Next article: Phantom power - a great breakthrough in microphone technology?...

Next article: Phantom power - a great breakthrough in microphone technology?...

Enter your e-mail address to receive notifications of new comments on this topic...
(You can unsubscribe quickly and easily.)

Follow RecordProducer.com on Twitter...

Blaise Bellingham, Tacoma, USA

Well, It is a very---- very hard thing for some people to sing in the studio with headphones(Called "Cans" by Engineers and Musicians). John Denver sold 140 million records over the last 30 years and had a terrible time in the studio singing on pitch(Garth Brooks too). He couldn't understand why he sounded great live. I'm here to tell you I sing almost every note exactly the same amount sharp( higher). Why is this strange phenomena happen to alot of folks in the studio when they put the headphones on and sing to the tracks they hear and sounds great to them just like normal live. This major problem for some people( Not everyone)is an inner ear problem, and the simple answer is to take one of the headphone ears off to the side of your head because these studio problem singers like me have to hear the sound of the voice in the air around them instead of just the headphone play back . It works great, an excellent sound engineer gave me the heads up on this " Inner Ear" thing and it works great....so please tell others. Use a great tuning program like "Celemony Melodyne" works alot better than auto-tune!

Daniel Canfield, Dcp@sasktel.net, Canada

Do we really have to endure all these assinine questions? Are they really so desperate for content that they have to write drivel like this

Karan, Mumbai, India

It basicly comes down to if YOU think its cheating. i know many singers who dont allow engineers to use auto-tune, on the other hand some depend on it. if yout think it is cheating it would be best to not use it but dont blame someone who does.

i personally think that scine music is art, it shouldn't be as much of a problem to use it if the musician himself is not good enough.. afterall its the musical content that counts. the orignal idea of the artist is more important than talent.
and by no means can auto tune make a bad singer sound good. its just used to polish the not-so-good singer to sound little better than he is.

Pat , Fairfield, USA

My analogy for autotune is this. Autotune does for an artist what makeup does for woman. Doesn't make you pretty if your ugly, doesn't make you a singer if you're not can't but it can make a noticable and "marketable" improvement. We don't see a woman with makeup on and say."Hey! She's cheating!"
It is the public who buys and thereby supports autotune through
their purchase and support of the artists that use it. People know what they like to hear and don't like. Don't sell the public short on their own musical tastes and common sense. You'll only be shorting yourself and will lose everytime. The buying public has the last word.
Autotune does not fool people into thinking a lousy singer is great. Autotune can however fool people into thinking a singer isn't as bad as he is.
How many albums are done where the band doesn't sound as good live as they do on the album? Is it because they cheated and used various forms of "audio makup" and effects? What else is new?
The whiners need to quit whinning.
The buying public will surely let the industry know when it's not alright to use autotune and then it will stop. The customers are always right so don't hate the player, hate the game.

Jesse Kip, Nairobi, Kenya

Am a kenyan producer best keybordist,drmst and i produce any kind of music contact me for any help my Email is kipkemeijesse@yahoo.com. I use autotune but it is cheating to use coz nowdays untalented people take the industry of music not becouse they have good voice or talented to sing but coz they are financialy stable and can afford to pay recording fee, dem take the music business away from the people who are talented, have nice voice and strugling. The public wants to be amazed at a real voice not a recreation of a real voice.

Sid, Chicago, USA

It's right to use it, if you need it.
Treat it like a tool or another instrument. Overdo it and you've killed
the beauty of the application. The advent of the electric guitar as lead instuments was initially considered voodoo, as was the uproar of using sythesizers. The market and application eventually matured as will autotune.
If you view technology in a strictly black and white sense, you're cheating yourself or beating yourself. To the "purist".. why not strip out all instruments and effects and sing a cappella. It's supposed to be ART, so just be artistic. as I recall, it's pretty sophisticated and helpful tool if you learn to use it properly.
If I find that I need some help on a particulary difficult vocal part. I'd use it without hestitation on the other hand, if I find it doesn't serve me well enough, it's out like a fat kid in dodgeball..

James, Daly City, USA

I welcome inovations in music such as Auto-Tune and variouse others that are out there. I'm a gutarist who sings. When I make a mistake(in my home studio)
I repeat it until I get it right. If I had to use a high priced studio and Auto-Tune was available I'm not sure if I would use it or not. I'm not against anyone using it. I do think that if you record and sell your product there should be mention of what you used to stay in tune. This way you're not being fake to your fan base. One Millie Vanillie is enough. From another angle, is it wrong to use a drum machine or modules to play orchestra parts. What is really the difference ?

