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
For more home recording tips,
Subscribe to the Hometracked feed, or receive email updates.
Tags: freeplugins, mixing


113 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.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Darren Landrum
Josh B: “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.”
That’s called “comping”, and it was not an uncommon technique throughout the seventies. You can ask Terry Manning all about it. :)
May 19th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
muzicmaken
Another example is Miley Cyrus aka Hanna Montana…I was listening to my daughters cd of her and it is so noticable I had to laugh.. I then heard a version of her and her fathers (Billy Ray Cyrus) song “ready set don’t go” and as soon as Miley started singing you could hear the artifacts so bad…
June 9th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Blur
i dont think Maroon 5 uses it on that one song, its too smooth.
June 21st, 2008 at 4:49 am
Waxx
I use autotune often like an advanced vocoder (like in snoop’s sensual seduction), or to make backings from an lead singing part, …
It’s also a nice effect sometimes to put a synth trough autotune.
But if it’s used as correction on a natural voice, i hate it. Just like i hate beat detective and similar tools. Learn first how to play, and start recording after it.
June 21st, 2008 at 4:50 am
Waxx
I use autotune often like an advanced vocoder (like in snoop’s sensual seduction), or to make backings from an lead singing part, …
It’s also a nice effect sometimes to put a synth trough autotune.
But if it’s used as correction on a natural voice, i hate it. Just like i hate beat detective and similar tools. Learn first how to play, and start recording after it in stead of correcting everyting. You won’t be able to do that on stage neighter
July 15th, 2008 at 3:52 am
Aaron
God knows that Avril has studio help (she can’t really sing that good, although she’s not THAT bad), but autotune on “Complicated”? I looked for your examples of the autotuned words on the MP3 file and couldn’t hear it…
July 17th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Simon Cowell
Chris Brown’s Forever pours the effect on real thick. I put the auto-tune in the same category as the talk box used by Peter Frampton back in the Mesozoic Era – or the wa-wa pedal on guitar. It’s an effect. The unfortunate thing is that the public is actually duped into thinking their pop stars can actually sing on key.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:42 am
michael
Jenn…about the Rascal Flatts live thing…
It is fairly obvious that there is use of an auto-tuner on the recorded version. And it IS possible to use an auto-tuner live without it being played from a recording. Antares has one called ATR-1 and there’s another one that I saw the other day…I can’t think of who makes it and can’t find the link for it, though. So although they may be playing and singing live, chances are that those weren’t totally legit vocals.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Rai
Okay, I don’t understand. Auto tune is used in many other genres besides pop, rock, and hip hop. It’s a handy tool to kick up a decent performance to a great one. This being the case, it can be utilized to allow someone, say, Art C. Indie and his band, to put together something not about vocals but about composition, something that adheres to the fundamentals of artistic expression. Your arguments are petty and irrelevant to the concept of creating art. Furthermore, the use of ‘dated’ techniques isn’t limited to pitch correction–after all, aren’t 8-bit punk artists just doing what the people who invented the Game Boy and similar devices intended to do in the first place? Your superficial and elitist opinion should be supplemented with a dose of reality. Not everyone can sing. Even professional singers (that don’t use Auto Tune) aren’t always an astounding vocalist. It’s about presentation, arrangement, and the feeling behind a particular song.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Johnny
I heard the Maroon 5 guy play with an acoustic guitar live on the radio here in San Diego a couple years ago…IT WAS HORRIBLE…the guy couldn’t carry a tune in a bucket!
Everyone one in the office was cringing at how horrible he sang.
He’d have no career without Auto Tune.
How can you sing a song that YOU WROTE out of key?
Did the Beatles need Auto Tune?
September 15th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
YourEpic
Thanks for all these comments and this suprisenly useful artical. It’s actually helped me decide which out of the programs Melodyne or Auto-Tune I’m buying;
I’ve read a few comments defacing a lot of the artists on the mp3 as being with out “talent” Which simply is wrong.
I’m a musican, I play all kinds of instruments, one might say I’m talented.
I can’t sing well, I have my good and bad days. But it ruins a stage performance when the singer is playing a great guitar performace but lacks the vocal – it’s an audience hears, ’cause that’s what they look for – faults.
So yeah, I’ll use Auto-Tune – but I’m not without talent.
