Pitch correction software has applications from restoration and mix-rescue to outright distortion of a voice or instrument. I'll discuss some of the more tasteful uses of these auto-tune tools (whether the original from Antares, or a variant like the free GSnap) below. But first I thought I'd highlight their misuse to illustrate the effects we usually try to avoid.
So, listen here to 10 of pop music's most blatant auto-tune abuses:
If you're unfamiliar with Auto-tune, and especially if you listen to much pop and rock, you might not hear it initially. When overdone, the effect yields an unnatural yodel or warble in a singer's voice. But the sound is so commonplace in modern mainstream music that your ears may have tuned out the auto-tune!
The songs in this clip, in order, and the phrases most affected by auto-tuning to help you spot them:
Dixie Chicks - The Long Way Around - Noticeable on "parents" and "but I."
T-Pain - I'm Sprung - Especially obvious on "homies" and "lady."
Avril Lavigne - Complicated - Listen to "way," "when," "driving," "you're."
Uncle Kracker - Follow Me
The whole vocal sounds strained, but especially the word "goodbye."
Maroon 5 - She Will Be Loved - Listen for "rain" and "smile."
Natasha Bedingfield - Love Like This - "Apart" and "life."
Sean Kingston - Beautiful girls - "OoooOver" doesn't sound human.
JoJo - Too Little Too Late - Appropriately, "problem" stands out.
Rascal Flatts - Life is a Highway
Every vocal, foreground and background, is treated, but "drive" in particular.
New Found Glory - Hit or Miss - "Thriller", and every time Jordan sings "I."
The Cher Effect
When used noticeably, an auto-tuner produces what most call "The Cher Effect", named for her trademark sound in the song Believe*. (In essence, we named the effect like scientists naming a new disease after its first victim.) Treated this heavily, a vocal track sounds synthetic, and obviously processed.
But not all auto-tuning is so blatant. In the sample above, it's harder to hear the pitch correction on Uncle Kracker and Avril than on T-Pain and Bedingfield.
Tasteful Uses
As with any tool, a little care can yield great results. Some simple things to keep in mind about pitch correction tools:
- Performance: Most importantly, an auto-tuner isn't a shortcut to a perfect performance. If you can't sing the song properly, no amount of post-processing will make it sound like you did. So when your pitch matters, and you don't want to correct it with an effect, you'll need to work on your performance until it's right.
- Less is more: The fewer notes you correct, the less obvious your use of an auto tuner will be. Consider automating the plugin so it acts only when most needed.
- Graphical mode: If your pitch correction software offers a graphical mode (like Antares Auto-Tune and Melodyne,) learn how to work with it. The default "auto" modes are OK for basic corrections, but often produce noticeable yodeling.
- Backing vocals: In general, you can get away with more pitch correction on backing vocals than lead vocals.
- Outdated: Obvious vocoder-style autotuning is dated, and borders on kitschy. The synthetic warbling vocal sound marks songs as having come from a specific era, the same way gated-reverb on drums instantly places a song in the 1980′s. Remember: If you make the auto tuner obvious, people will say your song uses "the Cher effect." Let this be a guideline.
Be sure it's needed
Two songs have auto tuners on my mind today: Snoop's Sensual Seduction (because of Anil Dash's ruminations on the death of the analog vocoder,) and Natasha Bedingfield's Love Like This, which I heard on the radio. In the former, the auto tuner is clearly a gimmick. But every time I hear Bedingfield's song, I'm struck by the same question: Why do that to her voice?
She's a fantastic singer, and once you've heard the song without the cheesy auto tuner effect, it's hard to take the radio single seriously.
And there's a lesson in that for home recordists, (even those of us who don't write pop music,) which echoes the rule of mixing: If an effect significantly changes the sound of a track, especially one so important as the lead vocal, be sure that change improves the song before committing it to the mix.
See Also: The Rule of Mixing
Tell others about this: Stumble It! | Digg | Delicious | Reddit
For more home recording tips,
Subscribe to the Hometracked feed, or receive email updates.