Hanson, Ho Mawuli Estate, Ghana

Really i need a great producer and a manager my email is mobbtears@ymail.com i can sing,rap,create beat and edit tracks
and really think auto-tune is great cos it sometimes help in some cases so let,s is very great invention talking of nuendo,cubase and others are also great if somebody have some software pls help me with some ok i love this place it,s great.

Bernie Scott, St. John's, Canada

I myself don't consider myself a singer. I am a guitar player. However I do sing some songs in my two bands. But my wife is the main vocalist. She is a wicked singer. She has a vocal range and a set of pipes that will make most other people envy of her. She has no problem in staying in tune even without music behind her.It just seems so natural when listening to somebody like that where with me, I would have to struggle to stay in tune and would not exceed. I highly doubt that auto-tune would actually help her at all as she is one of these people who don't need it. But I am sure that there are people who would not be able to survive without it. My question is what will you do when this auto-tune malfunctions on you when you are preforming for a crowd of people that just paid anywhere from $10 to $20 to see your show? It might be ok to use it in the studio behind closed doors but if you have to rely on it to get your vocals in tune, then I do believe you should probably start taking some vocal lessons to see if you can overcome the crutch of using such a device. As I said, my wife does not need such a crutch. She has enormus talent and there is no electronic gadet made that can make somebody sound like a fantastic singer. You have to have the raw talent to begin with. This is the reason why she is the lead vocalist in our two bands and I stuck to playing guitar. She is a medioaker guitar player and I am the same when it comes to singing. If I really and truly want to become a great singer I will have to start taking lessons and probably lots of them. Even then there would be no guarantees.

Teacee, Los Angeles, USA

To say it is wrong for using Auto Tune, is like saying it is wrong to use any plugin, or virtual instrument. Welcome to the Millennium. Music is changing, we in an explosion of new technology. Cakewalk has had vocal correction for years, Logic has it, and many people who use auto tune don't use it to its full capability, it works as an instrument effect as well. So to each his own, it is a familiar sound in today's music, get with it or get over it.

Bruce, Murray Bridge, Australia

For me it is simply black and white! If you can't sing and need a computer program to help you then you have little talent and shouldn't use it.
Real talent needs no artificial help.................

Leon Gaer, Sydney, Australia

Dear Mr Covington,

I think your statement "It would not hurt the 'true' artist to be willing to state in some printed form, the technology used in creating the artful expression." says so much. I agree, that artists and producers should be free to use what ever they like. Just be honest about how it was done. Likewise, if a live show is using backing tracks, why not state it on the poster and ticket?

Groove, Saint Clairsville, USA

Auto-Tune or similar software plugs can make a good singer better and a better singer great. I use Cakewalk's Sonar which has a pitch correction plugin called V-Vocal made by Roland. When my buddy comes over and we work on one of his tunes, I V-Vocal it to make it acceptable. He is never going to be published, so it makes it nice for his friends and family. Even still, Auto-Tune doesn't make him a great singer. Despite the pitch correction, his voice timbre, phrasing, and general character of voice still comes through, exposing him for what he is, an average singer. Since all of the majors use it, for little people like us, it puts us on the same playing field, so to speak, as the big guys. Yes, it is a shame that someone like Taylor Swift uses it and she is making the big $$. That is why everybody else is entitled to it as well and I have no qualms about it. How does the average man going to compete in the music world without it when everybody else has it? So, I say, it's been out there for a long time, and it is just part of the arsenal of tools that everyone uses. Thank goodness that original songwriting is still intact!

Robmac, Atlanta, U.s.a

I believe that the music industry has turned into a profit only business, if what you use, create, manufacture or mimic makes you money then it's all right with me.... My electric company sends me a bill every month regardless of if I can sing or not and I must be able to pay it.... I am a very professional pianist, and I personally don't like music created by non- talented people; however if they are making money and not hurting anyone then I'm 100% in favor...

Vinny Androsiglio, Port Richey, U.s.a.

