Problem is that the argument for using autotune starts with a false premise that the most desirable singing is that which dead accurately represents the intended note each time. Great singing mostly moves around the exact precise pitch, implying it by starting phrases above and from below and only occasionally hitting it dead on. That’s actually the sound we most associate with great vocal performance and where the real artistry and tone, phrasing and dynamics come from.
Tuning a vocal with Flex Pitch etc. isn't just a one button fixer. All the parameters of performance are broken down and are manipulatable - pitch drift, vibrato, formant, fall off. You don't HAVE to hard tune everything to right in the middle of the pitch, or erase all the scoops; the technology just gives us the tools to massage, correct or destroy a performance
To me, autotune is not acceptable at live shows. It definitely changes my feeling about taking the time and expense of going to the show. The artist can atone by discontinuing autotone in the future.
I think someone like Cher's use is OK because it's just used for an effect for a small portion of a vocal performance, but using it throughout their performance, that just tells me the vocalist sucks and it's a sign of a musical con artist.
My mother, Astrud Gilberto, was, among other things, the voice of Eastern Airlines. You would have to sing, along with the orchestra in those days. For some of the spots, the orchestra would play almost a minute in, and then she'd deliver the tagline at the end (a very high note). You either nailed it, or *_EVERYONE_* got to do it again. I'm old enough to remember when people could actually sing without computer devices. No wonder everyone, even young people, still listen more to older music.
Wow, the girl from Ipanema! She was a wonderful singer and sang some of my favorite genre of music, bossa nova and samba. Ms. Gilberto and Tom Jobim, Stan Getz, and, of course, Joao Gilberto! Oh, those were the days of such great music. My sympathies for you for the loss of your mom, and my gratitude for your mom and her beautiful contributions to the world of this incredible music.
I watched a video of Paloma Faith where she was singing live in a small venue. She was covering a song by another singer of which I don't remember the name of the song. The first few words she sang were very off key, she laughed and stopped the music. She apologized to the audience for not hitting the correct notes, and proceeded to make fun of herself for the awful singing. She did a few seconds of vocal warmups while joking with the audience, then told the band to start at the beginning. She hit the notes perfectly. The audience appreciated her honesty and cheered her. Auto tune is awful. The music industry has ruined music.
Yes. I saw morrisey hit a bad note , he put his hand over his ear and cringed 😂. Another time, he said I don’t know why your applauding so much I messed it up badly .
A truly professional response, that. I saw Peter Gabriel do a similar thing with the piano when I was at his Manchester gig a few years back: he began a song with the wrong chord, then just smiled at the audience and said "let's try that again, shall we?" and got it right the second time.
The music industry certainly did ruin music. Music was my life for years. I played guitar for over 30 years and been in several bands. I haven't picked up a guitar in years and don't even listen to music anymore. I skip around you tube to see what's going on, but that's about it.
@@ericbitzer5247 Hello Eric , have you ever heard of the controversy over tuning instruments? I think it’s about tuning to 432 mhz . I’ve seen videos where they do a side by side comparison of the sound. Idk , might be something to check out , put some new gas in the car ….LOL I hope I got it right , if not just looking it up you’ll probably find it.
I think auto-tune should be banned from live performances and all recordings with auto-tune should have a big disclaimer. It's the only way to tell if a singer is truly great. There are plenty of great singers who don't need it and it's a disservice to them to let a program decide how their notes should sound. Thanks for another great analysis!
"I think auto-tune should be banned from live performances and all recordings with auto-tune should have a big disclaimer. It's the only way to tell if a singer is truly great" If they do that, do you promise to buy all the records and go to all the concerts????
@@WellMefisto, I will, as long as I *like* the music. If I found out that the bands I pay to hear live are using auto tune, I’d stop buying their records, and merch, and stop going to their concerts. Effects pedals on guitars are acceptable, because we can hear them. Anything fake and over processed is not getting my money.
Applying auto tune to a crooner is like applying posterization to an impressionist. It is painful to listen to. You keep calling your visual a waveform. As somebody who regularly manually edits samples to clean up waveforms, I cry foul. We are not looking at a waveform, but a pitch graph. That aside, this is a masterful analysis. Thank you for doing this. I appreciate your work!
+1 for pointing out it's not a waveform. A wave oscillates periodically between positive and negative numbers (unless the DC component is high), pitch is always positive and not periodic.
"Making the voice into a keyboard" is probably the best and most succinct description of autotune I've ever heard - and something that even the casual listener can understand. Thank you, once again, for the excellent analysis.
I have been a singer for a great many years. It’s great to have someone calling out the frauds. Singers should keep it real or find another career/hobby or get singing lessons. Nothing grinds my gears worse than auto tune. Well.. maybe professional lip sinking.
This reservation about the drawbacks of technology applies not only to vocals. I'm a drummer. I don't claim to be a great drummer but I love playing and I love listening to great players. Tempo shifts into a chorus, the expressive lag on a snare beat in a single bar - all of these are human and music is a form of communication between human beings. If it becomes mathematically precise then it is machines talking and the human element disappears. Where then is the humanity and emotion? I wonder whether machinery has contributed modern music being so often boring? Keith Moon was not the greatest timekeeper but the sense that he was about to fall off the edge was what made his playing so exciting. Janis Joplin may have wandered around a note but the rawness of her performance is what made it heart rending. I'd rather listen to Aretha being slightly flat than Beyonce being autotuned. Thanks for the video. Always enjoy your stuff.
Have you seen the video where they run a John Bonham track through beat detective and totally ruin it? I think it was Rick Beato who did that. Like "Bonham is so far behind the beat, he's actually in the previous measure! Let's fix that!" And it sounds terrible...
@@creamydistortion - some of the best drummers play miles behind the beat. Especially the snare drum. I have spent hours and hours trying to play behind the beat and it is really difficult to do to order. I had a ‘master class’ with a well known drummer (I won’t name drop 😏) who was well known for playing behind the beat and I asked him how he did it. He said it was just the way he played… no secret, nothing he could tell me, it was just natural 😡
@@drinkinslim You know what's actually the worst? Actual good singers, that would sound perfect and natural just jamming even without effort, but the producers decide to put autotune on their voice.
This is so bizarre It never occurred to me that people, especially people that *can* actually sing, use autotune while singing live. It just seems ridiculous to me. Just get a robot to sing. The whole point of hearing a good singer and hear them sing live is that you hear the personality, character and individual time tone of their voice. Ella Fitzgerald did incredible things with her beautiful voice. Imagine trying to use autotune with her. It would take all of that beautiful personality out. Crazy
This is a great example of auto-tune making a great singer worse. The ability to travel through a note, climb or decline to a note, manipulate vibrato, utilising all of that to tell a story, is what makes a singer great. You lose all of the humanity, all of the emotion if you snap to a scale.
It's become an industry standard to use backing tracks with vocals on them to thicken out the lead voice. A lot of singers use it live but you can't rely on it. I'm talking a few cents flat or sharp and it really smoothes the voice out live. Of course with such a small tolerance you still have to be within that range or it will correct to the wrong note. After touring with progressive rock and metal acts I can confirm this is done every show with the bigger acts. Heck, I've not even seen keyboards plugged in before along with all the backing, it's all on the track. It's surprising what you can get away with though as most people don't have a musical ear.
@@ohger1 He’s likely NOT dead on every note (nobody is), but he’s a great singer and human ears don’t detect it as “off” unless it’s quite a bit off, so you wouldn’t know. It actually sounds better than if it’s auto tuned even though with auto tune it’s perfectly on pitch.
Auto tune is a crime. My best singing was live one take on stage in the opera hall. They way it should be. You prepare, you work hard, and then you do your work and fly together with the orchestra And conductor. Nothing like it. Human emotion is frequency and is carried direct to the heart
Well is autotune not ok sometimes? Without vocal effects on singers we wouldn't be able to create certain sounds to add to the experience of the song.. would the beatles 'rain' 'Lucy in the sky' 'strawberry fields' etc sound as good without effects on John's voice? Besides some ppl listen to music purely for the instrumental n dnt care about vocal, music like dance music, so surely there's just and time and place and genre for it, music isn't only about singing it's an experience
@@jadebel7006 auto tune is not an effect... Itsa CORRECTING program for pitch.... Ifa singer sang more than 25% out of pitch, then he is not a prof singer.. Justa person with a singing hobby
Great singers can use being "off" the note and then "on" it as a purposeful tension-and-release. It's another tool in the vocalist's toolbox. The premise that a note must land and stay perfectly on pitch is the whole problem with autotune. Autotune does what it's supposed to do. The problem is that we shouldn't be doing it.
Sliding up to a note creates huge problems for AT... And sliding up to notes is standard fare for many singers, including me. Not all the time, just some of the time.
You covered that well. yes Autotune does what it is supposed to do, but if it malfunctions or fails, and many have, it is even worse for the performer.
Can you imagine Karen Carpenter or Patsy Cline using auto tunes? Seriously, auto tunes cannot beat natural vocal perfection! The beauty of humanity is that it has minor imperfections that allow expression and personality to shine through! AI can’t touch the human voice.
If Neil Young was going into the music industry today, he might be able to write songs, but he would never be able to sing them. If he insisted on singing them, into the autotune booth he would go. Very sad, really.
Got that right! Just listen to "Where the Boy's Are" by Connie Francis. Her singing on that song is so pure and beyond reproach. If it were all Auto-Tuned, well, I just can't imagine it. It would suck so bad!!!
One of my favorite vocal performances is Gladys Knight's version of "If I Were Your Woman", especially the "you're like a diamond, but she treats you like glass" part where her voice is right on the edge of cracking. It's off just enough to show emotion, but not enough to to sound like a mistake. Imagine how much would have been lost if they had had auto-tune back then.
I find there's a natural musicality in the human voice, spoken and singing, which resonates with our nervous system. I actually feel physical discomfort listening to Ai speaking or singing. I can't bear to think how it's damaging people's ability to feel. Thanks for this brilliant episode.
That thought occurred to me in a way too. How would I react if I began talking to my friend and the person started sounding like a robot person. i would think they had been somehow altered by brain surgeon or abducted by aliens and had been altered in some way. I wouldn't be feeling the same connection with the person or have any sense of receiving or giving compassion.
Kudos to you Fil for exposing this sad auto-tune reality. If a live performer needs auto-tune, then they probably need to reconsider performing live. It’s not worth the $100 ticket to us customers.
His fans won't know. Record companies can pay to tweak algorithms to help suppress widespread sharing of the fact to known consumers of his music. Even if fans were told, they probably wouldn't care, because that's where we're at.
@@carlodave9 , sadly, you’re right. I’m waiting to see ‘if’ my post of this video is going to be approved in The Buble Insider’. Even if it is, I’ll be heavily criticised and labeled a very nasty person by the legion of ‘worshippers’.
It’s a downward spiral. Every performance now is filmed and recorded and every human mistake made available to billions of people immediately. And gigs costing 100,- or more have to be perfect. I kind of get it that artists want to play sure. Like her or not, but you have to be Adele to not be afraid. Easy on me is a great production, cause it is 100% autotune free and some notes are flat, some are sharp and all of them are exactly right.