Tags: freeplugins, mixing


76 comments
Trackback URI Comments feed for this article
February 6th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Keith Handy
I was recently exposed to Melodyne, and it appears to be better suited than Autotone for reining in the overall intonation without killing the inflections. Very intuitive if you want to only apply it to certain notes, etc. — I'll probably be purchasing the least expensive version in the near-ish future.
Anyone else have experience with it? Anyone experienced with both?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:10 am
stiff
Good post! It seems to me like the effects is intentional in some cases, while in other it's not.
Can you imagine 20 years from now when they try to recreate the sound of today, and they sit and try to find the plug-in that best "gives that metallic sound on every third word in the chorus".
February 6th, 2008 at 7:46 am
B6
Has it occurred to you that some of the artists use the sounds created by the autotone purposely (t pain) in their music to create a different sound than they could with their normal voice? And also the sound quality is terrible with the 128k bitrate MP3 that is provided and the autotone sounds were almost indistinguishable from the sound artifacts present in the MP3.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:53 am
des
> Anyone else have experience with it? Anyone experienced with both?
I'm afraid not, Keith. Of the 3 biggies (Antares, Melodyne, Waves,) Antares is the only one I've used.
Sound On Sound did a face-off last year, though: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar07/articles/at5vsmelodyne.htm
They prefer Auto-Tune for the quick'n'dirty, but Melodyne has more creative possibilities.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:58 am
des
> try to find the plug-in that best "gives that metallic sound on every third word in the chorus".
:-)
> Has it occurred to you that some of the artists use the sounds created
> by the autotone purposely (t pain) in their music to create a different sound
> than they could with their normal voice?
Yes. It doesn't make the effect any more tasteful.
Though in T-Pain's case specifically, it's understandable why he'd want to change the sound of his normal voice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCDWLaFc9u4
> And also the sound quality is terrible with the 128k bitrate MP3
That's a fair criticism. I replaced the MP3 with one encoded @192K
February 6th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Keith Handy
They prefer Auto-Tune for the quick'n'dirty, but Melodyne has more creative possibilities.
I like creative possibilities. :)
February 6th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Beau
I first noticed the abuse of this effect when I heard Kid Rock's "Only God Knows Why"…the entire song has been heavily processed with the effect. I think that is where it all went downhill :)
After that it seemed nearly everyone was doing it. It stands out so much and seems to remove all originality from every song it's used in. Kind of gives the impression that the artist is trying to capitalize on an over-used gimmick instead of coming up with something original on their own.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:24 am
chimera
how do you know the effect wasn't intentional in a lot of these songs? the auto-tune vocals are pretty popular at the moment..the cher effect comes in 10 year cycles..
February 6th, 2008 at 10:33 am
VintageP
I guess I can see why these practices occur as I have been part of the target market given we have a third of the recordings listed above in the house. I took up the guitar as a hobby a couple years ago. That got me doing a lot of reading and experimentation around recording (have learned a lot on this site). Now that I've scratched the surface of what goes on under the hood it makes me realize how oblivious I was to what I have listened to previously. Seems that music consumers in the mass market just take what they hear at face value given they do not have the insight into how commercial recordings are made to listen critically. I assume the recording industry must take this into account in their decision making?
February 6th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Jeff
This article's a little old, but relavant. Neko Case goes off on auto-tune; http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/31252-interview-neko-case
The relavant stuff is about 2/3 of the way down the page.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Jenn
I disagree with your implication of the use on Life is a Highway - that may not be the case. I've seen Rascal Flatts in concert several times and that's how the vocals sound without the use of correction software. Gary LeVox has great tone and pitch.
I won't disagree that it's used way more than it should be though.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:14 am
des
> @Beau: gives the impression that the artist is trying to capitalize on an over-used gimmick
Which we could almost forgive if it sounded halfway decent. But it sounds LIKE CHER!! :-)
> @VintageP: I assume the recording industry must take this into account in their decision making?
I'm sure you're right about that. Whatever else can be said of Bedingcourt, Kingston, and T-Pain, they sell a lot of music.