My philosophy has always been, If you can't perform in the studio, you'll never make it live. Nowadays though they even use auto tune live whenever possible. I will tell people who come into my studio they need to really practice to perfect their vocals before recording them. I personally do not use any "Auto Tune" or pitch correction. To me it's a deception. Bob Dylan would have probably sold more records had he used Auto Tune as would Neil Young but their style of music never really required it. They had such a unique sound about them. It's sad when investors spend millions of dollars on aspiring artists and they couldn't carry a tune in a bucket. People like the wonderful Brett Manning who is the vocal coach to the stars has so much work, he has a huge staff to help him ease his load, but he is making a fortune too. It's unfortunate that the average music enthusiast doesn't have a clue and can't really appreciate true vocal abilities when it's masked behind Auto Tune or some other processor. What's worse is that some of these new artists are stealing the awards away from the real singers out there. The same philosophy goes for ProTools as well for musicians, but that's another issue for the near future.

Jl, Maryland, USA

Jim Covington, did you know there are still some things in this world, you are still not allow to say? Cornelius from Kansas City states, “You use some poor metaphors to describe what you are trying to achieve. “The program IS written in binary - that does NOT mean it is black or white.” Watch the black and white thing Jim. As for Andrew Dearborn, US, you state, “I struggle with my recordings occasionally being off key.” “I haven't used Auto-Tune yet, but I think this would enable me to do more recording without being frustrated by multiple do over.” First Dearborn, the studio is not the place where you prepare yourself for success. A studio “CANNOT” make you sound better. Simply put, this is an untruth. For years, recording studios along with their counter parts "engineers" have sucked the blood right out of everyday individuals, by ripping them off. This is the real fraud in the industry. Constantly promoting their Recording Studio with sale pitches such as, “We can make you sound better.” This is a lot of crap. In the words of Dar Mcwheeler, Toronto, Canada “We use it and "the talent" never even knows it. We just let them go on thinking that they are rock-gods…” So you see, Auto-Tune is just more promises made to all new artist, having dreams of becoming SUPER STARS like DIDDY, T-PAIN and KANYE WEST, who by the way, can’t actually sing without some kind of assistance. Andrew Dearborn, you need to practice a bit more, before investing your hard earn money into someone else’s recording studio.
Moving on to Lane Cura Meng, Boca Raton Florida, USA. I truly must say, with all your expertise on the subject of recording and music, you almost had me sold. However, when you disclosed you were a RAPPER and that a RAPPER could sing, this was the point where every thing you said went south. I am sorry to inform you, that if you are a rapper, you cannot sing a single lick. You state, “Rappers use the device to great effect, but they are a different category of singers altogether (yes, rapping is an elemental form of singing-one to three semi-tones with short propulsion, no vibrato, of course. Trust me; if you've tried to rap, you'll know rapping is not talking!)” (I disagree) Rapping is an elemental way of talking, or speaking words, not singing. It is spoken rhyming speaking, a structured form, or substance that someone knows well enough to perform at will. It is not a form of singing. You either have great pipes, or you do not. It sounds to me Meng, you are better off rapping than singing. Additionally, I hope you do not teach your students that rapping is considered a form of singing. Now lets deal with MILLI VANILLI, it is my understanding that another person altogether performed the hit tunes they took credit for. They could not sing, or rap in the first place. Meng, you go on to state, “Had Milli Vanilli touted themselves as great lip-synchers (and there is an art to that--ask any female impersonator who uses lip synching to popular music to great effect), and there would have been no opprobrium. Question; Are you a FEMALE IMPERSONATOR yourself?” Sounds like you are promoting everything as a form of art, in an effort to justify your inclusion of non-talented individuals. You need to get real. A recording secession is no more than a magnification, of an already existing quality of talent, being presented in a recording studio. You cannot fake real talent.
:))

Kevin, Baltimore, USA

People of a certain genration will always use what is at their disposal. When I look at the great golfers of the early years that were shooting the same scores or better that our modern day professionals shoot, you wonder how much better they would have done if they had the same equipment and technology available to them that Tiger Woods has. What if Babe Ruth had the same light weight bats and lively ball to hit like our modern day baseball players? How many more homeruns would he have hit? What if the beatles would have had auto tune? I'm glad they didn't, because it's possible we may have never heard the great vocal harmonies that they created on their own. Sometimes auto tune can take the singer's expression right out of the track. Then again sometimes it can improve on a less professional vocal performance. It's all in how the engineer uses the tool to get the job done. I feel the ealier artists of our generation succeeded without it but, the modern day artists don't even have the choice to see how they'd sound because the record companies and producers now make all the calls. Everything is perfect or they try to make it that way. Prime example, is you can actually hear the auto-tune taking effect on most of Taylor Swift's songs. I understand from a reliable insider that her label paid $25,000 to someone just to pitch correct her last CD. So you could say that auto tune is helping to create stars that most likely may have never made it. Just find someone that is marketable and can sing a little and auto tune them to death. This is the motto of a lot of record companies now days.