As for these artists – it takes talent to sell records. The musical industray doesn’t just pick random people, tell them to sing and sort out the faults later – it’s not all about vocal.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
YourEpic
it’s ALL audience hears, ’cause that’s what they look for – faults.**
October 9th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Jeremy
Rai-Quote-1
Even professional singers (that don’t use Auto Tune) aren’t always an astounding vocalist.
Me=If you can’t sing then you shouldn’t be a musician. I can’t do sculptures so I don’t.
Rai-Quote-2
It’s about presentation, arrangement, and the feeling behind a particular song.
Me= Yes and that is exactly what this effect removes from a song..
October 17th, 2008 at 5:12 am
Rory28
“And also the sound quality is terrible with the 128k bitrate MP3″…OR,Maybe YOU might be MISTAKING the Auto-Tune sounds for artifacts,rather than the quality being a problem ;-)…
Jenn – ” I’ve seen Rascal Flatts in concert several times and that’s how the vocals sound without the use of correction software.” – Are you aware there is also a rackmount piece of hardware that can be used live at any and all times as well?!…Maybe each time you’ve seen them live,they’ve used it…Hmmm…
November 12th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
ignacio
I dont think so JACKASS !
Avril is the best stop of say shiT!
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
MagusMundus
To “YourEpic” who says “So yeah, I’ll use Auto-Tune – but I’m not without talent.”
I respond – You may not be without talent in other areas, but if what you say is true, you do not have a talent for singing. You should stay away from the mic. Simple as that. Talent in one area does not equal talent in all areas… strange logic you have there and I think you are a bit lost with your illusion of record label tactics. By your standards, everyone that a record company picks to push therefore must be talented. Hmm, very interesting…. I think you have bought into the game and probably don’t understand the art and soul of music. You are likely still just a pup.
Autotune degrades authenticity. It lowers the value of a real musicians’ effort. To me music is a fine art, but to many in this world, music is just a product to be reconciled in regards to cost and resources. For those of you who believe in the dollar as a defining factor of success, I feel sorry for you. For you are helping to destroy a beautiful concept… you are equating music with a mass produced McDonalds hamburger. You are not an artist.
Yes, some people do define quality by the amount of money generated, but everyone should know by now that it is only a sad commentary on today’s lazy and greedy society.
Music is so much more than simple parameters that can be tweaked and fads that can be copied, yet some of you will never understand this and will continue to validate yourselves by such primitive standards.
Music has a soul and when processing overshadows the source, you are raping the soul of music. It is easy to tell simply by listening for the honesty and integrity. If you are an engineer or producer that follows in most so called music professionals’ footsteps, you will cave in for lack of artistic integrity… likely you will be “successful” by today’s pitiful standards.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
tor
all of those artists should be thrown in the lake at least one hundred times consecutively. They’ve all left reality! pop’s like doritos to food, spiritual famine.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
ColH
You would at least think that, if they truly need to make everything sound perfect with “autotune”, they would at least go back and fix the EXTREMELY OBVIOUS un-natural sounds. I mean no disrespect to them when I say that.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:50 am
murray
HOMETRACKED, you’re a moron. Who’s to say voice correction is dated? Since when did you become the guru of all music trends.
Most of the “examples” you quote are using it as an artistic tool and are MEANT to sound that way. I just can’t believe your conceited attitude to this subject. It’s like saying Ska is dead, or long hair is dated, or guitars are out.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Ken M.
Call it old school, but pitch correction really bothers me. I am very sensative to the obnoxious overtones it produces. It is so widely accepted, I feel like I’m the only one who hates the thing. It is everywhere and it just sounds nasty. Besides there are a number of other issues about it that bother me.
I can’t really take a singer seriously after I hear electronic enhancements to their voice. Yet there are truly great singers who use the darn thing. I cannot understand why singers who have great voices ruin their music with pitch correction. Are they that insecure? Nothing says ‘can’t sing’ or ‘poser’ like automatic pitch correction. So why would they want to wreck their reputation by corrcting their pitch when they don’t need to?
Another issue has to do with the fact that they are cheating. If singers are going to clean up their pitch issues rather than learning to sing, why not just have a computer make the music and get rid of the human? It would be more honest and would probably be cheaper. If they do have pitch issues, then they should not be given credit for having talent that they don’t have, hence the comment that nothing says ‘can’t sing’ like pitch correction. I would also contend that no pitch corrected music will ever be classic, lasting music. It will be soon forgotten as throw away.