> @Jeff: Neko Case goes off on auto-tune;
Sweet, thanks Jeff.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Heuristics Inc.
Keith, I have used both Auto-Tune and Melodyne (uno, then the new version's cre8). I much prefer Melodyne. Especially the cre8. It definitely sounds more natural and the graphical mode allows for better control. It still does require tweaking, though; sometimes it will for no apparent reason shift a couple of notes down an octave when you use the automatic mode. However you can just move them back up in the graphical mode.
I have found that it makes for a pretty good sound if you mix the tuned version and the original version of the vocals together. I'm not a very good vocalist so Melodyne's been a song-saver for me.
-bill
February 6th, 2008 at 11:52 am
des
> it makes for a pretty good sound if you mix the tuned version and the original version of the vocals together.
Heh, that's one of Paul "SoundOnSound" White's favorite tricks! It has to be the easiest way to generate a realistic-sounding vocal double. Combined with a tape-flutter effect, you might as well BE John Lennon :-)
February 6th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
gm
dude, you're off here. i agree with other folks like chimera. yes it is tasteless, but that is the point. that's pop.
that is an "in" effect that people are intentionally putting into the music. it is a desired "techno" effect for the lack of a better phrase. you'll find people that can recognize and like it. that's what happens when you've grown up with healthy rotations of funk, techno, Zapp and Roger Troutman (RIP) going into your earhole.
these pop music people know it will be an outdated sound soon, but they don't care. by that time folks are sick of, they'll using some other stupid shitty sounding effect
February 6th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Undertoad
Maroon 5 "She Will Be Loved" is abuse, and probably intentional. The auto-tune is so much more ridiculous on the chorus than on the verses that you figure it had to be a producer decision, to help create a more commercial sound for the single.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Joe
Jenn, why do you think you heard them live without autotune? They don't sing live any more than Britney or NSYNC do, they are a boy band. When you see them live, you hear them recorded, just like any other pop act.
And yes, they really did completely destroy a fantastic song. Its a shame Tom let them do it.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Tom Farrell
Cher's vocal on "Believe" was not auto-tuned, it was vocoded with a Digitech Talker. This was done deliberately to create that odd sound on her voice, with her permission. If you google it carefully you'll find an article about it by the engineer who did it.
Joe, autotune can be done in realtime, so a band can both sing live and use autotune.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
des
> by that time folks are sick of, they'll using some other stupid shitty sounding effect
Heh, no doubt! (But FWIW I'd say the same thing about "compression abuse" or "EQ abuse" or any other kind of unnecessary mix tomfoolery. I wrote the article to educate, rather than to criticize, is what I'm sayin')
> Its a shame Tom let them do it.
Hear hear!! (Though with statutory licensing, he may not have had a choice!)
February 6th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
des
> Cher's vocal on "Believe" was not auto-tuned, it was vocoded with a Digitech Talker.
That's a common mis-misconception.
I linked to the article you referenced (click the text "The Cher Effect") but here it is again for completeness:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb99/articles/tracks661.htm
Notice the big yellow addendum at the top? ("Stop!! Historical footnote")
In other words, when they claimed it was a Digitech Talker, they lied!!!
February 6th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
bill
"I'm Sprung" definitely does this intentionally.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Derek
almost all of these are intentional. and in some cases they take a single note, and bend it into several notes. that's not autotuning, that's adding an effect.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
desqjockey
What Derek said: producers use vocoder to make lyrics sound 'chunkier' like Cher. Auto tune is for pitch shifting to fix blown notes. You dont seem to get the difference.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
des
Derek/desqjockey
Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8smRRyoYGc
Also, note the comment above: Cher's effect was Auto Tune. No two ways about it.
Cheers.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Music By Day
Great examples of the auto tune misuse. I think it can be used in a way that is… interesting if it's done with a purpose. But I find it really crap when it's used on songs that are supposed to have a feeling of sincerity. If you know what I mean…
February 6th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Jenn
Joe - I understand what you're saying, but have you ever seen them perform live?