Shelter Studios, Schaffhausen, Switzerland

Back in the days before DSP and long before Auto-Tune the practise of using other musicians and singers to get the bits right that the contracted artists couldn't was widely accepted. It was the illusion but in particular the revenues that such illusions could generate for the entertainment companies that counted. Today, things haven't changed very much at all they've only become faster and more flexible. Art is fundamentaly about creating illusions for others to enjoy and to elicit emotion of some kind. So to question the means with which art is created or performed and to set limits or define standards of conduct with respect to art would remove its value to society, destroy creativity and rob us of those all important illusions.
So, long live Auto-Tune or whatever it may be called tomorrow.

Gauge Studios, Salem, Or, USA

Auto Tune is a tool that producers, engineers and artists have available to use tastefully or tastelessly. I think that is the balance with the whole Auto Tune argument... The fact of the matter is that no one complains about using compressors (falsely representing dynamic range) or reverb (representing room). Just like you can use a compressor or reverb as an effect VS a tool auto tune can be used the same way to achieve a means to an end. I usually leave it up to the artist to decide if they want to use auto tune on ever song of the album or used only on one song more as an effect more than a disrespectful deceptive tool to make the engineers time more effective. Come on... face it... those usable takes would show up faster if you used auto tune on every VOX track and would make the entire recording process much faster, saving the artist time and eventually money. If you are out to make clean and polished music like with hip hop/R&B then auto tune could be used as a tool/effect. it all depends on the taste and tact in which it is used that will determine if it is something that will add or distract from the final product. I say lets not be afraid to use it when the time comes but let us producers and engineers have integrity in the art, integrity in the process and work ethic and personal pride in the product represented to the public. Auto tunes rep controversy is only because some ding dong did not understand how auto tune should be applied and used it in a very tasteless manner resulting a bad product and people blamed it on a plug in... Bad producing and engineering is where auto tune gets a bad rap. My final call is: use it when you need it... don't use it when you don't need it.

Vyero, Mexico City, Mexico

I totally agree with most of you... I really hate when vocals are full of auto-tune processing... I remember a few years ago I heard a duet made by Christina Aguilera and Andrea Bocelli... it was a beautiful song, but the producer blew it by processing all vocals wit auto-tune... Does Christina Aguilera need auto-tune??? if you heard her voice live you would agree that she doesn't need it at all... Does Andrea Bocelli need auto-tune... maybe if you are looking for perfection... but perfection always comes with a high cost, and andrea Bocelli's vocal style has a trademark that should be respected. So... the use of auto-tune in this song was a disrespect to both singers... and this happens a lot lately... I'ts a shame.

Is it so hard to record a good take?
Is it so hard to stop relying on software to sound good?
Is it so hard to take your time to do things right?

I'm really sick of some "producers" I've met along the way, that actually tell me: "I record 2 takes of vocals at most and then I'll fix them on Melodyne" And at that point he didn't even know how the melody went in the first place. Why is this happening??

I really agree with John Doyle... using auto-tune live is cheating... if you go to a concert, that is the ultimate display of the talent of a singer and performer... if the singer can't sing by himself, then I shoud ask for my money back... don't you think?

Auto-tune is a tool to be used with caution... I don't use it. I use Digital Performer that has a pitch correction tool integrated on each channel and it results on a very natural sound... even so, I don't use it that much.

Don't be lazy, my dear friends... take your time and do the best recording you can.

If a singer can't sing, be honest with that person... and if that singer still wants to record, just do the right thing: don't put your name in that production...