My husband used to LOVE Bublé! He played me one of his albums shortly after we first met. I told him, "He's a great singer, but it's a shame that he feels he has to use Auto-Tune on all his songs. He really doesn't need it. He's really very good." My husband asked, "What's Auto-Tune?" So, after many a listen while I described the technology, he finally was able to hear it. After that, all bets were off. Thankfully, I never got to hear another Bublé song on our stereo. Thank God! - And hey! Mr. Bublé: If you're out there reading this, you almost had an ardent fan, but your Auto-Tune literally "Tuned" me out. Sorry buddy.
Thank you, Fil, for discussing this topic! As a vocal music teacher and singer, I am 100% (and much more) with you on all counts! The voice is a psychomotor instrument. If we start relying on auto-tune, we potentially can lessen the important and essential impact of our human brain and emotions/full body in the process of singing. The human voice is one of, if not the most personal, verbal means of expressing ourselves! We, as the public, and leaders/professionals in the music industry need to value and encourage the use of singers’ natural voices!
I once did a karoke night and I thought I would try to make myself sound perfect to be funny. So I loaded autotune onto my laptop and ran the mic through it and then ran that through echo and delay. Well thee result was like this stuttery echo mess. The accuracy was not actually too bad but it didn't sound natural it was so robotic . Like chers believe.
A folk/bluegrass engineer once basically forced me to use autotune on a recording, with the rationale that "everyone uses it". I was only able to convince him to lessen the effect. I think engineers and producers sometimes get too lost in the weeds and can't ignore the slight pitch fluctuations of human singing. It's like an itch they have to scratch, when in my opinion the sound of pitch correction is usually far more distracting than vocals that are slightly out of tune.
Didn’t people sing perfectly beautifully once upon a time without needing computer enhancement or other electronic wizardry? Frank Sinatra? Andrew’s Sisters? Bing Crosby? Dean Martin? Judy Garland? Beach Boys, Beatles, Etta James, Ella Fitzgerald? I mean really, I want to hear real human beings singing, not a bunch of processed shit. Cmon man…
@@BrunoNeureiter I disagree, I AM TOO used to perfect music, which is music recorded without the BS of having someone/something correct your mistakes, sing it right... I cannot even imagine what someone like Lou Gramm thinks of this nonsense of having pitch correction applied to a singer's voice, especially live.
So, I'm not understanding WHY these singers are OK with this being done?! WHY are they NOT speaking out against auto tuning of their natural voices?? WHY is this ok?? I have just binge watched your videos. You're amazing and I'm learning so much. Thank you! (Love your subtle smiles as you watch/listen to some of these.)
It makes something real become fake. People get upset if a musician or singer pre-tapes a song for a special performance and then plays the tape when they're live. How is this different? It may be their voice coming out of the mic during the live performance but it's still being altered. And, as you said, Fil-there is no point to it because Buble has such a wonderful voice. But even if he didn't, it's all the same to me. I want real, the real voice, especially when I'm being told it is.
@@Loralie571 Buble is about as in control of how this performance is managed as the average person is in control of their cat. Buble is not much different than an accountant. He shows up for work, someone tells him what they want him to do, and then he does it, and has no/little control over conditions. If the boss wants him to use. QuickBooks, that's what he uses, if it's Sage AccPacc, that's what he uses.
@@gavinpearcey A singer of his calibre has final say on anything and everything about the way his voice sounds in the house. It's far more likely that he went along with it than it is that he was forced to abide. This isn't a teenage pop singer whose parents signed their rights away.
Basically, auto tune would never work in Blues influenced music, as the 3rd degree of the scale is usually sang in between the minor and major mode, therefore not relating either to the previous or next "12 note system" note, as the computer doesn't know where to drag the it...
You just can’t unhear it! His voice actually sounds better without it. I have never, and will never, use it.your videos are so interesting. Love what you do!
I'm a singer songwriter ...I got the musical talent from my mother who sings like an angel ...but alas I inherited my Irish father's deep voice ...and even tho when I sing it sounds like someone's emptied gravel into my throat I still would never use auto tune ...
About 7 years ago, Buble's "just havent met you yet" was the very first example of auto tune I actually heard. I didn't know what it was, I just knew it sounded electronically altered.
It's a beautiful day is the same way. I hate autotune. It's a david foster thing. Jason scheff cant sing in tune either and foster produced chicago during the scheff years.
Does Buble' not think he's a good enough singer without it? I am shocked he has used this for so long. He did a duet of Fever with Elvis on an album with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. Wonder what went on there, as Elvis absolutely never used anything like that. It was Elvis' album. Never would. And certainly never needed it.
Ive never understood how he rose to where he is. Ive heard hundreds of people in karaoke bars who sound just as good or better then him. It just baffles me
Frank Sinatra managed this song thousands of times with NO auto-tune. Using technology just because it's there is not a good thing. Michael should stop them from using auto-tune for his own good.
Believe it or not, there were thousands of people back in the day that could not stand Sinatra as a performer. Not all women were swooning over his voice. I like some Sinatra and but not all of it. I think it would be cool to have Fil compare Buble and Sinatra with the same song. I find his study and explanation of singing techniques very interesting. I remember having to listen to things like this studying music in high school and college. I find this fascinating.
@@kln58cub The reason Bobby-Soxers were swooning over Sinatra was that he was the only male singer around, as the rest were drafted. I think it's funny to see the old WB cartoons, from that era, with caricatures of Sinatra. One of the funniest has him as a rooster, with the hens swooning over him.
I just read were Michael Nesmith, who was best known as one of the Monkees passed away today at age 78 (RIP) Michael and thanks for the wonderful body of work you left behind.
Aww, how sad. As a young kid, I remember watching the bed rolling down the street at the beginning of the show"Hey, hey🎶, we're the Monkees....!!!! 🛏️🎶
@@cindypowers4993 Davy Jones 30 December 1945 - 29 February 2012 Peter Tork February 13, 1942 - February 21, 2019 Michael Nesmith December 30, 1942 - December 10, 2021 Micky Dolenz is the only surviving member left of the group.
It's interesting, because vocals are processed through all sorts of equipment when singing live: gates, compressors, delays, reverb. I know: it's different... and yet kinda the same. I mean, the voice is being processed.
@@drinkinslim Exactly, pitch correction is just another tool. Singers would also suddenly sound worse if you took away the reverb, doesn't mean their voices are bad and that reverb is fraudulent. The issue with autotune has nothing to do with whether it's lying or not; it just ruins performances a lot of the time. This video wouldn't exist if autotune hadn't ruined the performance, but you can just as easily ruin a good performance with bad EQ or compression and almost no one would care about that.
@@iy42touche.... but, eh, autotune pitches, its a different monster than ambience or volume.... and.... i could guarantee, if theyre using autotune, they are DEFINITELY using everything else as well...might as well have anyone or everyone else singing.... just lipsync, might as well.
This is so educational. I feel much more aware of auto tune and can now hear it in recorded and live performances. It is dreadful and I wish singers would stop using this technology. The voice is not perfect and forcing it to perfection is unnatural and ruins it for me. Thank you FIL for highlighting this!!!
Phil, Very well expressed, and much needed. I'm a lifetime student of piano, a music major in the 1980s. I was raised in Kentucky, listening to Country Music in our home. Then later, I studied Classical. Going back to analyze Johnny Cash, I've been amazed that I can't always figure out what his melody note is (or was supposed to be), yet somehow he managed to sound fairly good much of the time! At least, he was good enough to have his own TV show in America for some period of time. I hate to think of the indecision Auto-tune would have experienced if it had existed then and attempted to "correct" his voice. Though not as good of a singer as Michael, wouldn't Johnny Cash be a "case-in-point" of a singer who was seldom holding pitches "on the line," yet still sounded good somehow? There's something mysterious working there. You've explained some of the reasons. Let me compliment you on your vocal skills--your ability when explaining what an artist is or isn't doing to use your own voice to mimic them with exact pitch and dynamics even when they are "out of your vocal range"! You are so talented both vocally and as a guitarist. I very much love all your work on Wings of Pegasus. Thank you for a lot of fun listening to your thoughts. With much appreciation, David Lee
Seriously I can't believe this is free. 🙏 so Grateful. Your analysis, education, clips. Love your passion ❤ Bang. Dead on the line. Love your appreciation of natural voices and the Understanding. So many thanks 😊 Deputy Dog 🐕 ❤
It’s like when we used to listen to cassettes. If the player started to eat the tape, you’d hear the music start to warble, and immediately realize you had to hit eject, in hopes you could get the cassette out and uncrinkle it , or cut and splice the tape. Why do they auto tune? Why do they mime on tv performances? I’m gaining more respect for bar singers by the minute.
In fairness, there were an awful lot of pop singers lip-syncing on TV shows back in the 60s and early 70s, because the technology didn't exist for them to reproduce the record's instruments and effects in a TV studio. But they were good singers, and these were mainly teeny-bopper shows.
Bublé’s live appearance on the Graham Norton Show (backed by a big band) a few years back sounded great and I made a recording of it. The more I listened though, I realised he was singing slightly sharp throughout the song - which suggests no autotune in this particular performance.
Thank you for exposing the use of autotune at the concert level. If I were an artist, I'd be pretty angry that a technician was manipulating my voice during a live performance. Another reason for loving opera.
I understand why pitch correction exists, but when people say it's the standard/so common, therefore it's necessary I just roll my eyes. We have decades of incredible studio and live performances that are perfect and never needed any correction. I've never listened to a record from the 60s-80s and thought "this should have been autotuned/pitch corrected". Sure it may help make the recording process easier but it's NOT necessary. It should be a tool not a standard. I'm not talking about use of autotune for a style (like Cher).
Glad you are exposing this! I've been singing 60 years and I think that that experience helps, not hurts , even if I can't hit the same high notes every time. Some how the experienced singer sounds more passionate and authentic. What scares me is that auto tune will probably improve to the point where first day singers will sound great! Yikes! Both musicians and listeners need to say no to auto tune like they say no to drugs in sports.
People say no to drugs in sports but those drugs have been used and are still used to win medals and achieve world records. If Autotune technology actually gets so good that we won't be able to tell, nobody will complain because there will be no downside to using it like there is now.
"Michael Buble’s fans enjoy his natural voice with all its nuances." Or, so they thought. If you get caught using it live, NO WAY does one NOT use it in the studio.
@@mojo4376 ... He's not fake, I've heard him sing beautifully unacompanied, he is a good singer, and as the video shows, he doesn't need to use auto tune.
One of my musicians said to me one day,”a good sound person can make a bad band ok, and a good band awesome. A bad sound person can make an amazing artist awful.” There was more but in this case they killed it in a bad way! Great analysis!! I personally never used it live…
I worked with Michael Bublé in musical revue theatre before his fame. He has a fabulous, beautiful, strong, tuneful voice and he got his chops singing day in and out on the live stage. Also he was a sweet person. Just saying.
I did a session with Michael Bublé a couple years ago and he’s actually a good singer in the sense that he sings on pitch with good phrasing and musicality. This processed sound is a creative choice and live it’s probably about consistency and not getting clowned on social media in case of an off night. Sad state of affairs our modern musical world. 😢
I was actually watching this program when this happened. You could tell immediately the difference in his voice because Michael sounded so much better, especially his vibrato. At least now I know why! I didn’t know anything about live autotune at that time. Thanks Fil, you have the best channel on the internet.
And I think your point at the end is spot on. The more times you point out these insanely talented singers being auto tuned…. With or without their approval…. The more likely it is that they will actively make sure it doesn’t happen any more.. and that’s better for us all….
