"Good lord, Internet! Cut it out!" On Excessive Beiber Hate

[PosthumanHeresy]

Awful crap existed, but not like now. Even the worst of the past is better than the worst of now, because the worst of the past was people trying. The worst of now is people not trying, cheating and succeeding.

I'd take the opposite view, personally. At least autotune can somewhat compensate for a shitty performer. Back then, there was no such thing, you were hit with the full force of their shittiness.

But that's the problem. You don't sink or swim on your talent. They can hide behind machines. Nobody would say a remote drone pilot is more badass than a WW2 bomber pilot. They have removed the threat to themselves, which makes their success less impressive and all around not as good. Now, without talent you can do better than someone with talent. Before, people heard the real you.

[Art Vandelay]

Awful crap existed, but not like now. Even the worst of the past is better than the worst of now, because the worst of the past was people trying. The worst of now is people not trying, cheating and succeeding.

I'd take the opposite view, personally. At least autotune can somewhat compensate for a shitty performer. Back then, there was no such thing, you were hit with the full force of their shittiness.

But that's the problem. You don't sink or swim on your talent. They can hide behind machines. Nobody would say a remote drone pilot is more badass than a WW2 bomber pilot. They have removed the threat to themselves, which makes their success less impressive and all around not as good. Now, without talent you can do better than someone with talent. Before, people heard the real you.

...That's not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination. Any talentless hack could be popular with the right crowd, as long as they have a big record label and its marketing power behind them. It's always been like that since producers first became a thing.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Awful crap existed, but not like now. Even the worst of the past is better than the worst of now, because the worst of the past was people trying. The worst of now is people not trying, cheating and succeeding.

I'd take the opposite view, personally. At least autotune can somewhat compensate for a shitty performer. Back then, there was no such thing, you were hit with the full force of their shittiness.

But that's the problem. You don't sink or swim on your talent. They can hide behind machines. Nobody would say a remote drone pilot is more badass than a WW2 bomber pilot. They have removed the threat to themselves, which makes their success less impressive and all around not as good. Now, without talent you can do better than someone with talent. Before, people heard the real you.

...That's not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination. Any talentless hack could be popular with the right crowd, as long as they have a big record label and its marketing power behind them. It's always been like that since producers first became a thing.

I completely agree. I'd still give them a high five for being popular without faking it. To us, they might sound like shit, but another crowd thinks they sound good, and that was hearing their real singing. Think of it like this: what's more impressive, someone running at 15 MPH naturally or someone running at 30 MPH with shoes that double their running speed? Sure, one did better than the other, but they had much more help. They'd be on the same level as the other guy if they were doing things the same way as the other guy.

[Witchyjoshy]

So are you against singers using microphones at live concerts because they're not using their actual voice to project, they're using technology to artificially amplify their voice?

Or are you using an arbitrary definition of "genuine voice"?

[PosthumanHeresy]

So are you against singers using microphones at live concerts because they're not using their actual voice to project, they're using technology to artificially amplify their voice?

Or are you using an arbitrary definition of "genuine voice"?

I highly disagree with arbitrary. Microphones amplify only. I have no idea how people who enjoy music can argue that those who are using autotune deserve any sort of respect or praise. Any singer who actually sings with their real voice on their albums would likely facepalm so hard their head would end up reenacting the Kennedy assassination.

[Witchyjoshy]

"Microphones amplify only" and autotune "modifies tone only"

It is still modifying a singer's voice to account for lack of skill in projecting his or her voice.

If a singer tried to sing with their real volume, yada yada.  Just saying that microphones still modify the voice.  Not defending the use of autotune used as an aide for singing, but mostly saying that the same logic you're using can be applied to things like microphones and amplifiers and such as that.  Artists naturally use the technology available to improve the quality of their music.  And other than arbitrary qualifications of "authenticity", I fail to see any real arguments against that notion.

Out of curiosity, do you think digital pictures are less authentic than pictures made with oils?

[chitoryu12]

I have to say, with a lot of live music it's almost impossible for the singer to project above the background music. Especially when it comes to rock and metal, the music is simply so loud that almost nobody would even be vaguely audible, let alone understandable. And as soon as you get into large arenas, forget it. There are some outdoor shows where even if it was completely silent, you'd be lucky to project all the way to the back row.

[PosthumanHeresy]

"Microphones amplify only" and autotune "modifies tone only"

It is still modifying a singer's voice to account for lack of skill in projecting his or her voice.

If a singer tried to sing with their real volume, yada yada.  Just saying that microphones still modify the voice.  Not defending the use of autotune used as an aide for singing, but mostly saying that the same logic you're using can be applied to things like microphones and amplifiers and such as that.  Artists naturally use the technology available to improve the quality of their music.  And other than arbitrary qualifications of "authenticity", I fail to see any real arguments against that notion.

Out of curiosity, do you think digital pictures are less authentic than pictures made with oils?

As Chitoryu said, microphones are essensial for most venues. Unless you have superpowers, you are not going to be heard that far. Also, no. But if someone takes a shitty picture and touches it up in photoshop, that is less authentic than a picture as good or better naturally.

[Witchyjoshy]

I have to say, with a lot of live music it's almost impossible for the singer to project above the background music. Especially when it comes to rock and metal, the music is simply so loud that almost nobody would even be vaguely audible, let alone understandable. And as soon as you get into large arenas, forget it. There are some outdoor shows where even if it was completely silent, you'd be lucky to project all the way to the back row.

Indeed, microphones are necessary and helpful, even if they are artificially helping.  That's more or less my point.

I just find arguments like "artificial" or "not authentic" to be pretentious nonsense.

