amazing breakthru from celemony

[HairyScaryMark]

Lol...quite a deal of presumption thrown in there?? I don't know how many record companies will be rounding up the talentless nobodies due to this..

I never said that and the rest of my thread was positive.

It does however make it that much easier to make a talentless nobody sound acceptable on a recording.

At the moment the statment "you can't pollish a Turd" is more or less true about recording. An engineer can make an average take sound a good bit better or cover up a few mistakes but unless the recorded material is at least of a minimum standard, there is no way they are going to get a good natural-sounding recording.

Technology like this allows more room for error on recordings as it can be fixed later. Less skill is essentially required to get the same or similar results.

[HairyScaryMark]

To be quite honest, this is absolutely the kind of software producers do and will have in their armoury of tools. It should encourage the talentless kids to try a bit harder, lest they have to admit to their mates that the producer had to "fix" their shite performance.

No it wont. More talentless kids will be sent to studios to make a product that can be sold without having the skills that were previously required to do it.

I totally don't buy the arguments that these kinds of tools lead to sterilisation of music or are somehow "cheating". For example, a guitarist might use an EQ because his raw guitar tone is flawed, is that cheating because he is using a technological device to alter the nature of the sound? Using a reverb pedal creates a false reality in the same sense, is that wrong?

EQ does not correct mistakes in performance. It is usually used to take out some harshness of an instrument or to get the instrument to 'sit' better in a mix.

Reverb also is an effect to create something that arguably coudln't otherwise be achieved and does not correct a mistake in a performance.

Melodyne sell a product that is used primarily to cover up the notes that are out of tune in vocal recording. Having recorded a good few singers and never got a completely 'perfect' take. I can accept thisb being used in small proportions, but as the technology gets better (like with this latest breakthrough) it can be used on a wider variety of instruments to correct bigger mistakes.

This takes away from what music is about for me, performance by real human beings.

Going down that path, is the raw acoustic performance some kind of untouchable notion of "perfection"? This argument is akin to suggesting that cave painting is the only true visual artform, and all this fancy shit like brushes, synthetic pigments and mediums, lithography are the tools of the devil and merely debase the prisitine beauty of some neanderthal slapping an ochre stained hand onto the wall of his cave.

Visual art is entirely differnet and I do believe that music should be played by real human beings unless there is good reason why it should not be.

[Alkaline]

The guy in that video has cold, dead eyes o_O

Pretty cool thing to use in a studio though. It's hardly going to kill off music either.

[Stripey]

Melodyne sell a product that is used primarily to cover up the notes that are out of tune in vocal recording.

You're point of view is totally unsophisticated.

Anyway, if you consider pitchshifting to be "cheating", who's the arbitrator and judge of what is legit? I hear this argument again and again from naive traditionalists, it makes me wonder if they are suffering from some sort of catholic guilt syndrome.

[Gavlar]

Im sure nearly all producers would prefer to work with musicians that can get a quality take in a few attempts rather than 'talentless nobodies' who need their work laboriously corrected just to create a workable sound.

As for the 'talentless nobodies' using it at home to fix home recordings, will the process of endlessly fixing parts not prove just as musically educational for them, thus improving both their musicianship and probably their playing in the long term?

As long as a piece of software like this doesnt impair the sound I think it is a fantastic tool to experiment with sonically, it opens up all manner of possibilities (though of course I'd still spend the money on more basses . ).

[KimyReizeger]

Melodyne sell a product that is used primarily to cover up the notes that are out of tune in vocal recording

Doesn't the video demonstrate that it isn't just about fixing skewed vocal parts, and in fact opens up entirely new musical opportunities?

[HairyScaryMark]

The current version of melodyne only works for single line instruments, particularly voice.

The video suggests that the mistakes it will be able to correct are going to be much greater and on a much wider variety of instrumetns.

I think this can be used creatively to do things that wouldn't otherwise have been realisticly achieveable, however I think the danger is it will be used largely to make up for poor musicianship and performance.

You're point of view is totally unsophisticated.

Anyway, if you consider pitchshifting to be "cheating", who's the arbitrator and judge of what is legit? I hear this argument again and again from naive traditionalists, it makes me wonder if they are suffering from some sort of catholic guilt syndrome.