Buble has pitch control as least as good as Frank Sinatra. By Autotuning, it removes so much of the human nuance as to render it, in this case, as unlistenable. One of the ways I determine if any part of a "live" performance is actually live is by catching mistakes and little pitch deviations. I'd much rather hear an actual performance than a computer generated/enhanced one. If the stage doesn't differ from the studio, what's the point in a live performance?
You sure his pitch control is that good? You sure he has the stamina for an evening of singing and moderation like Sinatra had? I guess you underestimate the talent of Sinatra.
Absolutely agree. And Sinatra sang so that every member of tje audience, even if listening to a recording, felt he was singing to them personally. He didn't guss about hitting a note, he got there, but with the aim of making every note important, but not an exercise in vocal training. Wonderful!
......imagine going back in time with autotune, walking up to Grace Slick about to sing White Rabbit, then telling her, 'Maybe you could do it with this thing'.......what an utter gew-gaw autotune is. 0:03
Hearing Michael's isolated voice like this just shows how auto tune changes a natural vibrato from a natural pitch modulation to more of an amplitude modulation. It’s like his natural and incredible sounding voice has had a key component ‘photoshopped’ out. I find this to be too big a price to pay for the convenience of ‘fixing’ the odd and rare (and not necessarily unwanted) out of tune note.
I'm beginning to wonder if we'll ever hear a real voice or a real instrument again. I guess that's one reason I like the 50's, 60's & 70's singers a lot better than the mostly junk they're producing today...Great video Fil
Ok, he's a very talented musician, but he still uses electronics for a lot of his instruments instead say, a real live drummer, someone playing the guitar, or other instruments.....In the years that I mentioned, when a recording was done, it was done with live musicians, no auto- tune for voices, just natural singers, and that's my point.
I would not be happy to be at a concert and realize that they are using auto tune. I understand the stresses of touring but auto tune crosses the line for me.
@@prd004.2 nobody is faking anything... Tracks are only used to augment what's already on stage. It's not exactly feasible to tour with full orchestras, multiple keys players, and guitar players, and several backing singers. Tracks are just there to fill out the sound, not for musicians or singers to mime to. I've mixed thousands of live shows, and never had anybody fake performing.
Interesting that you did this video as I remember Bublé doing a live performance here in the UK and I thought it sounded absolutely dreadful and exactly for the reason you stated. Ie not so much correcting the pitch but how much his voice sounded synthesised. He might as well have been singing through a vocoder.
Especially when you're singing live, you don't need it because there is so much ambient interference that most audiences can't tell if you are slightly off. Even more so with great performers that dance or have light shows, the audience is so wrapped up in focusing on everything else they aren't paying attention to the vocals as much. Audiences are unintentionally forgiving in those situations.
Bublé's voice has been processed all the time and probably this will never stop. The main problem is that 99.9% of the audience does not realize that their money spent on concert tickets goes into ProTools playbacks and live autotune. They just don't care. I care for my Sinatra vinyls, that's for sure ...
But the guys and gals (surely guys, I've learned he do very well in the gay-segment, and that's fine with me, whatever makes your boat float) will enjoy the concert and think their money is well spend. That's just how showbizz works :-)
Sinatra was great, especially in his earlier days. If you're not familiar with Bobby Darin, I highly recommend you look into his catalog. He was an incredible talent as well.
Autotuning an entire song or performance is cheating in my opinion. If you can't sing in tune, then either do more practice, or don't sing! It's like singers who were miming while they danced. If you can't sing and dance, then don't dance while you sing! Why they want to autotune great singers is beyond me! And to finish. Can I just say how much I enjoy your videos, Fil. Your explanations are always clear and easy to understand. Thanks for all your efforts.🙂
He’s done a vocal analysis of Jon Bon Jovi describing vocal fatigue. Remember, these folks are vocal “athletes” and just like a elite sports athlete can get fatigued over many weeks of practice/ games (rinse/repeat) and need rest and healing
For various reasons (including actual bad singers) this just became a standard practice. Producers, even legitimate good vocalists just assume it can’t hurt and will catch anything that might be off key by a marginal amount. Obviously there’s downsides to that, it strips some of the character of your singing and since it’s almost like “cheating,” it makes people speculate about how “horrible” you might sound without it.
The weird thing I started noticing is that he mutes his s's. He either moves the microphone or lowers his voice. I first noticed it in 'Meglia Stasera' which he sings wonderfully
I appreciate you continuing to make these videos! I've seen people say using autotune/melodyne isn't "cheating" because there's more than that to making music. But when it comes to presenting vocal ability, it's kind of hard to argue otherwise. This expectation of perfect autotuned vocals is making everyone do it, and flooding the market with less talented vocalists since everyone sounds the same. Michael should be given credit for his great actual voice, but we'd never know if autotune hadn't failed here.
Strange, when I saw Michael Live, at the end of his concert after the lights came on he stepped away from the mic and belted out a song a-cappella to the whole arena. It was amazing!!
Same with Tony Bennett who would also drop the mike and could be heard loudly without it. Now, there was an amazing singer. When you heard Tony, Sinatra, Aretha, Sammy, Ella, Darin, Mel, Dean, Lennon, Paul, etc you didn’t have to guess who you were listening to. They all had distinctive, recognizable voices. In another words, these people knew how to sing.
Live singers who perform frequently may at times have issues to come up when the vocal cords become stressed (overworked). Often, auto tune is the go to solution. Even great singers who reach high notes that's at the upper range of the vocal cords have failure to some degree. Proper care and exercise is very important to sing in tune consistently. However, singing in concerts without some time to recuperate, well, autotune to the rescue.
The little inaccuracies in the voice, are often caused by the singer putting some feeling/emotion into the song, and you really notice it. Autotune will take this emotion away. Michael Bublé clearly has a good voice, and clearly he can sing, but I've always felt that his voice sounded emotionless, which is why I've never really wanted to go out of my way to listen to him. Mind you, that's my taste! I've never appreciated people like Pavarotti for the same reason, there's more to putting in some feeling than just holding a perfect note and going loud or quiet. Perhaps Bublé is a better singer than I thought and autotune is the culprit. But as for emotion/feeling, listen to Ray Charles singing "You Don't Know Me", then listen to Bublé singing the same song. Then you might know what I mean.
Buble's voice is very good and well trained, but it's just so smooth and good that it's not at all interesting. Same with Celtic Woman performances. They're so pitch perfect and emotionless. Boring.
@@davelanciani-dimaensionx I used to have a Ray Charles cd that came with a little booklet that just sorta gave an overview of Ray and one of the stories it told was when he was recording Seven Spanish Angels his voice "cracked" and the producer stopped the take and said "let's start over" and Ray went into the booth and took him off to the side and said "man I MEANT to do that". It fit the story of the song much more than some robot telling it.
Man Dave, I really encourage you to revisit Pavarotti sometime. Possibly with live video. My favorite singers are Ray Charles, Ella Fitzgerald, Sinatra & Billy Eckstine...so many 50s and 60s soul singers and classic country guys....Pavarotti is nothing but soul, right up there with anyone I can name.
Ian Gillian was excellent at emotional effects with his voice. Child In Time is a great example. That is why he was picked to Sing the Parts of Christ in Jesus Christ Superstar on the Album. He was able to show sadness and pain and keep the notes and pitch. He lost nothing singing emotion.
Perhaps people think the same of him, but give me Harry Connick Jr. any day over Michael Bublé. For me, one has a loot more character. Heck, I saw Seth MacFarlane live with the Boston Pops on New Year's Eve a few years ago and I'd rather listen to him than Bublé. No offense to anyone who likes Bublé, as music is personal and what is my cup of tea is not necessarily yours. Just listen to what you love and just enjoy music! Happy Holidays everyone!
14:00 it's interesting that you mention that because that's a classical training thing. I had a music theory teacher one time that in so many words told us, when you're gonna be going from a 7 to the octave, you almost WANT that 7 to be a bit sharp, because it just begs for the listener to yearn for it to resolve up that last half-step (or more like 1/3 step if you do that). It creates a really nice tension that begs for the resolution, it wouldn't be surprising to me if Michael is doing that subconsciously because he may have learned the same thing once upon a time.
Pros like Mike dont need auto tune. He has a great natural voice. That said....if a singer cant live without singing with auto tune then either they cant sing or needs to rest or retire. Mike should not have used it or whoever at the tv station in production should not have used it. He doesn't need it.
If you’re singing opera, or soul styled pop, or certain hard rock styles or… anything else that takes a technical voice, or you’re in a singing competition, then you want people to hear how good you actually are, and not think you’re cheating. So don’t use this effect. If you’re singing punk, folk, or rap adjacent stuff, you’ll want to sound “real” and maybe lo-fi but tremendous pitch accuracy might not be as important? Again don’t use this effect. The only time it’s really going to add to things is if you’re just trying to sound robotic, or are correcting one or two “off notes” so you don’t need another take. But even then, if someone notices it will make them doubt you’re a good singer.
@@ShanRees The problem is though, the effect in that song was horrifying. It was totally new to the general audience, but it was more of a weird novelty than something which was greatly appreciated. Later on it just got out of control in Pop music to 'fix' poor performances, and now it seems just to have become the lazy default option.
Great explanation! This is something those of us working in music production notice instantly, but it's sometimes quite hard to get regular people to pick it out, especially now that people are accustomed to hearing artificially tuned vocals everywhere. There's one element you've missed though. All the things you describe - impossibly perfect pitch quantisation, notes "snapping" to pitch too quickly, analysis mistakes causing notes to snap to the wrong pitch etc etc - this is all obviously a big part of the picture explaining how to notice artificial tuning. But another big giveaway is formant shifting. Every singer has a range of timbral qualities to their voice that changes depending on how low and high in their range a note is. So if a singer missed a note which the software then retunes to the intended pitch, it drags with it the timbral quality the note had at the pitch it was naturally sung. If the original note was quite close, you don't notice this effect so much. But the further away the note actually sung was from the intended note, the more obvious it becomes that it was re-pitched. Missed notes that were far below the intended pitch can sound quite "Mickey Mouse" when they're tuned upwards, and missed notes that were too high can sound weirdly deep and artificial when pulled downwards. This effect is obviously less pronounced when you're dealing with a singer who is always very close to the intended pitch. But the human brain is extremely fine-tuned to noticing even the most ridiculously subtle details in human vocal quality, so it does pick up on this. Even if the aberration in timbral quality is very minor and barely perceptible, if you have enough of them in succession it flips a kind of "uncanny valley" switch in your brain which instantly gives you the feeling that something doesn't quite sound real. Most modern pitch correction software tries to compensate for this by altering the formants (aka the timbre) of tuned notes in realtime. But this only works to varying degrees of success. Yes, it does usually manage to tame the most flagrant Mickey Mouse/Darth Vader effect on notes that were moved quite far from their original pitch. But this processing itself has a telltale artificial sound, even when only used lightly... and sure enough, even if you don't quite consciously know you heard it, your brain does. :)
Bloody good job Fil, as always. Fascinating content and knowledge. We're going to need more people like you, as things get more insanely unnecessary. Fil's helping us retain the soul!
I liked Michael when he first came out because he was fresh. But as time went on I found that I wasn't enjoying his music without a clue until now. Apparently, I don't like auto-tune! Thanks, Fil!