Carter Ruff, Bath, USA

Let's remember the audience, folks. If they're walking away happy, who's to say they're not getting their money's worth?
Auto-Tune does NOT inject charisma, character, rhythm, or anything of that sort into a performance. There is so much more to entertaining people than giving a technically perfect performance. Someone who might be an engaging and entertaining performer, but whose pitch is less than perfect would benefit from judicious use of Auto-Tune, and so would their audience. Someone who has wonderful pitch, but an otherwise flat, uninspired delivery is going to leave an audience cold every time.
Auto-Tune is a tool. As with just about any tool, it can be used well or misused, and one of its correct uses is to leave it on the shelf and resolve the issue another way.
I myself choose not to use Auto-Tune on my recordings, but I do not believe it to be inherently evil.

Naymann, Lagos, Nigeria

As a season sound man, numerous gadgets are for the flexibility and to enhance complexity of sonic processing etc. Auto Tune is one of such gears. But it limits as singer on a major key can't play around conveniently. this was my experience just last week.

I really may not be in a better position to key into this submission as i've been off studio for a great while. Working with gears like Galileo from Meyer Sound makesa it quite undeserving to talk down any gadget. The degree at which every gears performs depends on the operators usability and kbowledge of it. More so every manufacturer's desire is to solve a problem for the general market be it good and bad.

John Doyle, Waterfoot, UK

Ever heard the phrase
"Guns don't kill people,
People Kill People!"?

Well how about,
"Autotune doesn't kill music,
Producers kill music!"

Let me clarify what i believe to be proper autotune use (IMO)....

On Instruments....

I use melodye every now and then if a horn, violin or bass slightly off pitch but only if it's messing with the tuning of the tune, if possible i would always choose to drop in or re-record the part. In this respect it's a tool.

On Vocals....

Ever seen Father Ted? American readers may have missed it. Fantastic comedy series about priests on a small Island, anyway, in one episode they dent their car THEN try to tap the dent out with a hammer. by the time they have finshed there isn't an awful lot of the car left!

This is in my opinion a beautiful metaphor (or is it an allegory..) of auto tune.

You tune that bit of vocal with your plugin, then it sounds odd because its slightly more in tune than the rest of the take but without the natural vibrato. So you add vibrato with your plugin. Now the vibrato sounds different to the rest of the take so you either
A: live with the original vocal or
B: Tune the whole vocal then just tweak the bits that sound 'TOO' wierd.

It's not cheating, it's just a tool which is unfortunatley difficult to use sparingly and doesn't sound natural on vocals.

Regarding listening to auto-tune....

I can't stand to hear vocals butchered by auto-tune and i will actually turn the song off, not because i'm a snob but because in my opinion it sounds flat, synthetic & and has no natural vocal tone.

Regarding Auto-tune LIVE!

This is cheating, no doubt!
Sorry to those of you who have deluded yourselves into thinking this is in someway acceptable but to stand in front of a live audience and sing through a box that corrects your pitch is Fraud!

Whats worse is this sets the bar unreachably high for singers who dont know what auto tune is and think the artist actually sings like that!

'Live' used to be the test of any performer, now its not, it's fixable!

Finally....!

The most upsetting use of auto-tune crime i've heard so far is Alison Krauss & James Taylor. Ive been listening to James Taylor singing for years & never heard him autotuned until he worked with Alison Krauss.

What balls to auto-tune one of the most consistent and sweet sounding male vocals of all time! and then go and do it to Robert Plant as well!.....

What balls indeed!
Rant Over

Michael Cozzi, Seattle, USA

I just want to add a couple of more thoughts on this topic. Could the overuse of Auto-Tune lead to lazier singers? Would they practice less, spend less time on perfecting their ability to sing well if they knew that it could just be fixed in the mix? I think the problem is not Auto-tune itself but how the engineer chooses to use it. I believe it is just another useful tool that can help the flow of a recording session and keep the focus on capturing the emotion and magic of the song instead of focusing on a "perfect take"

Joe Piecora, Reading, Pa, USA

Yes, it's cheating, and it's helping the wealthy "cheaters" take the business away from the people who are talented and struggling. The public wants to be amazed at a real voice--not a recreation of a real voice. If that wasn't so, there would be no Auto-Tune.Let's all admit that it's really fraud and it's destroying the credibility of the music profession--look at Taylor Swift, she can't sing a lick, yet she was the biggest U.S. star of the past 2 years, only to be exposed by her performance at the Grammy's.