I've worked in Top 40 radio for 10 years so believe me, I've seen my fair share of the Britneys and Backstreet Boys "enhanced" performances so I understand the point you're trying to make, however Rascal Flatts has definitely performed live every time I've seen them. I wouldn't consider them a "boy band" as most people recognize, other than that the main members of the band happen to all be male…the same that could be said for countless others.
You can debate their remake of a Tom Cochrane classic all you want, that's simply a matter of taste.
I'm just saying - if you've never seen them perform live, and I do mean live - right in front of your eyes, don't you think it might be just a little unfair to assume they don't actually have the talent to perform without the aid of a piece of software?
And to point out what may seem like an insignificant oversight on your part - Rascal Flatts fall under the genre of country music, not pop.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Gordon
Thanks for putting together the sample. I've heard kids talk about T-Pain's voice being "so unique." Heh.
I think the most embarrassing autotune disaster during a "live" performance was Billy Joel's Super Bowl National anthem last year.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OYIMmi7JtHc
February 6th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
des
No question, Gordon. Here's the performance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8smRRyoYGc
< cringe >
February 6th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
D
Most of those are uses of auto tune…the T-pain however is a vocoder… which is an effect the same effect that Cher used on Believe….
the autotune sometimes sounds a bit like a vocoder but when using a vocoder you are doing it on purpose (they've been around since the 70′s)
February 6th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
des
D, scroll up 9 comments.
Cher used an Auto Tuner on Believe. No vocoder. Mark Taylor admitted that he lied when he said it was a Vocoder. He was trying to protect what (at the time seemed like) a trade secret.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
D
Des:
Ok fair enough…. but I still think T-pain was using vocoder (its a big effect in that genre)
February 6th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
bigups
I always assumed this was intentional, as recordings can be overdubbed, but the effect gives the audio its own flair. I kinda like the effect, but not most of those songs…
February 6th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
DJMonsterMo
I think you're right about Auto-Tune rather than an actual vocoder being used for T-Pain (in general) and Snoop (on "Sensual Seduction"). I think the same gimmick is used for Akon. Compare their songs to the vocoder in the chorus of 2Pac's "California Love" or the middle of ELO's "Mr. Blue Sky"; clearly, it's a different effect.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
gatzke
Yea, I think the cher thing is like putting makeup on a model to hide blemishes. How unatural and fake. Whatever happened to talent?
February 6th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
ads
surely the T-pain clip was done purposely to achieve that effect….
February 7th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Kay Kastum
Wow! This post has over 30 comments already in just one day.
So that's what you called it. All this while I thought it was some kind of gadget that you use with your mic. Or is it?
February 7th, 2008 at 7:15 am
des
> gadget that you use with your mic. Or is it?
For mix applications, most folks use a plugin.
But there are hardware devices that do the same thing, most designed for live use. (Check out the Billy Joel clip a few comments up)
February 7th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Hello Control
A fun piss-take of this then-trendy effect was the (released in 2000) White Stripes "You're Pretty Good Looking" (Trendy American Remix)—the b-side of their "Lord, Send Me an Angel" single. It was the same as the album version except for Cher-effect-levels of auto-tune throughout the entire song.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Fabio FZero
What, no Shania Twain? Autotune is SO obvious in I Feel Like a Woman!
February 7th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Michael Gregoire
Let's not forget Paula Abdul's catchy ditty before the superbowl.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
peter
dude fix ur shit! dont have links to digg it or reddit if ur shitty little server cant handle the capacity. so fucking annoying. un-dugg and buried for shitty hosting. get a real fucking webserver lamers!
February 7th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
CKaye
Nice post!
T-pain's entire song sounds like it's heavly "corrected".
Reminds me of http://www.gearchange.org/
February 7th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
airship
Simpsons did it:
http://www.thesimpsons.com/episode_guide/1214.htm
February 7th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
K.J.
Perhaps it's abuse is overused, but it's a great tool, especially for live albums. Most people don't realize that auto-tune is used in almost every single track of every single major artist. It greatly reduces the amount of time to get a perfect track and the skill required by the artist.