My friend went to a Michael buble concert a while back and she said it sounded a little bad..so much so that it ruined the concert for her. We didn't really know about auto tune at the time, but I'm betting the auto tune was a factor. Also thanks for sharing about the vocal pitch monitor app..it's pretty cool
Thank you… I’ve been criticised for saying the same thing about his most recent Australian concert. It was quick, slick and he spent way too much time chatting to certain members of the audience. The first time I saw him live (about 15 years ago), was one of the best shows I’ve ever been to.
Just found on RUclips a 1965 live version of Sinatra singing 'I've Got the World on a String'. Fantastic live version. Frank at his best. He had no autotune....didn't exist. Why do they need it now?
I agree with you, Fil. In the quest for “perfection” we’ve lost individual quirks, personality and human connection that draw us to their music. Everyone sounds the same now because they’ve gone through the “machine.” Michael shouldn’t have to use AT. He has a great voice. Do artists feel pressured to use it cause so many do it? I wonder.
. . . Not ' great ' but a reasonable bar or lounge - type of singer ... why the lack of confidence to be meddling with this type of 'modern - day' trickery - ?..
@@donaldcook3112 yeah, I hear you. I admit, I don’t listen to his music by choice. Maybe he’s not astounding or exceptional, though personally, I appreciate* he’s got a great voice. I can’t hold a note at all 😂
If they had asked the audience: “The artist might not hit every note accurately tonight so, would you like us to auto-tune the performance?”, how many would have said “Yes, please!”? I realize that there are many aspects to this and it's a tough industry but using auto-tune in a live performance feels fishy to me, especially if the audience is not aware of it. Fil’s videos really highlight the fact that singing (and art in general, I guess) is not just about striving for absolute perfection, but also about expression and emotion. In science beauty is perfection but in art we long for the “imperfect” human element too, IMO. No piece of art is a perfect reflection of reality, there's always some interpretation involved. BTW, I still haven't gotten over what they did to Freddie Mercury, that was just downright criminal. And the man can't even have a say in what they do with his voice. So, the people who do this, whoever you are: STOP IT!
It's like instead of watching Bob Ross paint a picture watching Bob Ross starting the print job of a copy of one of his pictures. (I know he already died, but i think his painting videos are known enough to make a good analogy)
I saw Diana Ross in Reno last weekend and I could not detect anything resembling this kind of chicanery. Not bad for someone who is now 80 years of age.
its the imperfections that make a singer ....unironically perfect Sinatra Munroe even bob Dylan its the cracks the wobbles the breaks that make them better
It’s a good point about auto tuning a voice that’s good, it doesn’t make sense. I hear a digital crackling every time. Also, dynamics always slightly change pitch, part of expression. The most astonishing thing is the fact the most non musicians wouldn’t even hear an out of tune non auto tuned performance anyway. An old phrase that I love, “ you cannot always be in tune, but you can be always out of tune.”
The beginning sounds like he's singing in a tin can . I so much like REAL live. You , Fil , have me listening to music differently and it's great . Thank you . You can tell you're an excellent teacher. Rock on. !! 🤘🤘✌😊🎅
If that kills a career, that career deserves to die. Loads of very popular and successful singers don’t sing “well” but are true to themselves and make up for it elsewhere. If your auto tuned vocals are the only thing keeping you afloat, get another job.
People heavily criticized David lee Roths voice on the last 3 van halen tours. I saw all 3 tours and appreciated that it was real. Had a great time at those shows. Sometimes I think people want the fake shit, I dont.
There are folks who are performers, and their audience expects them to do complex dance moves while singing. If that’s happening I am forgiving of lip syncing. But not a fan of auto tune at ALL
A good singer doesn't need auto-tune, so when it's used (and it's typically pretty obvious) it's like saying "we can't really hold a pitch ourselves; and don't actually sing very well." There are plenty of singers who sing perfectly on pitch Roberta Flack and Celine Dion Both sing perfectly on pitch (I'm a tuner) and it sounds beautiful, because when they go from note to note it doesn't sound like flipping a switch.
His voice sounded much better with no autotune. I mean he is a good singer so I don't know why the need to even use it. Expecting pitch perfect notes from a singer is unrealistic and not natural. Imperfections make live performances so unique and interesting.
Adele is a good example of how good modern pop singers can be without autotune, and how the microtonal qualities of her performances (that autotune/ melody me would pulverise) add so much of the emotion. I find a lot of her actual music a bit boring, but she’s an insane singer.
"I find a lot of her actual music a bit boring, but she’s an insane singer." So, what's the point?????? She is a great singer, but you don't like her music??!! So why would she worry about your opinion (or mine, or anyone's) anyway?????? Ahahahahahahah!! That's exactly the point I made in my comment, few minutes ago.
I'm still learning to hear the autotune, I just don't have the ear you do, but I can hear it easily on the less talented vocalists. I love the channel and your ongoing exposé and shaming of the artists and especially the engineers. Keep up the fight.
There are zero times where I think auto tuned versions of a talented singer is better. Zero point zero…. A great singer on a bad day is still better than a great singer using auto tune… 100% If someone is so bad they need auto tune all the time just to sound good. I’m not listening to them anyways and don’t really care lol.
Problem is that the argument for using autotune starts with a false premise that the most desirable singing is that which dead accurately represents the intended note each time. Great singing mostly moves around the exact precise pitch, implying it by starting phrases above and from below and only occasionally hitting it dead on. That’s actually the sound we most associate with great vocal performance and where the real artistry and tone, phrasing and dynamics come from.
Very astute
Exactly right. Well said.
Spot on. Imagine Nina Simone autotuned!
Tuning a vocal with Flex Pitch etc. isn't just a one button fixer. All the parameters of performance are broken down and are manipulatable - pitch drift, vibrato, formant, fall off. You don't HAVE to hard tune everything to right in the middle of the pitch, or erase all the scoops; the technology just gives us the tools to massage, correct or destroy a performance
The best singers aren’t perfect but the Carol King performance at Harry Reid’s memorial was horrible.
To me, autotune is not acceptable at live shows. It definitely changes my feeling about taking the time and expense of going to the show. The artist can atone by discontinuing autotone in the future.
Trey Parker doing "Gay Fish" at Red Rocks wouldn't be the same without the autotune.
I think someone like Cher's use is OK because it's just used for an effect for a small portion of a vocal performance, but using it throughout their performance, that just tells me the vocalist sucks and it's a sign of a musical con artist.
I’ve got the world on a midi track…
Never ever go to a Maroon 5(as if i woudl lol) gig..the dude can´t live without it.... :D
I think it may be even less acceptable in the studio where you can take your time and sing your part several times and choose the best parts.
My mother, Astrud Gilberto, was, among other things, the voice of Eastern Airlines. You would have to sing, along with the orchestra in those days. For some of the spots, the orchestra would play almost a minute in, and then she'd deliver the tagline at the end (a very high note). You either nailed it, or *_EVERYONE_* got to do it again. I'm old enough to remember when people could actually sing without computer devices. No wonder everyone, even young people, still listen more to older music.
One of the most gorgeous voices in the world.❤️
A big fan of your beautiful mom. May she rest in peace.🙏🏼
Wow, the girl from Ipanema! She was a wonderful singer and sang some of my favorite genre of music, bossa nova and samba. Ms. Gilberto and Tom Jobim, Stan Getz, and, of course, Joao Gilberto! Oh, those were the days of such great music. My sympathies for you for the loss of your mom, and my gratitude for your mom and her beautiful contributions to the world of this incredible music.
I love the Girl from Ipanema song.
I was only 4 when it was released, but still listen to it now.
Sad for the loss of your Mother.
Gaz UK.
Omg hi João Marcelo Gilberto?!?
I watched a video of Paloma Faith where she was singing live in a small venue. She was covering a song by another singer of which I don't remember the name of the song.
The first few words she sang were very off key, she laughed and stopped the music. She apologized to the audience for not hitting the correct notes, and proceeded to make fun of herself for the awful singing. She did a few seconds of vocal warmups while joking with the audience, then told the band to start at the beginning. She hit the notes perfectly. The audience appreciated her honesty and cheered her.
Auto tune is awful. The music industry has ruined music.
Good singers are generally ‘honest’ with their voice …
Yes. I saw morrisey hit a bad note , he put his hand over his ear and cringed 😂. Another time, he said I don’t know why your applauding so much I messed it up badly .
A truly professional response, that. I saw Peter Gabriel do a similar thing with the piano when I was at his Manchester gig a few years back: he began a song with the wrong chord, then just smiled at the audience and said "let's try that again, shall we?" and got it right the second time.
The music industry certainly did ruin music. Music was my life for years. I played guitar for over 30 years and been in several bands. I haven't picked up a guitar in years and don't even listen to music anymore. I skip around you tube to see what's going on, but that's about it.
@@ericbitzer5247 Hello Eric , have you ever heard of the controversy over tuning instruments? I think it’s about tuning to 432 mhz . I’ve seen videos where they do a side by side comparison of the sound. Idk , might be something to check out , put some new gas in the car ….LOL I hope I got it right , if not just looking it up you’ll probably find it.
I think auto-tune should be banned from live performances and all recordings with auto-tune should have a big disclaimer. It's the only way to tell if a singer is truly great. There are plenty of great singers who don't need it and it's a disservice to them to let a program decide how their notes should sound. Thanks for another great analysis!
Let’s start with total miming first shall we.
"I think auto-tune should be banned from live performances and all recordings with auto-tune should have a big disclaimer. It's the only way to tell if a singer is truly great"
If they do that, do you promise to buy all the records and go to all the concerts????
@@WellMefisto,
I will, as long as I *like* the music.
If I found out that the bands I pay to hear live are using auto tune, I’d stop buying their records, and merch, and stop going to their concerts. Effects pedals on guitars are acceptable, because we can hear them. Anything fake and over processed is not getting my money.
Then bands should not be using prerecorded back tracks. Support the industry and hire musicians.
@@cameranmanner4701 Absolutely - good point!
Applying auto tune to a crooner is like applying posterization to an impressionist. It is painful to listen to.
You keep calling your visual a waveform. As somebody who regularly manually edits samples to clean up waveforms, I cry foul. We are not looking at a waveform, but a pitch graph.
That aside, this is a masterful analysis. Thank you for doing this. I appreciate your work!
"Applying auto tune to a crooner is like applying posterization to an impressionist. It is painful to listen to."
THIS!
+1 for pointing out it's not a waveform. A wave oscillates periodically between positive and negative numbers (unless the DC component is high), pitch is always positive and not periodic.
"Making the voice into a keyboard" is probably the best and most succinct description of autotune I've ever heard - and something that even the casual listener can understand. Thank you, once again, for the excellent analysis.
@
Larry Richman... Always enjoyed reading your comments given your musical background 👍
@@drewpall2598 Thank you, Drew. Much appreciated. :)
I thought it was 'making the voice a 1980s answering machine...' ;)
@@brywool Ha! Yes, if used poorly enough.
Steve Perry does that on "Something to Hide", on the album Infinity. A guitar or keyboard. 1978.
I have been a singer for a great many years. It’s great to have someone calling out the frauds. Singers should keep it real or find another career/hobby or get singing lessons. Nothing grinds my gears worse than auto tune. Well.. maybe professional lip sinking.
I was thinking during Fil's video that auto-tune seems to be the new lip-syncing.
So agree with that.
Amen !
lip synching
It's 2022. Music changes. As a producer it is an awesome tool. If you can't sing autotune won't fix you.
You are a FANTASTIC music teacher!!!