It also sounds worse to have electronically sanitized music. It is inherently less interesting and takes away from the musicality of a song. I would much rather hear a human voice, even with its imperfections than hear electronic noise. I strongly consider pitch correction just another form of distortion. Can musicians please stop using it?
December 19th, 2008 at 3:16 am
John Carl
One word: Kanye
December 20th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Ken M.
Since no one tracks why people don’t buy products, a major flaw in our system of advertising, I don’t think anyone will ever know how many sales have been lost due to obnoxious voice correction. I will never buy music that I know has auto voice correction on it.
Musicians who are known for good voices like Michael Buble, Celine Dion and Lara Fabian should step off of the voice correction bandwagon if indeed thier voices and talents are really as good as billed. Based on the type of music they produce, they seem mre interested in lasting quality music than, here today gone tomorrow, pop music. Using voice correction for them is ill advised and they risk going down in history as fakers. Their beautiful voices are being polluted by distortion. It like pouring motor oil over a gourmet dinner. It may go down more smoothly, but is it desirable?
My prediction is that music from this period will be known as forgettable and will not last courtesy of overly enthusiatic sound engineers and singers insecurities about their voices.
December 21st, 2008 at 2:04 am
Glenn
Autotune is like a toupee — You can always tell…except when you can’t! Sometimes I listen to a vocal track that I’ve done and I’m a little irked because I think the auto-tune is a little too obvious — then it dawns on me that I didn’t use auto-tune on that track! I have to laugh at people who claim that they can “always tell” — No way! For the record, Melodyne is way way better than Antares — Absolutely no comparison!
December 21st, 2008 at 2:24 am
Glenn
Ken —
How do you feel about overdubbing — Is that cheating also? There indeed was a time when everything was done in one take — Should we go back to that? When Bob Dylan started using an electric guitar, there was a whole folk community that turned on him because electric guitars weren’t legitmate instruments. How did that turn out? I agree that there is no point in a truly phenominal singer ever needing to use any kind of auto-tune software but I would suggest that less than one percent of all pop singers fall into this category. Is pitch correcting really all that different from doing mulitple takes and comping the best parts? (which EVERYONE as in EVERYONE does) It’s just plain silly to NOT take full advantage of technology to make a recording (and a perfomance) sound as good as possible. It goes without saying that the gimicky tasteless stuff is just a waste of everyone’s time but any and all technology can be used poorly or it can be used with skill. The bottom line for me is always, “Does it sound good?”.
December 25th, 2008 at 2:00 am
DarknightOTC
I agree with most here that Auto-Tune ruins many songs, however if anyone here thinks our the music from from this decade will be forgotten you must have not lived through the 80s. I can’t even name how many crappy 80s songs are still popular or have been remade in this decade or the previous one. There will always be good songs in every decade, Auto-Tune or not, that will end up being classics. Honestly, if you don’t like what you hear then change the channel when it comes on the radio or TV. Apparently there are many Elitists here. According to your advice unless you are a flawless singer you shouldn’t even be near a mic. I guess it comes natural or happens overnight. Most singers and musicians develop their skills over many years. If singing and music is art, which I personally believe, who are you to tell the artist what is right and wrong? What if you walked up to a painter that just finished his masterpiece and told him that he did it wrong since he used a certain type of brush or color. There’s a fine line in art. If I don’t like a particular painting then I don’t look at it simple as that.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:11 am
anon
Amplification is an effect. If you are a true purist you wouldn’t ever use a microphone.
Don’t even get me started on recording, editing, mixing, etc…
January 10th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
T-roll
lol @ “purists”
get off your computer and go hump a tree? it’s the digital age and people will take full advantage of it. with ANYTHING comes the “good” and the “bad”… it’s up to your brain to determine which is which… not society.
some of you guys are starting to sound like kids that keep getting burned by touching the stove. like darknightotc said… if you don’t like what’s on turn the channel/station. I go one step further and say: by now you probably know what’s going to be on the station so leave it off unless you’d really like nothing more than to have one more thing to complain about.
Me? I don’t watch tv or listen to the radio for this exact reason. thinking about giving up internet as well, it seems ignorance is spreading faster than knowledge these days.
January 18th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Ken M.