It's great for correcting minor imperfections and if used correctly, I dare even the most attune ear to pick it up easily.
Also, to the person saying that "Life is a Highway" sounds the same in concert: It's called the Antares Vocal Producer. It does a surprisingly accurate job at re-producing the AutoTune program in a live setting.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Maguire
Jenn-
I like Rascal Flatts - have all of their releases and have seen them live several times — and I hate to break you bubble but the reason you think it sounds so good live is that they are being as heavily processed live (with pitch correctors and vocal harmonizers, too) as they are in the studio. What makes you think the technology doesn't follow them to the stage?
I've heard them in informal, live situations three times — once with their band and twice with just the three of them and a couple of guitars — every time, the harmonies were off and Gary went flat all over the place. The first time I heard it I said, "OK, maybe Gary has a cold" (blocked ears and sinuses can affect your ability to stay on pitch), but it was all three times — and it was painful to listen to.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Jon
Here's one that has been bothering me.
Deftones - Hole In The Earth, second verse on the words "Explain" and "Able."
http://www.audiogeekzine.com/holeintheearth.mp3
February 10th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Blake
I will say this…I have recorded some bands and have thought "that kid's voice sounds like it has bad auto-tune on it". haha. but in reality, it was just his voice. I do think that a couple of the examples above could be that…but overall, yeah, its overused. I'm only for using it if it means barely pitch correcting an otherwise brilliant performance. sometimes you an ice a drummer or a singer if you make them play/sing something over and over and over. sometimes the emotion behind the pitch makes the record. But, still. I am NOT for using this to make people that CAN'T sing, sing well. it pisses me off.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:14 am
des
[@Jon] > Deftones - Hole In The Earth, second verse on the words "Explain" and "Able."
Ya, "Able" is particularly obvious. It's odd there, 'cuz it wouldn't even matter to the song if he sang a bit out of pitch.
[@Blake] > I'm only for using it if it means barely pitch correcting an otherwise brilliant performance.
Agreed. If you can hear the autotuner working at all, then it's probably not a brilliant performance!
February 14th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Abhijit Shylanath
American Idol uses it too; I was watching an episode yesterday (I don't know how far behind I am here in India), and they had blatantly auto-tuned a contestant's performance.
I'm not sure if it's my broadcasting network that did it, or the producers themselves.
I've also seen it used on Ugly Betty's nephew's voice (when he sings in a broadway musical and his dad dies.. *sniff*). This was only on the promo, though, so it wasn't done by the producers. I swear, I only watched the episode to check if he was being auto-tuned.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
des
> I'm not sure if it's my broadcasting network that did it, or the producers themselves.
I hear the same thing all the time here in Canada, so I assume it's the producers, rather than the broadcaster.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:02 am
BNKRECORDS
I am always seeing people get the 3 different sounds mixed up…. Roger troutman and peter frampton did NOT use a Vocoder or Autotune….. They Used the TALKBOX, which is completely different and to say otherwise an insult to talkboxers… Cher, Snoop, and Tpain used Autotune, not a talkbox or vocoder….
the difference between the 3 are easily put
Talkbox: An electric instrument is played with the audio running to the talkbox, the audio is then forced through a tube that is placed in the mouth… the user mouths words and lets the instrument do the talking. There is NO VOCAL USE IN A TALKBOX
Vocoder: A voice is blended/layered with an instrument to give it a vocoded effect. Usually a software effect, there is no tube placed in the mouth, it is just a blend of instruments and vocals creating the electronic sound….