This reservation about the drawbacks of technology applies not only to vocals. I'm a drummer. I don't claim to be a great drummer but I love playing and I love listening to great players. Tempo shifts into a chorus, the expressive lag on a snare beat in a single bar - all of these are human and music is a form of communication between human beings. If it becomes mathematically precise then it is machines talking and the human element disappears. Where then is the humanity and emotion? I wonder whether machinery has contributed modern music being so often boring? Keith Moon was not the greatest timekeeper but the sense that he was about to fall off the edge was what made his playing so exciting. Janis Joplin may have wandered around a note but the rawness of her performance is what made it heart rending. I'd rather listen to Aretha being slightly flat than Beyonce being autotuned. Thanks for the video. Always enjoy your stuff.
Have you seen the video where they run a John Bonham track through beat detective and totally ruin it? I think it was Rick Beato who did that. Like "Bonham is so far behind the beat, he's actually in the previous measure! Let's fix that!" And it sounds terrible...
@@creamydistortion - some of the best drummers play miles behind the beat. Especially the snare drum. I have spent hours and hours trying to play behind the beat and it is really difficult to do to order. I had a ‘master class’ with a well known drummer (I won’t name drop 😏) who was well known for playing behind the beat and I asked him how he did it. He said it was just the way he played… no secret, nothing he could tell me, it was just natural 😡
Well said, my friend. Well said
@@SAHBfan Bill Ward plays that way and has said the same.
@@creamydistortion absolutely, couldn't have said it better
I am glad a new generation of listeners WILL NOT put up with autotune. Good show!
No chance, 99% of people don't recognize autotune and it frustrates me so much
@@Kinhussar Exactly. Hell, they WANT auto-tune!
@@Kinhussar And rappers with autotune. Why on earth.
@@drinkinslim You know what's actually the worst? Actual good singers, that would sound perfect and natural just jamming even without effort, but the producers decide to put autotune on their voice.
You kids today want perfection in their vocalists, which is why artists today are driven to using it.
Half the fun of your videos is seeing you smile.
This is so bizarre
It never occurred to me that people, especially people that *can* actually sing, use autotune while singing live.
It just seems ridiculous to me.
Just get a robot to sing.
The whole point of hearing a good singer and hear them sing live is that you hear the personality, character and individual time
tone of their voice.
Ella Fitzgerald did incredible things with her beautiful voice.
Imagine trying to use autotune with her. It would take all of that beautiful personality out.
Crazy
Yeah, it's lost on me too! I thought, of all people, Mr. Buble wouldn't need it!🤔
Sounds ridiculous ;
Another scientific piece of equipment used wrong . Use it for Audio research/ science etc
I never even knew it existed until I started watching this channel a few days ago!
@@viviennehayes2856 Me, too. Never heard the term "auto-tune" before. Good grief! Who knew?
This is a great example of auto-tune making a great singer worse. The ability to travel through a note, climb or decline to a note, manipulate vibrato, utilising all of that to tell a story, is what makes a singer great. You lose all of the humanity, all of the emotion if you snap to a scale.
Michael sounds much better live without AT. Great work, Fil very interesting.
A great singer would never need autotune. Watch any Nat Cole live songs from his short lived TV show. He's dead on every note.
It's become an industry standard to use backing tracks with vocals on them to thicken out the lead voice. A lot of singers use it live but you can't rely on it. I'm talking a few cents flat or sharp and it really smoothes the voice out live. Of course with such a small tolerance you still have to be within that range or it will correct to the wrong note. After touring with progressive rock and metal acts I can confirm this is done every show with the bigger acts. Heck, I've not even seen keyboards plugged in before along with all the backing, it's all on the track. It's surprising what you can get away with though as most people don't have a musical ear.
@@ohger1 He’s likely NOT dead on every note (nobody is), but he’s a great singer and human ears don’t detect it as “off” unless it’s quite a bit off, so you wouldn’t know. It actually sounds better than if it’s auto tuned even though with auto tune it’s perfectly on pitch.
Great singer? Are you serious??
So glad I grew up in the 70s and 80s. Great singers and wonderful music.
60s, too, young ‘un. 😂
yeah right? and they survived that era without autotune.
Bad synths were the 80s' autotune.
👋👍😊
Auto tune is a crime. My best singing was live one take on stage in the opera hall. They way it should be. You prepare, you work hard, and then you do your work and fly together with the orchestra And conductor. Nothing like it. Human emotion is frequency and is carried direct to the heart
It's similar to actors wearing makeups or having plastic surgery. Are those crimes as well?
I like watching Eurovision because it separates those who can sing live with those who can't. For all the world to see... or, well, mostly Europe 😂
@@xonx209dont be a singer if one cannot sing in tune....
Well is autotune not ok sometimes? Without vocal effects on singers we wouldn't be able to create certain sounds to add to the experience of the song.. would the beatles 'rain' 'Lucy in the sky' 'strawberry fields' etc sound as good without effects on John's voice? Besides some ppl listen to music purely for the instrumental n dnt care about vocal, music like dance music, so surely there's just and time and place and genre for it, music isn't only about singing it's an experience
@@jadebel7006 auto tune is not an effect... Itsa CORRECTING program for pitch.... Ifa singer sang more than 25% out of pitch, then he is not a prof singer.. Justa person with a singing hobby
Great singers can use being "off" the note and then "on" it as a purposeful tension-and-release. It's another tool in the vocalist's toolbox. The premise that a note must land and stay perfectly on pitch is the whole problem with autotune. Autotune does what it's supposed to do. The problem is that we shouldn't be doing it.
Sliding up to a note creates huge problems for AT... And sliding up to notes is standard fare for many singers, including me. Not all the time, just some of the time.
@buzz magister vibrato is nature's autotune.
You covered that well. yes Autotune does what it is supposed to do, but if it malfunctions or fails, and many have, it is even worse for the performer.
@buzz magister That's right. If you can sing....sing. If you can't, get off the stage.
Indeed, just listen to Maria Callas' recordings. It is the "offness" that beguiles and moves us.
Can you imagine Karen Carpenter or Patsy Cline using auto tunes? Seriously, auto tunes cannot beat natural vocal perfection! The beauty of humanity is that it has minor imperfections that allow expression and personality to shine through! AI can’t touch the human voice.
Karen is god as far as I'm concerned Vocally that is.I was so moved the 1st time I heard her. And continue to be .
If Neil Young was going into the music industry today, he might be able to write songs, but he would never be able to sing them. If he insisted on singing them, into the autotune booth he would go. Very sad, really.
Got that right! Just listen to "Where the Boy's Are" by Connie Francis. Her singing on that song is so pure and beyond reproach. If it were all Auto-Tuned, well, I just can't imagine it. It would suck so bad!!!
lucky that we are able to hear voices like that and know they were great singers. their voices give me goose bumps.
@marthaworc7873 F' that.... id rather hear someone f'ing up than stupid auto tune.
Too bad that so many have forgotten that we’re human. Being human is what makes voices special. Otherwise we’re just machines. Sad. Thanks Fil.
One of my favorite vocal performances is Gladys Knight's version of "If I Were Your Woman", especially the "you're like a diamond, but she treats you like glass" part where her voice is right on the edge of cracking. It's off just enough to show emotion, but not enough to to sound like a mistake. Imagine how much would have been lost if they had had auto-tune back then.
Amen
Thank you ...that's exactly what I've just put ...it's just wrong
So true.
@@VABE81030 imagine Nick drake or Nina Simone..with autotune..GTFOH
When an artists performance is manipulated with autotune, the audience is manipulated.
Cry me a river
did this sentence sound a lot more profound in your head before u wrote it? cuz reading it, its pretty much retarded hahaha
I find there's a natural musicality in the human voice, spoken and singing, which resonates with our nervous system. I actually feel physical discomfort listening to Ai speaking or singing. I can't bear to think how it's damaging people's ability to feel. Thanks for this brilliant episode.
That thought occurred to me in a way too. How would I react if I began talking to my friend and the person started sounding like a robot person. i would think they had been somehow altered by brain surgeon or abducted by aliens and had been altered in some way. I wouldn't be feeling the same connection with the person or have any sense of receiving or giving compassion.
So do I absolutely hate it
This!
I always make a point when recording music never to use autotune, it’s like reducing the world to 8 colours from the more than billion we have now.
@@JTScott1988 I’ll add stylistic auto tune as a rare exception, when you want the world to only have 8 colours.
Kudos to you Fil for exposing this sad auto-tune reality. If a live performer needs auto-tune, then they probably need to reconsider performing live. It’s not worth the $100 ticket to us customers.
His fans won't know. Record companies can pay to tweak algorithms to help suppress widespread sharing of the fact to known consumers of his music. Even if fans were told, they probably wouldn't care, because that's where we're at.
@@carlodave9 , sadly, you’re right. I’m waiting to see ‘if’ my post of this video is going to be approved in The Buble Insider’. Even if it is, I’ll be heavily criticised and labeled a very nasty person by the legion of ‘worshippers’.
@@carlodave9 I'm sure Disney and Warner owning most of the news organisations in the world is purely coincidence.
@@carlodave9 I am not a fan but I can hear the auto tune.. I don't need software to show it to me. This was nearly unbearable to listen to
It’s a downward spiral. Every performance now is filmed and recorded and every human mistake made available to billions of people immediately. And gigs costing 100,- or more have to be perfect.
I kind of get it that artists want to play sure. Like her or not, but you have to be Adele to not be afraid. Easy on me is a great production, cause it is 100% autotune free and some notes are flat, some are sharp and all of them are exactly right.
My ex was obsessed with Bublé, at Christmas. I could hear the autotune, actually I call his the Bublébot. He sounds so metallic. 🤖
My husband used to LOVE Bublé! He played me one of his albums shortly after we first met. I told him, "He's a great singer, but it's a shame that he feels he has to use Auto-Tune on all his songs. He really doesn't need it. He's really very good." My husband asked, "What's Auto-Tune?" So, after many a listen while I described the technology, he finally was able to hear it. After that, all bets were off. Thankfully, I never got to hear another Bublé song on our stereo. Thank God!
- And hey! Mr. Bublé: If you're out there reading this, you almost had an ardent fan, but your Auto-Tune literally "Tuned" me out. Sorry buddy.
Thank you, Fil, for discussing this topic! As a vocal music teacher and singer, I am 100% (and much more) with you on all counts! The voice is a psychomotor instrument. If we start relying on auto-tune, we potentially can lessen the important and essential impact of our human brain and emotions/full body in the process of singing. The human voice is one of, if not the most personal, verbal means of expressing ourselves! We, as the public, and leaders/professionals in the music industry need to value and encourage the use of singers’ natural voices!
I never knew any singers would ever think of using autotune for live performances. How sad, for us and for them. And how naive I was!
I once did a karoke night and I thought I would try to make myself sound perfect to be funny. So I loaded autotune onto my laptop and ran the mic through it and then ran that through echo and delay. Well thee result was like this stuttery echo mess. The accuracy was not actually too bad but it didn't sound natural it was so robotic . Like chers believe.
The hype of Plug-ins industry and VST's are skyrocket in the past 10 years.
Hold your pocket before they take it from y'all. 😅
Never, ever, ever, ever, ever use autotune live! lol
A folk/bluegrass engineer once basically forced me to use autotune on a recording, with the rationale that "everyone uses it". I was only able to convince him to lessen the effect. I think engineers and producers sometimes get too lost in the weeds and can't ignore the slight pitch fluctuations of human singing. It's like an itch they have to scratch, when in my opinion the sound of pitch correction is usually far more distracting than vocals that are slightly out of tune.
