Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace
Haha. Whatever dude. It almost seems like you know someone or are someone who uses it, the way you're going about defending it.
|
No. I know some people who work in studios, and a few musicians, but none who openly use it. That is to say, the might, but if they did I wouldn't know. I'm defending it because I think its legit.
Quote:
|
Like I said, if you want to spend money on something that isn't genuine, you do that.
|
Using autotune doesn't make something not genuine. Rather it is a means to reach a genuine artistic expression that wouldn't be achieved otherwise.
Quote:
|
I'm not going to pay to see a singer use a device to help him sound better, because he really can't cut it by himself. And that's all it is.
|
So you're never going to a concert where someone sings ever? Mixers can adjust how much treble or bass is in a voice which can actually significantly change how a singer sounds. Most microphones have covers to dampen plosive noises.
Quote:
When auto-tune is used for that purpose, its because the singer can't cut it.
Plain and simple, like it or not, defend it all you want.
|
No it isn't. However, just for the sake argument let's assume you're right. So what? Who cares? The performance is what matters, and if using autotune enhances the performance why is that a bad thing?
Quote:
Making music using studio devices is one thing.
Using the studio to cover up your mistakes, is another.
|
It isn't a mistake if you intended to use autotune to fix your voice in the first place.
Edit: Acting is fine in music though. It is all art. What about Alice Cooper? Acting improved his stage presence considerably.