Stano, Kwazulu-natal, South Africa

If the producer and the Artist agree on using Auto-tune then so be it... After all it is making lots of money and that is what I need. Money in my studio; Hits, Hits & Hits how & which technology I use to make money it don't matter as long as I am not stealing from nobody but working day & nights to achieve. And at last the Artists who are not so well perfect have now a chance to make it in the music industry through the producer's skills & not being ignorant of the possibilities presented to us by the age of technology. We are not living in the 80s any more. I don't use auto-tune in all my recordings & I don't always use it to tune the voice but to add that sparkle which the audience have come to accept it as a new trend. Since is what they want... Then i give it them, why not? Sorry if you ignorant to change I understand. But listen to Pop, Hip Hop, R n B, Dance best sellers then you will know. We do music for the people. My Artists can sing but what do people want??? Yeap! Dirty polished voice... Lil Wayne, T Pain, Shaun Kingston, Rihanna, etc

Esa, Kelowna, Canada

Use it all to your hearts' content. It weeds out the unremarkable from the truly unique.

Mike H, Atlanta, USA

When I first used AutoTune ten years ago, I used automatic settings with a trained vocalist that had one or two flat notes in a take. That was a bad idea. It took a while to figure out how to use it right, and the graphical approach is time consuming. Right now I'm finishing up a CD project with a great young male singer and only need to use AutoTune to adjust an occasional note. Rather than use the graphical interface, I deselected all but a one note in a phrase that I want perfect pitch. I did this on three other notes. That was it. So for me,
AutoTune allows a level of perfection that would otherwise require a recall of the singer and punch-ins. It's a time-saver. Also, it helps preserve otherwise amazing performances. Here's another way I use AutoTune: I just recorded a mult of an 8-bar guitar lick into a second track to fatten up the sound. But even with the guitar perfectly tuned, the parts sounded a bit off against each other. So I AutoTuned only the F, G, A and Bb, to make the parts sound like one guitar. When used judiciously, AutoTune is a gift from heaven! When used as a vocal effect like T-Pain, it's getting old.

Wyatt C., Jacksonville, USA

Is Auto-Tune cheating? Not in my opinion. It's just an extreme form of EQ when used as an effect. When it comes to the mixdown, it can be used as a great tool to fix things without re-recording. As far as over use, the public will clearly let the industry know when they tire of it. Don't be a vocal Nazi. If you don't like something, turn it off. Why would you not have it in your tool box? Compression, reverb, chorus,flange, etc...none of these things occur naturally in the human voice. Have any of these effects ever been used on a vocal to create awesome songs? Would you not use EQ in the vocal mixdown to sweeten it up a bit? Why would Auto-Tune be any different. All professional recordings use all types of effects on vocals(even on live recordings!) More than likely, Chours teachers and people who hate Rap music will never accept it. By the way, I don't use it all in my personal recording, but if it means running the meter for someone else, I'll use it however they like. I wonder how it would sound on drums? Oh no, I wouldn't want to color the natural sound of the drum! Excuse me while I uninstall all my plug-ins.

Cornelius, Kansas City, United States

eh... poor argument.

There are several logical fallacies throughout this article as you spiral around and around to miss the point.

You use some poor metaphors to describe what you are trying to achieve. The program IS written in binary - that does NOT mean it is black or white. The processor could be used in a variety of ways with no one person creating the same sound. Those 1s and 0s (you think as black and white) when combined with billions of other 1s and 0s, make a very grey image to the viewer standing just a few feet away.

The Auto-Tune debate is boring in the respect that you are arguing a tool... not how it is used. Don't even bother to argue that its "wrong" use has sold MILLIONS of records. You're better to argue that people who don't appreciate music are the record executives biggest targets in every marketing campaign. Many use their eyes far more than their ears when picking up a new album these days.

I would rather think of Auto-Tune as a fancy new synthesizer to get a talk box or robot effect... or clean up some harsh edges (one or two notes in a song).

You're better arguing how (some) music today cannot be listened to for more than 45 minutes without causing ear fatigue....

Is it a government plot to destroy our ears with digital, mind-erasing, binary code??

Andrew, Dearborn, U.s.

Like the article. I struggle with my vocal recordings occasionally being off key. I haven't used auto tune yet but I think this would enable me to do more recording without being frustrated by multiple do overs.
In regards to Leonardo, his experimentation with different mediums sometimes backfired. The most prominent example is "The Last Supper" where his image immediately became distorted due to the experimental medium he used. It's still one of the greatest works of art ever but it didn't last the way he would have wanted.