Bad engineers want to be part of the band
A great singer doesn't need autotune.
That is Angelina Jordan at any age.
A real singer doesnt need autotune.
@@Stefan- Correct😂👍
Hell, a mediocre singer doesn't need Auto-Tune.
The autotune sounds terrible
Didn’t people sing perfectly beautifully once upon a time without needing computer enhancement or other electronic wizardry? Frank Sinatra? Andrew’s Sisters? Bing Crosby? Dean Martin? Judy Garland? Beach Boys, Beatles, Etta James, Ella Fitzgerald? I mean really, I want to hear real human beings singing, not a bunch of processed shit. Cmon man…
Absolutely. Listen to Ian Gillan on the old Deep Purple records, or Earth Wind & Fire with White & Bailey. I want to hear people, not machines.
But they sound bad to today's ear. We're too used to perfect music
@@MyRackley It does make sense. People nowadays are accustomed to a different sound than 40 or even 200 years ago
Pendejo,
Yes true!
But- of course it all comes down to MONEY.
@@BrunoNeureiter I disagree, I AM TOO used to perfect music, which is music recorded without the BS of having someone/something correct your mistakes, sing it right... I cannot even imagine what someone like Lou Gramm thinks of this nonsense of having pitch correction applied to a singer's voice, especially live.
So, I'm not understanding WHY these singers are OK with this being done?! WHY are they NOT speaking out against auto tuning of their natural voices?? WHY is this ok?? I have just binge watched your videos. You're amazing and I'm learning so much. Thank you! (Love your subtle smiles as you watch/listen to some of these.)
Because they don't have to work as hard or take voice lessons
Simple really. Money…. Almost always it seems to overcome integrity.
It makes something real become fake. People get upset if a musician or singer pre-tapes a song for a special performance and then plays the tape when they're live. How is this different? It may be their voice coming out of the mic during the live performance but it's still being altered. And, as you said, Fil-there is no point to it because Buble has such a wonderful voice. But even if he didn't, it's all the same to me. I want real, the real voice, especially when I'm being told it is.
With ticket prices in crazy land for some of these folks we deserve to hear the real deal, not a damn machine
@@Loralie571 Buble is about as in control of how this performance is managed as the average person is in control of their cat.
Buble is not much different than an accountant. He shows up for work, someone tells him what they want him to do, and then he does it, and has no/little control over conditions. If the boss wants him to use. QuickBooks, that's what he uses, if it's Sage AccPacc, that's what he uses.
@@ronjones1077 Exactly
If you want to hear someone who doesn’t need auto tune try Angelina Jordan...any song
@@gavinpearcey A singer of his calibre has final say on anything and everything about the way his voice sounds in the house. It's far more likely that he went along with it than it is that he was forced to abide. This isn't a teenage pop singer whose parents signed their rights away.
Fascinating. Real artists have always known that it is natural imperfections that make true beauty. Perfect symmetry is unnatural.
Perfect symmetry will always be beautiful. Why do you think autotine is a must nowadays? Its keeps the vocals smooth and lively.
Basically, auto tune would never work in Blues influenced music, as the 3rd degree of the scale is usually sang in between the minor and major mode, therefore not relating either to the previous or next "12 note system" note, as the computer doesn't know where to drag the it...
You just can’t unhear it! His voice actually sounds better without it. I have never, and will never, use it.your videos are so interesting. Love what you do!
Thanks!
I'm a singer songwriter ...I got the musical talent from my mother who sings like an angel ...but alas I inherited my Irish father's deep voice ...and even tho when I sing it sounds like someone's emptied gravel into my throat I still would never use auto tune ...
@@brendancronin3796like Ronny Drew? Even with that voice he was a pleasure to listen to.
About 7 years ago, Buble's "just havent met you yet" was the very first example of auto tune I actually heard. I didn't know what it was, I just knew it sounded electronically altered.
why are you wasting your time listening to bad singers
It's a beautiful day is the same way. I hate autotune. It's a david foster thing. Jason scheff cant sing in tune either and foster produced chicago during the scheff years.
@@jadezee6316 what’s your problem dude
Does Buble' not think he's a good enough singer without it? I am shocked he has used this for so long. He did a duet of Fever with Elvis on an album with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. Wonder what went on there, as Elvis absolutely never used anything like that. It was Elvis' album. Never would. And certainly never needed it.
And in "Lost"?
Truly a sad day and age when even Buble can’t rely just on talent 😢
Could he ever?
@@sallypope7871 His Christmas album is unbearable to listen to because of the Autotune!
Talent😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Ive never understood how he rose to where he is. Ive heard hundreds of people in karaoke bars who sound just as good or better then him. It just baffles me
Maybe it is not Michael’s decision but the producers and record labels.
Frank Sinatra managed this song thousands of times with NO auto-tune. Using technology just because it's there is not a good thing. Michael should stop them from using auto-tune for his own good.
Plus he was deaf in his right ear.
Was going to make the exact same comment about Sinatra.
Believe it or not, there were thousands of people back in the day that could not stand Sinatra as a performer. Not all women were swooning over his voice. I like some Sinatra and but not all of it.
I think it would be cool to have Fil compare Buble and Sinatra with the same song. I find his study and explanation of singing techniques very interesting. I remember having to listen to things like this studying music in high school and college. I find this fascinating.
@@kln58cub The reason Bobby-Soxers were swooning over Sinatra was that he was the only male singer around, as the rest were drafted. I think it's funny to see the old WB cartoons, from that era, with caricatures of Sinatra. One of the funniest has him as a rooster, with the hens swooning over him.
@@kln58cub
It would be like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Skoda.
I just read were Michael Nesmith, who was best known as one of the Monkees passed away today at age 78 (RIP) Michael and thanks for the wonderful body of work you left behind.
Sad.
Very sad news
Aww, how sad. As a young kid, I remember watching the bed rolling down the street at the beginning of the show"Hey, hey🎶, we're the Monkees....!!!! 🛏️🎶
@@cindypowers4993
Davy Jones 30 December 1945 - 29 February 2012
Peter Tork February 13, 1942 - February 21, 2019
Michael Nesmith December 30, 1942 - December 10, 2021
Micky Dolenz is the only surviving member left of the group.
I'm devastated. Nes wrote Monkees classics.
This makes me appreciate good singers even more. So much faking goes on these days, not just in music but everywhere. It's sad.
Artists shouldn’t be allowed to call a performance “live” if they’re using autotune/pitch correction. It’s all lies.
Its a rip off, just listen to the record, very few people are good live.
Autotune is horrible
It's interesting, because vocals are processed through all sorts of equipment when singing live: gates, compressors, delays, reverb. I know: it's different... and yet kinda the same. I mean, the voice is being processed.
@@drinkinslim Exactly, pitch correction is just another tool. Singers would also suddenly sound worse if you took away the reverb, doesn't mean their voices are bad and that reverb is fraudulent. The issue with autotune has nothing to do with whether it's lying or not; it just ruins performances a lot of the time. This video wouldn't exist if autotune hadn't ruined the performance, but you can just as easily ruin a good performance with bad EQ or compression and almost no one would care about that.
@@iy42touche.... but, eh, autotune pitches, its a different monster than ambience or volume.... and.... i could guarantee, if theyre using autotune, they are DEFINITELY using everything else as well...might as well have anyone or everyone else singing.... just lipsync, might as well.
This is so educational. I feel much more aware of auto tune and can now hear it in recorded and live performances. It is dreadful and I wish singers would stop using this technology. The voice is not perfect and forcing it to perfection is unnatural and ruins it for me. Thank you FIL for highlighting this!!!
Phil, Very well expressed, and much needed. I'm a lifetime student of piano, a music major in the 1980s. I was raised in Kentucky, listening to Country Music in our home. Then later, I studied Classical. Going back to analyze Johnny Cash, I've been amazed that I can't always figure out what his melody note is (or was supposed to be), yet somehow he managed to sound fairly good much of the time! At least, he was good enough to have his own TV show in America for some period of time. I hate to think of the indecision Auto-tune would have experienced if it had existed then and attempted to "correct" his voice. Though not as good of a singer as Michael, wouldn't Johnny Cash be a "case-in-point" of a singer who was seldom holding pitches "on the line," yet still sounded good somehow? There's something mysterious working there. You've explained some of the reasons. Let me compliment you on your vocal skills--your ability when explaining what an artist is or isn't doing to use your own voice to mimic them with exact pitch and dynamics even when they are "out of your vocal range"! You are so talented both vocally and as a guitarist. I very much love all your work on Wings of Pegasus. Thank you for a lot of fun listening to your thoughts. With much appreciation, David Lee
Seriously I can't believe this is free. 🙏 so Grateful. Your analysis, education, clips. Love your passion ❤
Bang. Dead on the line. Love your appreciation of natural voices and the Understanding. So many thanks 😊
Deputy Dog 🐕 ❤
It’s like when we used to listen to cassettes. If the player started to eat the tape, you’d hear the music start to warble, and immediately realize you had to hit eject, in hopes you could get the cassette out and uncrinkle it , or cut and splice the tape.
Why do they auto tune? Why do they mime on tv performances? I’m gaining more respect for bar singers by the minute.
Those were the days!
You had to be FAST on your finger! If you waited a couple seconds, you had a crinkled, tangled, wrapped around mess!
And then inserting the pencils to rewind the ejected tape hoping to salvage your tunes.
@@VABE81030
Yup! I remember!
In fairness, there were an awful lot of pop singers lip-syncing on TV shows back in the 60s and early 70s, because the technology didn't exist for them to reproduce the record's instruments and effects in a TV studio. But they were good singers, and these were mainly teeny-bopper shows.
Bublé’s live appearance on the Graham Norton Show (backed by a big band) a few years back sounded great and I made a recording of it. The more I listened though, I realised he was singing slightly sharp throughout the song - which suggests no autotune in this particular performance.
Lolol no. Use your ears.
@@davidfaustino4476 Eh?
Thank you for exposing the use of autotune at the concert level. If I were an artist, I'd be pretty angry that a technician was manipulating my voice during a live performance. Another reason for loving opera.
Thats why legends like elvis Presley are legends. His vocal range and power was intense and real.
Absolutely ! Right up to his very last concert !
his vocal range was actually pretty limited, but what elvis did better than anybody else was emotion behind his singing.
As well as Angelina Jordan at any age.
His vocal range was NOT very limited. Are you kidding?
@jennyjorgensen9935 yes, Bowling dude must have cloth ears or never heard of Elvis.
Great analysis as usual. Love the detail! Keep live music LIVE. ❤
I understand why pitch correction exists, but when people say it's the standard/so common, therefore it's necessary I just roll my eyes. We have decades of incredible studio and live performances that are perfect and never needed any correction. I've never listened to a record from the 60s-80s and thought "this should have been autotuned/pitch corrected". Sure it may help make the recording process easier but it's NOT necessary. It should be a tool not a standard. I'm not talking about use of autotune for a style (like Cher).
Glad you are exposing this! I've been singing 60 years and I think that that experience helps, not hurts , even if I can't hit the same high notes every time. Some how the experienced singer sounds more passionate and authentic.