Autotune: Is STRICTLY VOICE…. when someone sings out of pitch, the autotune kicks in and corrects it. The cher effect as people call it is when the autotune Immediately corrects an out of pitch tone…. You are able to make it less subtle to where it takes a little longer to correct the pitch, but to achieve that cher effect, the correction takes place immediately….. There Is NO INSTRUMENT INVOLVED, IT IS JUST VOICE PITCH CORRECTION
February 17th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Keith Handy
BNKRECORDS: Not sure who you're getting frustrated with here…
Anyway, in your description of vocoder, you said "blended/layered", which kind of doesn't quite explain it… one way to think of it is that a sound (typically a synthesizer) is passing through a complex filter, which is being shaped by another sound (typically a voice). So the synthesizer sound takes on the "shape" of your voice, even though you don't actually hear the voice itself.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
BNKRECORDS
keithhandy
Thank you for correcting that, It was like 3 in the mornin when i posted that so i was a little tired, but you are correct…. As far as who I was getting frustrated with, I wasnt talking about anyone in here, I made a tpain cant sing video on youtube and alot of people were saying things like "tpain is nothing new, Roger Troutman and Peter frampton have been using that effect for years"…. i was only refering to those kind of comments……
February 20th, 2008 at 8:52 am
krim krom
Melodyne requires caring about the song you're working on. Avoid getting the full version so you don't have a one-button-tunes-and-quantizes-all option. Antares makes that button much more readily available.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Manslick
Well I had to comment because on American Idol they debuted the Paula Abdull song on Randy’s new disc. It was apparent that there was a pitch correcting device in action. I had to cringe at the hypocrisy of it all as they sit there and judge the contestants and then point out the slightest off pitch note. But at the same time it seems that the sound of pitch correcting devices is now status quo and if you don’t use it then you’re like out of it dude.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Mike Lee
Well if you want to see the most well known tune abuse visit:
http://www.whatmp3.net/50cents.html
He basically killed pop music with his rap…
http://lyrics.whatmp3.net/lyrics/killed.html
March 5th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Listen Music Free
Natasha Bedingfield - Love Like This - "Apart" and "life."
Very good example I like it!!
March 6th, 2008 at 6:03 am
Josh B
As a recording artist (lead vocals/guitar) I prefer cheating in a far more honest fashion. I sing the song three or four times, record all four takes and then listen to the first recording and replace problematic sections with relevant portions of the other 3 recordings. Its cheating because I didn't sing the song perfectly straight through, but honest because I did sing every note myself.
If you're too lazy to do that than by all means use autotune, but my way works way better if you're at all consistent in your performance.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
EfemJay
The T-Pain and Natasha Bedingfield examples are CLEARLY intentional to get the Zapp/Roger Troutman sound. They aren't intended to sound natural.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
jonsonroth
You know, though, from a pure effect angle, I love the sound of auto-tune. For me, it makes shitty songs a bit more listenable. I've always thought of the human voice as an instrument, so the sound of auto-tune is simply an effect. It's so unlike anything you typically hear with the human voice (other than throat singers from various parts of the world). But of course, that doesn't make it a good thing to do.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Trackback from purrl.net |** urls that purr **| - This is one of the web's most interesting stories on Wed 6th Feb 2008...
February 6th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Pingback from » First degree Auto-tune abuse (felony offense) ControlRoom - Mixin’ it with Dr. J
February 6th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Pingback from Auto-Tune
February 6th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Pingback from Stefan Hayden » Auto-Tune
February 6th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Pingback from The Flatpack Revolution » Cause and effect
February 7th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Pingback from Marco Raaphorst » Blog Archive » Die verschrikkelijke auto-tune
February 7th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Pingback from Auto-Tune Abuse in Pop Music « No Original Content
February 8th, 2008 at 4:39 am
Pingback from NRK Lydverket » Out of tune
February 8th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Pingback from Inside Home Recording.com - Don’t go overboard with pitch correction
February 8th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Pingback from Linkblog - February 7th to February 8th | wibbler.com
February 10th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Pingback from why not just learn to sing? « serotoninrain
February 11th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Pingback from o verdadeiro American Idol vem com plug-in. « chiveta ——¬
February 11th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Pingback from Enjambed » Blog Archive » Pitch Correction
February 11th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Pingback from Ben’s Blog » Blog Archive » Auto-Tune Abuse in Pop Music - 10 Examples - Hometracked
February 13th, 2008 at 4:50 am
Pingback from Can They Really Sing Like That? How They Trick Us With Auto-Tune
February 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Pingback from Pop Music is Faked? | Vultures On A Carousel