Dar Mcwheeler, Toronto, Canada

The observation missing from this argument is that people who are just writing songs for their own enjoyment can chose to enjoy them with or without pitch correction. It's no more "cheating" than using any other labour saving device. That is to say, you can pound your clothes on a rock by the river if you want, but a washer/dryer isn't cheating. It efficient.

As a producer I, and my fellow producers, will always choose the "flawless" route when recording a singer. Time is money so you can't always schedule your day around the "hope" that the singer is going to "nail it". Often, they don't. Regardless of their level of excellence.

Auto-tune gets the job done.

Also, there's the fact that just about everything you've heard for the last 20yrs has been pitch corrected in some way. The listening audience has been so inundated with studio-trickery-based perfection that no funder/company is going to back an artist who's tracks are "real". They want standard-grade audio flawlessness. The kind that any teenager in a bedroom studio can achieve with the right gear. Which they seem to have in abundance these days.

So, the whole auto-tune issue is a non-starter in the real world. We use it and "the talent" never even knows it. We just let them go on thinking that they are rock-gods.

Engineers used to manually pitch correct singers as for back as the 1960's on artist such as Frank Sinatra. Look up how they did it. Fascinating!

Pitch correction devices are the norm, here to stay, great time saving devices, meet audience expectations of vocal excellence (because selling records is about money, not music, as so many believe) and are in no way cheating any more than Kontakt/Halion is cheating. "Hey, Buddy, higher a real orchestra!"...lol

Lane Cura Meng, Boca Raton Florida, USA

Thank you Jim for sharing a different take on this controversial subject.

As a vocal coach for over 30 years and as one who has engineered the recordings of my own students, I address this controversy in my book THE TOP 20 SECRETS OF GREAT SINGERS. In it, I frankly state that the TRUE STARS of today's commercial pop music scene are not the singers but the producers and engineers. It is the engineering virtuosity of these individuals that produce the kind of magic thought impossible for any person who had ever wanted to create musical art through a recording. Hence, the distinction of recording artist vs performing artist has never been more sharp and more disparate.

I am thankful that Jim was careful to remind artists of their ethical responsibility to disclose the use of any device which would improve on a singer's TRUE competency.

And that is the heart of the controversy--true competency vs engineered competency. Whereas the original role of a recording engineer was to artificially provide the ideal acoustic setting frame by which the singer's natural, competent performance could "shine", i.e. the singer's voice set against the acoustically optimal venue (low noise, presence, reverb), modern recording engineer has allowed singers today to create what I now refer to as ARTISTIC AVATARS or CREATIONS IN SONIC ANIME. For the latter achievement, the final product is an illusion, which is artistic in and of itself, which is what I believe Jim's point was, at least in part.

The controversy is not that AUTOTUNE should be used at all but that it is used by vocal performers with audiencees who have certain expectations, that is vocalists who are then expected to recreate what is heard on the published recording. Rappers use the device to great effect, but they are a different category of singers altogether (yes, rapping is an elemental form of singing-one to three semi-tones with short propulsion, no vibrato, of course. Trust me; if you've tried to rap, you'll know rapping is not talking!)

However, for the moderate to advanced competency vocalist in genres where the vocalist is expected to conform to the highest standards of pitch acuity and intonation using his or her own technical competency, auto-tune is a disservice not so much to the expectant audience but to the singer whose very artistic amabition is to conform to these high standards! For such singers in these genres to depend on auto-tune to "clean up" their flaws on a recording is to increase the chances for the singer to fail in replicating that same competency in live--a setup for justifiable criticism of not only the singer's artistic competency, but their ethical integrity as well. This is a place no serious vocalist wants to be in.

Da Vinci, true, used the technology of his time to create a great work of art. A media artist, however, is not held to the standards of a singer whose "Great Work" is his or her ability to replicate their vocal competency in whatever setting he or she is placed. As the saying goes, it's the pen, not the penmanship. The vocalist IS the art itself!

Had Milli Vanilli touted themselves as great lip-synchers (and there is an art to that--ask any female impersonator who uses lip synching to popular music to great effect), there would have been no opprobrium. There was no disclosure and they won awards typically given to those who demonstrate vocal competency. They did not demure from accepting those awards; hence the outrage.

