There's also something to be said for a performance not being "perfect". Bob Dylan and Neil Young aren't singers that most would consider to be pitch-perfect, and that's okay with me - I don't want them to be. Their rawness is part of what makes them attractive to me. I don't want to hear someone with great pitch, like Steve Perry, singing "Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin', we're finally on our own..." It's the rawness of Young's vocal that hammers home the hurt and betrayal written in the lyrics.

Tom Waits isn't anywhere near what most would consider to be pitch-perfect, but, he's the perfect singer for his songs - a voice laced with booze and cigarettes, as he sings about flop houses, drunk tanks, '34 Chevy's and back alley after-hours joints...
Paul McCartney is a great singer, and there's no one else I'd rather hear singing Yesterday, but he sure ain't the right guy to sing Tom Wait's songs.

We've gotten to the point where forensic style correction is sucking the life and spirit out of everything. Instead of humans, with all their passion, drive, emotion, faults and weaknesses, we've got robots singing, that are pitch-perfect, yet that also lack all of those things mentioned above that make a passionate performance.

I'm not against fixing a note or two along the way, Jack, if need be... after all, we used to do the same thing with tape and punch ins, where the vocalist would re-sing a section that might have been a bit too pitchy... but to rely on a computer to generate an entire performance is, at least to me, ridiculous. What's the point in even having a human sing at all, if you end up replacing 90% of the performance with corrective software?

And, if a "singer" needs that much correction, it kinda begs the question as to if that person should even be "singing".

And, as far as I'm concerned, there isn't enough pitch correction in the entire universe to make West sound even remotely "good". ;)

IMHO of course.

Some of the most interesting and memorable road trips I've ever been on, veered off the planned route a little bit.

i believe it is a matter of poor taste more than anything else. Artists have been pushing the brick of technology forever, it's just, a lot of popular music is lame, IMHO, but there is a ton of good stuff out there. ive been listening to a lot of low electronic music lately, and the creativity of some of thes guys is sick. Wonderful female vocalists. autotune, delays you name it, but it's tasteful.

Hopefully technology and globalization brings more acceptance to differences in people's perceptions on appearance and true art driven outlets will emerge. I recorded a song for a band recently that some random person from Mexico loved and boutgh a t shirt! All from the bands Facebook. I like big budget grandiose things, I justbwish they would display taste to the unknowing public, who is going to take whatever they get reguardless.

kmetal, post: 425265, member: 37533 wrote: ive been listening to a lot of low electronic music lately, and the creativity of some of thes guys is sick. Wonderful female vocalists. autotune, delays you name it, but it's tasteful.

I think differently with electronica. The style itself has always been fairly experimental and alternative in nature, and, the whole point of the style is to use synthesis instead of organic tracks, so I give those artists and producers a pass when it comes to recording and producing their music and using various computerized tools to record. Also, from what I've heard in electronic stuff, , autotune is being used as an effect, and not for pitch correction of a vocalist who can't sing to begin with.

There's a difference. ;)

Unfortunately, we seem to have quite a bit of mediocrity (at best) that are considered "talent" IMO and what makes matters worse is the "general public" is completely accepting of it.

Everything is about overproduction and hype. I blame the guy who invented the pet rock (if you're old enough to remember that one - 1975) for starting us on that path. How someone could convince anyone that they needed a rock for a pet and even more ridiculous, pay money for it is either pure genius or pure evil.

DonnyThompson, post: 425222, member: 46114 wrote: Neil Young aren't singers that most would consider to be pitch-perfect, and that's okay with me - I don't want them to be

I've been a Neil Young fan for a long time. However I over the decades I've grown tired of listening to the same old songs. Now my passion is to find jewels like this:

Sure the video is crappy, the audio quality sucks, but this video rocks, gives me goose bumps.

simman, post: 425272, member: 44495 wrote: Unfortunately, we seem to have quite a bit of mediocrity (at best) that are considered "talent" IMO and what makes matters worse is the "general public" is completely accepting of it.

Everything is about overproduction and hype. I blame the guy who invented the pet rock (if you're old enough to remember that one - 1975) for starting us on that path. How someone could convince anyone that they needed a rock for a pet and even more ridiculous, pay money for it is either pure genius or pure evil.

Possibly the same guy who signed Kanye West. :cautious:

And yes, I do remember the Pet Rock. Incredibly stupid, and yet people snatched them up like they were gold.