What scares me is that auto tune will probably improve to the point where first day singers will sound great! Yikes! Both musicians and listeners need to say no to auto tune like they say no to drugs in sports.
As long as musicians don’t also have to say no to drugs
People say no to drugs in sports but those drugs have been used and are still used to win medals and achieve world records.
If Autotune technology actually gets so good that we won't be able to tell, nobody will complain because there will be no downside to using it like there is now.
This is such a shame. Michael Buble’s fans enjoy his natural voice with all its nuances. It’s what makes him Michael Buble!
Apparently not….hes a fake.
@@mojo4376 Well, the sound engineer made him a fake.
"Michael Buble’s fans enjoy his natural voice with all its nuances."
Or, so they thought. If you get caught using it live, NO WAY does one NOT use it in the studio.
@@mojo4376 ... He's not fake, I've heard him sing beautifully unacompanied, he is a good singer, and as the video shows, he doesn't need to use auto tune.
He's always been completely autotuned.
One of my musicians said to me one day,”a good sound person can make a bad band ok, and a good band awesome. A bad sound person can make an amazing artist awful.” There was more but in this case they killed it in a bad way! Great analysis!! I personally never used it live…
I worked with Michael Bublé in musical revue theatre before his fame. He has a fabulous, beautiful, strong, tuneful voice and he got his chops singing day in and out on the live stage. Also he was a sweet person. Just saying.
Blaaaa....blaaaaa
He is a good singer. Who in the industry is making the decision to autotune these artists?
I am about 99% certain he doesn’t get a say in the use of autotune, that’s the music biz
Maybe something in His contract?
so autotune is to save having too work too hard?
I did a session with Michael Bublé a couple years ago and he’s actually a good singer in the sense that he sings on pitch with good phrasing and musicality. This processed sound is a creative choice and live it’s probably about consistency and not getting clowned on social media in case of an off night. Sad state of affairs our modern musical world. 😢
It's particularly a shame, because this dude is a real singer.
I totally agree with you!
When it comes to music, you're a dedicated teacher of natural! 👍
I was actually watching this program when this happened. You could tell immediately the difference in his voice because Michael sounded so much better, especially his vibrato. At least now I know why! I didn’t know anything about live autotune at that time. Thanks Fil, you have the best channel on the internet.
And I think your point at the end is spot on. The more times you point out these insanely talented singers being auto tuned…. With or without their approval…. The more likely it is that they will actively make sure it doesn’t happen any more.. and that’s better for us all….
Buble has pitch control as least as good as Frank Sinatra. By Autotuning, it removes so much of the human nuance as to render it, in this case, as unlistenable. One of the ways I determine if any part of a "live" performance is actually live is by catching mistakes and little pitch deviations. I'd much rather hear an actual performance than a computer generated/enhanced one. If the stage doesn't differ from the studio, what's the point in a live performance?
His tone has aaaalllways been almost entirely autotune.
You can hear it on his records.
You sure his pitch control is that good? You sure he has the stamina for an evening of singing and moderation like Sinatra had?
I guess you underestimate the talent of Sinatra.
Absolutely agree. And Sinatra sang so that every member of tje audience, even if listening to a recording, felt he was singing to them personally. He didn't guss about hitting a note, he got there, but with the aim of making every note important, but not an exercise in vocal training. Wonderful!
Any examples of Buble singing without autotune. That'd be a fair comparison.
@@TheSteveKinney Yes. Also he tends to end a phrase with a staccato note to even more obfuscate he can't keep pitch.
......imagine going back in time with autotune, walking up to Grace Slick about to sing White Rabbit, then telling her, 'Maybe you could do it with this thing'.......what an utter gew-gaw autotune is. 0:03
Hearing Michael's isolated voice like this just shows how auto tune changes a natural vibrato from a natural pitch modulation to more of an amplitude modulation. It’s like his natural and incredible sounding voice has had a key component ‘photoshopped’ out. I find this to be too big a price to pay for the convenience of ‘fixing’ the odd and rare (and not necessarily unwanted) out of tune note.
but I guess this is an extreme example, even I wouldn't sound this bad when I am singing... hahaha..!
Great way to put it. I agree totally.
I'm beginning to wonder if we'll ever hear a real voice or a real instrument again. I guess that's one reason I like the 50's, 60's & 70's singers a lot better than the mostly junk they're producing today...Great video Fil
I sympathize with you. I like Bob's Place👍😊
@@cindypowers4993 Thank you Cindy
They are out there, though. Check out FKJ for an example of a great modern musician / instrumentalist 👍
Ok, he's a very talented musician, but he still uses electronics for a lot of his instruments instead say, a real live drummer, someone playing the guitar, or other instruments.....In the years that I mentioned, when a recording was done, it was done with live musicians, no auto- tune for voices, just natural singers, and that's my point.
I'm wondering the same.
Since day one, I was asking myself why this Buble guy has a singing career. Not surprised at all about this revelation.
I would not be happy to be at a concert and realize that they are using auto tune. I understand the stresses of touring but auto tune crosses the line for me.
Don't look now but many, if not most are faking playing and singing to a pre recorded track
@@prd004.2 nobody is faking anything... Tracks are only used to augment what's already on stage. It's not exactly feasible to tour with full orchestras, multiple keys players, and guitar players, and several backing singers. Tracks are just there to fill out the sound, not for musicians or singers to mime to. I've mixed thousands of live shows, and never had anybody fake performing.
@@dustinthiessen wrong. Many touring acts fake things you’re probably not aware of
Interesting that you did this video as I remember Bublé doing a live performance here in the UK and I thought it sounded absolutely dreadful and exactly for the reason you stated. Ie not so much correcting the pitch but how much his voice sounded synthesised. He might as well have been singing through a vocoder.
Agree. He is dreadful live!
Now we know why you hear better singers in the local pub. They can't afford autotuners.
Especially when you're singing live, you don't need it because there is so much ambient interference that most audiences can't tell if you are slightly off. Even more so with great performers that dance or have light shows, the audience is so wrapped up in focusing on everything else they aren't paying attention to the vocals as much. Audiences are unintentionally forgiving in those situations.
Bublé's voice has been processed all the time and probably this will never stop. The main problem is that 99.9% of the audience does not realize that their money spent on concert tickets goes into ProTools playbacks and live autotune. They just don't care. I care for my Sinatra vinyls, that's for sure ...
But the guys and gals (surely guys, I've learned he do very well in the gay-segment, and that's fine with me, whatever makes your boat float) will enjoy the concert and think their money is well spend. That's just how showbizz works :-)
Sinatra knew how to sing that’s for sure! Today most of what you hear is all fake
Sinatra was great, especially in his earlier days. If you're not familiar with Bobby Darin, I highly recommend you look into his catalog. He was an incredible talent as well.
@@timetowakeup6302 LOVE Bobby Darin! Much more than Sinatra. He has some soul and passion. Sinatra does not.
@@keetonplace
👍
Never, ever, ever, ever, ever use autotune live!
Maybe not autotune specifically but I use tuning live weekly. Just have to use it correctly and like any tool know when to kill it if its not working
Never ever use it ever. It's bullshit
Thank you for shedding light on just how many artists are being autotuned, be it by their own will or not.
Autotuning an entire song or performance is cheating in my opinion. If you can't sing in tune, then either do more practice, or don't sing! It's like singers who were miming while they danced. If you can't sing and dance, then don't dance while you sing! Why they want to autotune great singers is beyond me!
And to finish. Can I just say how much I enjoy your videos, Fil. Your explanations are always clear and easy to understand. Thanks for all your efforts.🙂
Not his biggest fan but the man can sing really good naturally ,why would he need auto tune ?
That's what I wondered!
He’s done a vocal analysis of Jon Bon Jovi describing vocal fatigue. Remember, these folks are vocal “athletes” and just like a elite sports athlete can get fatigued over many weeks of practice/ games (rinse/repeat) and need rest and healing
@@rroades Yes, or perhaps if they have a cold.
For various reasons (including actual bad singers) this just became a standard practice. Producers, even legitimate good vocalists just assume it can’t hurt and will catch anything that might be off key by a marginal amount. Obviously there’s downsides to that, it strips some of the character of your singing and since it’s almost like “cheating,” it makes people speculate about how “horrible” you might sound without it.
Agree, Ive seen Michael in concert a few times, he doesn't exactly need it
The weird thing I started noticing is that he mutes his s's. He either moves the microphone or lowers his voice. I first noticed it in 'Meglia Stasera' which he sings wonderfully
I appreciate you continuing to make these videos! I've seen people say using autotune/melodyne isn't "cheating" because there's more than that to making music. But when it comes to presenting vocal ability, it's kind of hard to argue otherwise. This expectation of perfect autotuned vocals is making everyone do it, and flooding the market with less talented vocalists since everyone sounds the same. Michael should be given credit for his great actual voice, but we'd never know if autotune hadn't failed here.
Strange, when I saw Michael Live, at the end of his concert after the lights came on he stepped away from the mic and belted out a song a-cappella to the whole arena. It was amazing!!
Yes he can sing! That's why this is so needless!
Same with Tony Bennett who would also drop the mike and could be heard loudly without it. Now, there was an amazing singer. When you heard Tony, Sinatra, Aretha, Sammy, Ella, Darin, Mel, Dean, Lennon, Paul, etc you didn’t have to guess who you were listening to. They all had distinctive, recognizable voices. In another words, these people knew how to sing.
Live singers who perform frequently may at times have issues to come up when the vocal cords become stressed (overworked). Often, auto tune is the go to solution. Even great singers who reach high notes that's at the upper range of the vocal cords have failure to some degree. Proper care and exercise is very important to sing in tune consistently. However, singing in concerts without some time to recuperate, well, autotune to the rescue.
The little inaccuracies in the voice, are often caused by the singer putting some feeling/emotion into the song, and you really notice it. Autotune will take this emotion away. Michael Bublé clearly has a good voice, and clearly he can sing, but I've always felt that his voice sounded emotionless, which is why I've never really wanted to go out of my way to listen to him. Mind you, that's my taste! I've never appreciated people like Pavarotti for the same reason, there's more to putting in some feeling than just holding a perfect note and going loud or quiet.
Perhaps Bublé is a better singer than I thought and autotune is the culprit. But as for emotion/feeling, listen to Ray Charles singing "You Don't Know Me", then listen to Bublé singing the same song. Then you might know what I mean.
Buble's voice is very good and well trained, but it's just so smooth and good that it's not at all interesting. Same with Celtic Woman performances. They're so pitch perfect and emotionless. Boring.
@@davelanciani-dimaensionx I used to have a Ray Charles cd that came with a little booklet that just sorta gave an overview of Ray and one of the stories it told was when he was recording Seven Spanish Angels his voice "cracked" and the producer stopped the take and said "let's start over" and Ray went into the booth and took him off to the side and said "man I MEANT to do that". It fit the story of the song much more than some robot telling it.
Man Dave, I really encourage you to revisit Pavarotti sometime. Possibly with live video. My favorite singers are Ray Charles, Ella Fitzgerald, Sinatra & Billy Eckstine...so many 50s and 60s soul singers and classic country guys....Pavarotti is nothing but soul, right up there with anyone I can name.
Ian Gillian was excellent at emotional effects with his voice. Child In Time is a great example. That is why he was picked to Sing the Parts of Christ in Jesus Christ Superstar on the Album. He was able to show sadness and pain and keep the notes and pitch. He lost nothing singing emotion.