If we carry the technology argument further, we all know that vibrato can be inserted where a singer had none; that notes and melisma for certain passages can be added where none were originally sung by the artist; even overtones can be added which give natural singers their "shimmer" and full-bodied sound. Were a creator inclined to add these devices throughout the artistic product, then an entirely new genre should be referred such as "SyntheVox" or "Synthesized Singing". And that's fine. The Grammys could have a genre category for that.

After all, we don't consider synthesized keyboard virtuosos as less respectable than acoustic pianists do we? But the argument still stands--we do make the distinctions. There is complete disclosure accordingly.

But the issue of "cheating" is a valid concern for serious students of voice and the vocal performing arts because the recording is expected to be a replication of the singers competency in ideal acoustic settings. The issue is one of a pre-existing vocal artistry captured by the recording engineer and then "framing" the vocalist's sonic painting if you will.

For these reasons, I do not allow my students to use any form of auto-tune. I would be remiss in my ultimate responsibility as a teacher which is not to produce great technology, but to produce Great Singers.

Nonetheless, my ultimate responsibility as their sound and recording engineer is to provide Great Singers the optimum acoustic setting so that listeners are not distracted from the focal point--the natural, hard-earned dramatic, technical and synergy-producing ability of the singer to interpret a song.

All my students who have gone on to professional careers have thanked me for a non-compromising stance on using technology to mask their flaws. They testify that had they not been forced to minimize flaws of their own accord (you're right Jim, there is no such thing as a flawless performance), then the motivation to perfect one's vocal craft would be lessened.

Those who gain the ability to reach the highest standards while minimizing flaws by their own power are the true artists, the celebrated virtuosos.

By the way, I've taught rappers too and am myself skilled in rapping. There are certainly ways to replicate the auto-tune sound using other patches and processes while still requiring the rapper to have excellent pitch acuity, i.e. staying "on track" with the harmonics of the key signature, etc. Because in the end, rappers do and can use full-blown singing as part of the rap piece. Conformity to high standards for full-blown singing is the ultimate natural defacto enhancement to their creativity as they can produce, at will, other options that would not have been available had they overly-depended on technology.

In short, they find their voice and proudly use that voice.

Thank you for allowing me this forum.

Godfrey Tushabe, Kampala, Uganda

what i would think is that the use of auto tune matters a lot..a producer shouldn't use too much of the effect than the client's original vocal, when it is applied evenly, it adds sense to the rhythm

Dawn Dineen, Washington, Dc, USA

I absolutely love this article, the question of whether or not autotune is inherently 'evil' has been on my mind for a long time now but it also extends into questions about just how easy it's become to essentially replace all the natural elements of a performance with digital copies, 1's and 0's, ons and offs with their more 'perfect' fabricated counterparts. In my personal experience on a very independent music recording level, it's turned the art of recording engineering into mass audio plastic surgery. I don't think the use all of these new studio tools are 'cheating' per se but I do think there's a point when they're overused and that unfortunately is becoming a very large part of the time. In some genres, natural mistakes are quirky and beautiful and it would be sad to lose that... My choice is to leave autotune far behind, I've never used it in my studio and likely never will.

Lanny Papp, East Haven, United States

The line between "music" and "drivel" has been blurred way beyond recognition, not only by these new devices but by a record industry that thrives on making money off of mass produced garbage rather than quality, well-constructed music. I can only hope that the pendulum will start to sway in the other direction - and soon!

Sanjoy Chowdhury, Mumbai, India

In India its a different issue all together,the use of the Auto Tune plugin has created a platform for the worst so called vocalist ever and thats a shame..its fooling the public "the common man " thats cheating as they pay to buy their products

Eric Clay, Jamaica, USA

I agree with jim,very well put.I would like to see rappers and hiphop producers be more creative and stop using auto tune for the special effects so much.t-pain is enough but when you have 60 percent of urban music artists applying the vocoder style effect on their vocals it kinda forces fans to lose perspective of real harmony.I appreciate the way reggae artists and electronic music producers use it though,very sparse.it definitely is an interesting and useful tool when used conventionally.

Guy, Cape Town, South Africa

While I would agree with the notion of interpretation of music I do not believe in the dishonesty of ones ability. If you can't sing, dont use auto - tune. It is cheating.