I still believe that music should be performed by humans and technology is there to aid the performance, not to play the music for them. The danger for this is that more and more is likely to be done by souless machines rather than actual musicians.

I am not a catholic nor do I suffer from any sort of guilt syndrome. If my views make me a traditionalist, then so be it but it appears to be an inaccurate description concidering the amount of technology I use to create music.

[HairyScaryMark]

Im sure nearly all producers would prefer to work with musicians that can get a quality take in a few attempts rather than 'talentless nobodies' who need their work laboriously corrected just to create a workable sound.

As for the 'talentless nobodies' using it at home to fix home recordings, will the process of endlessly fixing parts not prove just as musically educational for them, thus improving both their musicianship and probably their playing in the long term?

As long as a piece of software like this doesnt impair the sound I think it is a fantastic tool to experiment with sonically, it opens up all manner of possibilities (though of course I'd still spend the money on more basses . ).

The talentless nobodies I was referring to are pop stars not bedroom musicians. Technology like this advancing helps the next McFly and Spice Girls (people who are poor musicians and singers) more than the bedroom musician.

When used in a hugely radical way, autotune and melodyne do impact on the integretity sound in a big way. If you listen to pop recordings, many people are now actually used to hearing heavily autotuned voices on every song they listen to so it becomes normal.

'Do you believe in love after life' by Cher is an example of autotune used in a way it shoudln't be. I suspect a lot of the dance recordings with very high voices have been autotuned big time as well.

Angels by Robbie Williams I am led to believe also had Autotune but not used to same extent as he could actually sing in the first place.

[scottyboy]

to be honest, i think a lot of 'talentless' pop bands are aided by session players as it is. while obviously very useful for producers who want to tweak a take later on, I can't see it being 'revolutionary', as session players can surely come up with better parts than the producer (otherwise why are they there in the first place). Secondly, It's got to be a lot faster for a musician to play a solo than it is to create one from scratch with software.

[CornTYP]

There are a few paths here.

1> As i mentioned before. If you are paying for your recording then this type of stuff will save you time. Saved time = saved money.

2> A person/band wants to be the best no matter what it takes. Tries to convince people that they can sing by not mentioning the type of pitch plugin/fx box they used.

3>You run a project/independent studio and know you can get more bands/acts back to your studio if you make them sound slightly better than they are. More bands through the door = more money.

I do believe this software could be used in colleges to point out different mistakes and to explain theory associated with these "mistakes". But if you can drag a note around and change the scale/mode your playing in reguardless if you even know what a mode is. I feel these people with no heart or talent will forget the technique and just use the program, these people who have not taken time to learn their craft should be automatically coloured blue to make it obvious to everyone and anyone their shooting out their bum. But you can usually tell. Blue or not.

[Stripey]

'Do you believe in love after life' by Cher is an example of autotune used in a way it shoudln't be.

Who is the arbiter of the way a piece of equipment or software "should" be used supposed to be?

Anyway, that song was a huge hit, the effect helped make it unique and stand out and people have used it in the same way again and again. It's only "wrong" in the small minds of people with ridiculous purist notions of what music must be.

[black_matter]

Who is the arbiter of the way a piece of equipment or software "should" be used supposed to be?

Anyway, that song was a huge hit, the effect helped make it unique and stand out and people have used it in the same way again and again. It's only "wrong" in the small minds of people with ridiculous purist notions of what music must be.

Go just reel yer neck in you fucking moan.

[Alkaline]

Go just reel yer neck in you fucking moan.

No, i don't think he should. There's no way on earth that the advent of this sort of computer assisted technology will be detrimental to music. There are so many positive applications possible for this type of software.

[black_matter]

No, i don't think he should. There's no way on earth that the advent of this sort of computer assisted technology will be detrimental to music. There are so many positive applications possible for this type of software.

Yes, I totally agree. But when it comes to stripeys constant moaning at every single thing under the sun it just gets a bit tedious.

I'm just waiting for a reply like "everything should be up to debate" but sometimes, just sometimes, you're better off leaving it at a simple yes-no answer.

p.s i'm also of the mindset that the musician should get the music correct before playing it. This kind of technology is immensely useful but is opening up a huge amount of laziness. 'nuf said.