To Glenn (and others):
I know it sound like the issue is one of being against technology or simply a purist. Perhaps I didn’t explain it very well. I have no problem with technology, provided that the person is actully singing. In overdubbing, a person actually sings to overdub. In the case of using amplification, a person is still playing the instrument. In using electronic instruments, its OK if a person is playng the instrument.
It’s more like a player piano. Does the person who turns the piano on get credit for playing the piano? Of course not.
It is as if we found out that the winner of the Tour De France actually had a secret motor stashed in his bicycle. It is an injustice and I feel cheated. It may not be easy to explain, but that is how I feel.
Why have a fake singer at all, why not just listen to computer. If there is no chance that the person can miss a note, then there is no talent involved and to me no artistry.
I am amazed that this point isn’t obvious to others and that it gets confused as being against technology. Does anyone else feel the same way as I?
January 20th, 2009 at 2:49 am
anon
The winner of the Tour de France most likely does have a secret motor. That secret motor is amphetamines.
Performance enhancement is considered cheating in sports. But it is impossible to cheat at music, because there are no rules.
If it sounds good, it is good.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:31 am
M Stanec
Hello!
I like this post!
Can I use in in my anticommercialcrap campaign?
Including the comments?
Thanks
(i always guessed that there is something more than what label and people call unique vocals, talent, etc., and that thing behind is money!)
February 5th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Uncle Indie
Music is like a painting. Some people like what you create, others make snide comments. One guy said something very profound here about the fact that the public couldn’t care less about how we make music (or words to that effect) and he could not be more right. They don’t care.
If you are in the music scene to create art you are one class. It matters little what others think. If you are in it to make money, then you give them what they want to hear without concerning yourself too much about what it takes to sell the gimmick of the day.
I think Autotune is an OK effect. Although it would just be better if people would learn how to sing and not depend on pitch correction to make up for a being tone-deaf.
Different strokes for different folks.
February 8th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
billie
so i havent read all the post comments…..but speaking of auto tuning abuse….hmm lets see…the WHOLE new kanye album!!! theres not one part of it thats not auto tuned! its absolutely horrible. Whatever happened to normal music of people who were actually naturally talented! I dont get it! Pretty much ANYONE can make a record these days! SAD I TELL YA!
October 29th, 2009 at 9:33 am
sitric
great post, yeah i think auto-tune has become the standard sound in pop-music these days, it’s part of the genre just like using distortion in rock-music. It’s like a signature move, once you hear it people clearly label your music in the pop genre which is partly why i would never use it.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Art
I’m a vocalist and my range is pretty good, I can hit quite a few high and low notes that most male singers can’t. I hate auto tune except for an intentional effect, and even then not that much.
Keep in mind though that I will do what it takes to put on a good performance for my audience every night. I’ll throw some reverb and compression on for nearly every song, delay when it is needed.
This is no different than using them on an instrument. The biggest difference between the voice and an instrument though is that the instrument is predictable, while a the voice has to with strain, nervous energy, fatigue or any other 100 things that can go wrong with a voice.
To ensure a quality performance, I’ll throw harmony or a slight pitch correction on my processor, maybe a 10 cent correction on a 50 cent flat note. Can I hit the note? Yes. Can I hit 100% every time I Sing it?
Maybe, maybe not. I spend hours every week exercising my voice and practicing. Using a very slight pitch correction to be sure of a good show is just being a professional.
Does any regard an NFL receiver who wears special gloves as a fake or cheating? Pros use the tools available to them.
I totally agree that horrible singers using auto tune to do their entire performance is a slap in the face to those who work hard at their craft. But using the tools available to be a better artist is being smart.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Jason
These tracks aint got nothin on ‘watcha say’. The only part of the song that isn’t heavily abused is the initial ritual of singing of one’s own initials.
December 30th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
GL Smith
If you don’t like auto tune then don’t use it in your music or listen to music that uses it. A lot of consumers must like it because many of these auto tune wonders make the charts big time. I can bet you they are out selling your stuff. Stop trying to force this pure craft crap on folks. Do what you like and let the next guy do what he likes, and let the consumer decide what they like. For the record, I’ve played around with auto-tune, but I prefer recording with out.
January 21st, 2010 at 8:28 am
Robin
@Aaron: You have really bad ears. Avril is one of the best singers ever and she is live better than on CD.
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