Perhaps people think the same of him, but give me Harry Connick Jr. any day over Michael Bublé. For me, one has a loot more character. Heck, I saw Seth MacFarlane live with the Boston Pops on New Year's Eve a few years ago and I'd rather listen to him than Bublé. No offense to anyone who likes Bublé, as music is personal and what is my cup of tea is not necessarily yours. Just listen to what you love and just enjoy music! Happy Holidays everyone!
14:00 it's interesting that you mention that because that's a classical training thing. I had a music theory teacher one time that in so many words told us, when you're gonna be going from a 7 to the octave, you almost WANT that 7 to be a bit sharp, because it just begs for the listener to yearn for it to resolve up that last half-step (or more like 1/3 step if you do that). It creates a really nice tension that begs for the resolution, it wouldn't be surprising to me if Michael is doing that subconsciously because he may have learned the same thing once upon a time.
Pros like Mike dont need auto tune. He has a great natural voice. That said....if a singer cant live without singing with auto tune then either they cant sing or needs to rest or retire. Mike should not have used it or whoever at the tv station in production should not have used it. He doesn't need it.
If you’re singing opera, or soul styled pop, or certain hard rock styles or… anything else that takes a technical voice, or you’re in a singing competition, then you want people to hear how good you actually are, and not think you’re cheating. So don’t use this effect.
If you’re singing punk, folk, or rap adjacent stuff, you’ll want to sound “real” and maybe lo-fi but tremendous pitch accuracy might not be as important? Again don’t use this effect.
The only time it’s really going to add to things is if you’re just trying to sound robotic, or are correcting one or two “off notes” so you don’t need another take. But even then, if someone notices it will make them doubt you’re a good singer.
As an effect it can add something. Cher used it for effect in "Believe." I seem to remember that it was revolutionary then.
@@ShanRees The problem is though, the effect in that song was horrifying. It was totally new to the general audience, but it was more of a weird novelty than something which was greatly appreciated. Later on it just got out of control in Pop music to 'fix' poor performances, and now it seems just to have become the lazy default option.
@@Auriflamme absolutely. It sounded like a joke . I preferred the Cher from long ago - lots of emotion and a straight up natural voice.
Great explanation! This is something those of us working in music production notice instantly, but it's sometimes quite hard to get regular people to pick it out, especially now that people are accustomed to hearing artificially tuned vocals everywhere.
There's one element you've missed though. All the things you describe - impossibly perfect pitch quantisation, notes "snapping" to pitch too quickly, analysis mistakes causing notes to snap to the wrong pitch etc etc - this is all obviously a big part of the picture explaining how to notice artificial tuning. But another big giveaway is formant shifting.
Every singer has a range of timbral qualities to their voice that changes depending on how low and high in their range a note is. So if a singer missed a note which the software then retunes to the intended pitch, it drags with it the timbral quality the note had at the pitch it was naturally sung. If the original note was quite close, you don't notice this effect so much. But the further away the note actually sung was from the intended note, the more obvious it becomes that it was re-pitched. Missed notes that were far below the intended pitch can sound quite "Mickey Mouse" when they're tuned upwards, and missed notes that were too high can sound weirdly deep and artificial when pulled downwards.
This effect is obviously less pronounced when you're dealing with a singer who is always very close to the intended pitch. But the human brain is extremely fine-tuned to noticing even the most ridiculously subtle details in human vocal quality, so it does pick up on this. Even if the aberration in timbral quality is very minor and barely perceptible, if you have enough of them in succession it flips a kind of "uncanny valley" switch in your brain which instantly gives you the feeling that something doesn't quite sound real. Most modern pitch correction software tries to compensate for this by altering the formants (aka the timbre) of tuned notes in realtime. But this only works to varying degrees of success. Yes, it does usually manage to tame the most flagrant Mickey Mouse/Darth Vader effect on notes that were moved quite far from their original pitch. But this processing itself has a telltale artificial sound, even when only used lightly... and sure enough, even if you don't quite consciously know you heard it, your brain does. :)
Thank you for this
Bloody good job Fil, as always.
Fascinating content and knowledge. We're going to need more people like you, as things get more insanely unnecessary.
Fil's helping us retain the soul!
I liked Michael when he first came out because he was fresh. But as time went on I found that I wasn't enjoying his music without a clue until now. Apparently, I don't like auto-tune! Thanks, Fil!
My friend went to a Michael buble concert a while back and she said it sounded a little bad..so much so that it ruined the concert for her. We didn't really know about auto tune at the time, but I'm betting the auto tune was a factor.
Also thanks for sharing about the vocal pitch monitor app..it's pretty cool
Thank you… I’ve been criticised for saying the same thing about his most recent Australian concert.
It was quick, slick and he spent way too much time chatting to certain members of the audience.
The first time I saw him live (about 15 years ago), was one of the best shows I’ve ever been to.
Save yr hard earned money. He's a fake, a phony. The great singers especially in the 60s never used it. I have no use for this deceiver now.
@@Mark-iv7np Ok boomer.
@@ScrollsofSombra Fool.
My god you created a new form of entertainment here. I really enjoy these videos.
Just found on RUclips a 1965 live version of Sinatra singing 'I've Got the World on a String'. Fantastic live version. Frank at his best. He had no autotune....didn't exist. Why do they need it now?
I wish Frankie was alive today, he would be giving Michael a stern talking to. Hed be telling him to "cut that crap out!"
Because nowadays 'singers' are chosen initally on looks, then voice some time later down the line.
@@dopiaza2006 bingo!!!
To make them sound better when they cannot sing in the first place.
I agree with you, Fil. In the quest for “perfection” we’ve lost individual quirks, personality and human connection that draw us to their music. Everyone sounds the same now because they’ve gone through the “machine.” Michael shouldn’t have to use AT. He has a great voice. Do artists feel pressured to use it cause so many do it? I wonder.
Thank you for not generically saying that autotune is not always bad, even while making fun of these pitch correction failures!
I feel bad for Micky Bubbles here.
He clearly doesn’t need auto tune. He has a great voice.
"Mickey Bubbles" is a keeper.
. . . Not ' great ' but a reasonable bar or lounge - type of singer ... why the lack of confidence to be meddling with this type of
'modern - day' trickery - ?..
@@donaldcook3112 yeah, I hear you. I admit, I don’t listen to his music by choice.
Maybe he’s not astounding or exceptional, though personally, I appreciate* he’s got a great voice. I can’t hold a note at all 😂
@@cordellsenior9935 😂 *courtesy of Vic and Bob
if it was great then who invited autotune in
If they had asked the audience: “The artist might not hit every note accurately tonight so, would you like us to auto-tune the performance?”, how many would have said “Yes, please!”? I realize that there are many aspects to this and it's a tough industry but using auto-tune in a live performance feels fishy to me, especially if the audience is not aware of it.
Fil’s videos really highlight the fact that singing (and art in general, I guess) is not just about striving for absolute perfection, but also about expression and emotion. In science beauty is perfection but in art we long for the “imperfect” human element too, IMO. No piece of art is a perfect reflection of reality, there's always some interpretation involved.
BTW, I still haven't gotten over what they did to Freddie Mercury, that was just downright criminal. And the man can't even have a say in what they do with his voice. So, the people who do this, whoever you are: STOP IT!
It's like instead of watching Bob Ross paint a picture watching Bob Ross starting the print job of a copy of one of his pictures.
(I know he already died, but i think his painting videos are known enough to make a good analogy)
I would say NO! Definitely not. Id walk out if a live performance used auto torture.
@Vlasko60 except an electric guitar is an instrument. Auto tune is not an instrument. It's cheating.
Frankly if they are going to use auto-tune live then they should probably just lip sync to the studio version of the song.
@@duckmyass Absolutely.
Many "artists" actually lip-synch during live concerts, others just use autotune. I wonder how many are real singers.
I saw Diana Ross in Reno last weekend and I could not detect anything resembling this kind of chicanery. Not bad for someone who is now 80 years of age.
its the imperfections that make a singer ....unironically perfect
Sinatra Munroe even bob Dylan its the cracks the wobbles the breaks that make them better
Ummm...NO, not even Bob Dylan. He's an icon, yes, but his voice tends to be almost comically bad.
Agreed. Listen to Mr. Sinatra's Watertown album.
It’s a good point about auto tuning a voice that’s good, it doesn’t make sense. I hear a digital crackling every time. Also, dynamics always slightly change pitch, part of expression. The most astonishing thing is the fact the most non musicians wouldn’t even hear an out of tune non auto tuned performance anyway. An old phrase that I love, “ you cannot always be in tune, but you can be always out of tune.”
Every time I hear a similar glitch, immediately I hear in my head "Do you believe in love after love?" :D
The beginning sounds like he's singing in a tin can . I so much like REAL live. You , Fil , have me listening to music differently and it's great . Thank you . You can tell you're an excellent teacher. Rock on. !! 🤘🤘✌😊🎅
Thanks!
Tin can! Like some 1940's WW2 movie with soldiers singing a gang vocal
Listen to what Rick Beato has to say too. He's a great produce too, just like Wings of Pegasus
I say get rid of autotune all together, keep singers honest... no lip syncing no pitch correction, though that would kill some careers
If that kills a career, that career deserves to die. Loads of very popular and successful singers don’t sing “well” but are true to themselves and make up for it elsewhere. If your auto tuned vocals are the only thing keeping you afloat, get another job.
People heavily criticized David lee Roths voice on the last 3 van halen tours. I saw all 3 tours and appreciated that it was real. Had a great time at those shows. Sometimes I think people want the fake shit, I dont.
There are folks who are performers, and their audience expects them to do complex dance moves while singing. If that’s happening I am forgiving of lip syncing. But not a fan of auto tune at ALL
A good singer doesn't need auto-tune, so when it's used (and it's typically pretty obvious) it's like saying "we can't really hold a pitch ourselves; and don't actually sing very well."
There are plenty of singers who sing perfectly on pitch Roberta Flack and Celine Dion Both sing perfectly on pitch (I'm a tuner) and it sounds beautiful, because when they go from note to note it doesn't sound like flipping a switch.
His voice sounded much better with no autotune. I mean he is a good singer so I don't know why the need to even use it. Expecting pitch perfect notes from a singer is unrealistic and not natural. Imperfections make live performances so unique and interesting.
Adele is a good example of how good modern pop singers can be without autotune, and how the microtonal qualities of her performances (that autotune/ melody me would pulverise) add so much of the emotion. I find a lot of her actual music a bit boring, but she’s an insane singer.
Shes autotuned as well
I agree she's boring
"I find a lot of her actual music a bit boring, but she’s an insane singer."
So, what's the point??????
She is a great singer, but you don't like her music??!! So why would she worry about your opinion (or mine, or anyone's) anyway?????? Ahahahahahahah!!
That's exactly the point I made in my comment, few minutes ago.
I'm still learning to hear the autotune, I just don't have the ear you do, but I can hear it easily on the less talented vocalists. I love the channel and your ongoing exposé and shaming of the artists and especially the engineers. Keep up the fight.
There are zero times where I think auto tuned versions of a talented singer is better. Zero point zero…. A great singer on a bad day is still better than a great singer using auto tune… 100%
If someone is so bad they need auto tune all the time just to sound good. I’m not listening to them anyways and don’t really care lol.
100% agreememt with you. Id rather hear a flawed natural voice, even my husband's terrible singing voice, than synthesized robotic voices.