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

The major difference is in the way they're used. Microphones amplify a voice so everyone can hear how talented a person is, while misuse of autotune is done solely to make up for a lack of talent. Not being able to project one's voice to levels beyond all human capability isn't really the same thing as being a shitty singer, yet still becoming popular because you're good looking and have the power of a rich studio & autotune behind you.

[Lt. Fred]

"Microphones amplify only" and autotune "modifies tone only"

It is still modifying a singer's voice to account for lack of skill in projecting his or her voice.

If a singer tried to sing with their real volume, yada yada.  Just saying that microphones still modify the voice.  Not defending the use of autotune used as an aide for singing, but mostly saying that the same logic you're using can be applied to things like microphones and amplifiers and such as that.  Artists naturally use the technology available to improve the quality of their music.  And other than arbitrary qualifications of "authenticity", I fail to see any real arguments against that notion.

Out of curiosity, do you think digital pictures are less authentic than pictures made with oils?

The problem with autotune is that autotune makes you out of tune.

The autotuned voice is in equal temperament, that is to say, out of tune. A natural voice can be in tune (using just intonation). This makes autotuned singers sound dreadful, by definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_temperament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation


Let me put it like this: an autotuned good singer sounds 80% as good as a non-autotuned good singer. Take Glee. Some of those guys are bloody good singers, whatever else you think about the show. Their music sounds terrible, because it is out of tune, because it is auto-tuned. If they had not run auto-tune over their music (also, group waveform normalisation, also) they would have sounded (say) 25% better. I don't think that's controversial.

But if you can't sing- say, Bieber- and you sing out of tune all the time, then autotune can make it sound like you actually can. You go from (say) 40% to (say) 80%.

This has two problems: firstly, people who cannot sing in tune should not be employed as singers. This is an easily quantifiable metric for deciding whether a person can sing or not, and you've just blown it up. A person who cannot sing in tune is probably not very good in other ways that are more difficult to quantify.

The other problem is that autotuning everything reduces the maximum possible quality.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Exactly. Autotune is not just insulting to the effort of skilled singers, but can only be used to an advantage by the unskilled. Also, we are not just talking about stage performance. They only need microphones as a sound receiving device in studio. Microphones do jack unless jacked into something. They do not make you louder by themselves, they use an amp. So your argument should be on amps, anyways. Additionally, microphones plugged into amps take you from your normal volume to louder than humanly possible. They do nothing for you, and with a bad setup, make you sound worse. Autotune, on the other hand, takes low quality singing and raises it. That is to say, it takes someone with no talent and makes them sound like they have talent. To anyone who respects talent, this is bad. Saying it is fine is telling people with talent that they are no better than someone without talent.

[Witchyjoshy]

Problem is, you didn't present it in terms of insulting talent or sounding worse, you presented it in terms of "authentic".  What's authentic is a matter of perception, because everyone considers their old-fangled technology to be more authentic than the new thing, and it's just a spiral of hipster pretentiousness from there on.

Also, autotune can be used for things other than correcting tone, it can be used as an instrument in and of itself.  Whether it's good is up to debate, but that's a good thing -- it enters the realm of taste at that point.  A skilled artist could use it well for that purpose.  Just like a skilled artist can use photoshop for things other than touching up bad artwork.

However, I would like to point out one thing about people as a whole.  They don't bother to pay attention to things like the progress of how a song is made.  They only care about the end result.  They don't care if a picture is touched up with photoshop.  They don't care if a musician is touched up with autotune.  They just care that what they listen to sounds good to them.

I don't like it, either, but it's not exactly my place to tell the majority of a population that they should value my opinion over theirs, regardless of how educated my opinion is, right?

[PosthumanHeresy]

Problem is, you didn't present it in terms of insulting talent or sounding worse, you presented it in terms of "authentic".  What's authentic is a matter of perception, because everyone considers their old-fangled technology to be more authentic than the new thing, and it's just a spiral of hipster pretentiousness from there on.

Also, autotune can be used for things other than correcting tone, it can be used as an instrument in and of itself.  Whether it's good is up to debate, but that's a good thing -- it enters the realm of taste at that point.  A skilled artist could use it well for that purpose.  Just like a skilled artist can use photoshop for things other than touching up bad artwork.

However, I would like to point out one thing about people as a whole.  They don't bother to pay attention to things like the progress of how a song is made.  They only care about the end result.  They don't care if a picture is touched up with photoshop.  They don't care if a musician is touched up with autotune.  They just care that what they listen to sounds good to them.

I don't like it, either, but it's not exactly my place to tell the majority of a population that they should value my opinion over theirs, regardless of how educated my opinion is, right?

Wrong. Here's the thing: opinions can be wrong. That's one of the problems with people. "Oh, I can't be wrong, because it's my opinion!" No. Wrong. You. Are. Wrong. If someone said, say, a 3 year old's finger painting and Van Gogh were of the same quality, they would be wrong. If someone said a five star restaurants burger and McDonalds' were of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Batman and Robin and The Dark Knight are of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Too Human and Batman: Arkham City were of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Twilight and Frankenstein are of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Justin Bieber and The Beetles or Nine Inch Nails or Adele or Rammstein or anyone else that is not autotuned is of the same quality, they are wrong. People who know more about a subject are more correct than those who know less. You know more than them. It is your place to tell them their tastes suck and explain why, based on effort, skill, the revolting revolving cycle of pop stars, his complete non-personality, no meaning at all outside of making money off them and his ego (autobiographies should be illegal before 30).

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

Uh, no. It's no one's place to demand that a person stop listening to a certain genre of music, eating certain foods, or watching certain films simply because they don't align with your own view of what makes something good.