[Stripey]

Yes, I totally agree. But when it comes to stripeys constant moaning at every single thing under the sun it just gets a bit tedious.

I'm just waiting for a reply like "everything should be up to debate" but sometimes, just sometimes, you're better off leaving it at a simple yes-no answer.

If you actually read the thread I'm not moaning about anything, pull your own head in.

[Stripey]

p.s i'm also of the mindset that the musician should get the music correct before playing it. This kind of technology is immensely useful but is opening up a huge amount of laziness. 'nuf said.

Yeah god forbid anyones life is made easier/time and money saved by a technological breakthrough.

[Old Gold]

I'm just waiting for a reply like "everything should be up to debate" but sometimes, just sometimes, you're better off leaving it at a simple yes-no answer.

That's insanely silly.

[black_matter]

Yeah god forbid anyones life is made easier/time and money saved by a technological breakthrough.

I'm not denying the technology's a breakthrough. I'm saying that the content of the technology will lead people to become lethargic in the approach to creating music and relying on the technology to improve extremely shite musicians , which in turn will reduce the quality of musicians and bands alike.

[black_matter]

That's insanely silly.

In your opinion it's silly and I must admit that at face value the sentence looks a bit silly, but if you think about it, I do have a point.

Whether you agree with that point is a different matter and I respect your position if you don't.

[Stripey]

the technology will lead people to become lethargic in the approach to creating music and relying on the technology to improve extremely shite musicians

You'll be ok then as long as your producer has got melodyne DNA then.

I suppose you think disabled people should be denied wheelchairs or prosthetic limbs aswell.

The people slagging this off saying it will lead to some form of heretical "cheating" are just luddites.

[CornTYP]

I suppose you think disabled people should be denied wheelchairs or prosthetic limbs aswell.

This is different. People with such disabilities have wheelchairs and prosthetic to make their life easier. To help them got outside and to function day to day.

If a musician has a bad ear or cannot really perform what needs to be played then there should be no Option Mellodyne. I believe some people just have it in them to write, play and record music. Cyberdyne=Mellodyne. And we all know what happens there. Boo!!

[Old Gold]

In your opinion it's silly and I must admit that at face value the sentence looks a bit silly, but if you think about it, I do have a point.

Whether you agree with that point is a different matter and I respect your position if you don't.

I don't mind your oppinion, but your statement about some things being simply 'yes' or 'no' is simply wrong.

[Stripey]

This is different. People with such disabilities have wheelchairs and prosthetic to make their life easier. To help them got outside and to function day to day.

If a musician has a bad ear or cannot really perform what needs to be played then there should be no Option Mellodyne. I believe some people just have it in them to write, play and record music. Cyberdyne=Mellodyne. And we all know what happens there. Boo!!

A great track is a great track regardless of how it is arrived at, common sense dictates taking the path of least resistance to acheive that end. I'm all for people who may not be a great guitarist, pianist or singer having access to tools that allow them to pursue their artistic vision.

[Alkaline]

A great track is a great track regardless of how it is arrived at, common sense dictates taking the path of least resistance to acheive that end. I'm all for people who may not be a great guitarist, pianist or singer having access to tools that allow them to pursue their artistic vision.

Yes, just because someone can't physically play an instrument doesn't mean that they don't have or shouldn't have the ability to compose a brilliant piece of music. This may well give people the wherewithal to achieve things musically where they may not have been able to in the past.

It's more about vision than anything else.

[Frosty Jack]

I think a lot of this boils down to 'who deserves the credit?'

Ultimately, someone has to have the knowledge as to what sounds good. Maybe before it would have been the guitarist who at least knew that an F doesn't fit into an E minor chord, or maybe the singer had to make sure they didn't go flat on the high notes - now the producer, engineer or whatever can sort it out. But who gets rewarded for having the musical knowledge? I can see the possibility that this level of technology could well lead to more utterly talentless Sylvia Young-ites becoming unjustifiably rich and celebrated, if they look good and do everything their management team ask them to. Do they deserve it? Remember, this is the kind of thing that made 'H' from Steps a millionaire. I'm all for new technology, as long as no-one is being misled by it.