enhancers. Simple simple.

My comment about 'real' instruments was not related to the topic nor 'voice enhancers', it was just something to which I as a friend of electronic music bump into a lot. I should have made that more clear in my post. According to some, electronic music is not made with 'real' instruments, whatever that may mean.

[eivioolla]

singing is a talent. Now, thanks to this, some schmuck can record thier voice and have it enhanced to sound good. There is no talent involved there.

There is still talent in there if the result sounds good. The talent just isn't that of the singer, the one who is talented is the one who takes the singer's voice and makes it sound good.

Singing comes from the heart, and it should stay that way.

Actually singing comes from vocal organs, the heart just pumps blood. Or so I hear.

[Psilaxs]

Well the Beatles were once thought to be fake for their studio "magic". I'm not trying to defend new "artists" really, because I think most new music sucks, but its not the technology to blame so much as its the way "artists" are packaged. People buy the pretty face not the musician. A modern day Brian Wilson could write a master piece with modern tech but would go unrecognized from the glare of J-Lo's bling bling.


Radiohead being lumped in the same pile with those others pieces of shit is a travesty.

RADIOHEAD, while original (kinda) still suck compared to real musicians of 15 - 20 years ago. they are better than a lot of what is out there now, but still no excuse.

[Siskabush]

Eviolla, to put one of you worries to rest, yes, a synthisizer and turntables are indeed instruments. Im also a die-hard trance fan. Ive tried some mixing lately, and it is hard. It requires lots of skill.

As for my "Singing comes from the heart", you know what I mean. Dont be a smartass.

(Side note - Did you know that Eiffel 65 does not use voice enhancers at all?)

[eivioolla]

As for my "Singing comes from the heart", you know what I mean. Dont be a smartass.

Sorry, I was just joking of course. :)

(Side note - Did you know that Eiffel 65 does not use voice enhancers at all?)

Actually I'm more into less commercial electronic music so I'm not really famliar with such artists. A good thumb rule for me is that if it plays on MTV, I don't listen to it. Not because I would choose not to listen MTV, but because they simply do not play anything I like.

If you want to pick up some excellent electronic music, may I suggest to look up Juno Reactor - Labyrinth, their latest album. Although JR have been pioneers in electronic music for well over ten years, bigger audience might know them as the people behind Matrix soundtracks. Some excellent stuff. :)

[Siskabush]

Never you fear, way ahead of you. considering its the main subject, I just thought that I would post that side note, because you have to admit, its pretty damn cool how they can do that.

As for electronic music, Im becoming addicted to Trancecore/Hardstyle.