Hacker News Reader

Most superstar pop singers have fantastic singing voices and great pitch control. Autotune shows up because of some mix of 1) the modern pop aesthetic demands superhuman tuning, 2) some degree of autotune artifacts are expected as part of the modern sound, and 3) it can intentionally be used as an effect (T-Pain).

To give some more detail about both 1 and 2 -

Pitch control is more than just hitting the note; its about how well you can onset at the right pitch, how well you can hold the pitch once hit, how well you can jump each pitch interval and land on the right pitch, how well you can pitch through different articulations, different vocal ranges, etc. The modern pop sound has accepted that superhuman levels of pitch control that lock the vocal into tune with the perfectly tuned synthesizers/samplers are more important than a natural sound.

Also, since we've been using autotune for so long, it has almost become natural. We expect to hear it to some degree on every track, especially in more difficult vocal areas. If it wasn't present, one might feel the song sounds "indie" or worse, dated.

Lastly, one thing that fascinates me about the autotune complaints are that it's just one stage of a very long vocal processing chain. To my ears, the tweaks provided by dynamics processors are much more dramatic than autotune when applied to a reasonably proficient singer. Autotune is just one step of a processing chain that can easily run through 10+ processors to end up at the right sound.

Autotune is a tool like any other. Generally those who consumed media before that tool was invented will be skeptical of it because “things I like didn’t need it.” Those who begin consuming media after the tool was invented don’t have the same biases.

A 50-years ago version of that would be microphones on broadway. It used to be a point of pride to fill a theater without amplification. Now we don’t really care.

Fair. When I was a teenager in the 90s, my favorite vocal groups made obvious use of overdubbing, and they sounded different when performing live.

I am unsure if it tells more about any general attitude about "tools" or more about Broadway. Microphones are still not used in opera or classical music.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/arts/music/wearing-a-wire...

Microphones are still not used by purists in opera or classical music, exactly because of the point I made above.

Pop performers are optimizing for something outside what hits a recording -- that is to say, in the same way that opera singers have to have some theatrical ability in addition to singing the music, pop performance these days involves a huge amount of choreographed dance. A pop singer I'll not name performed on a late night show and was a target of internet ribbing for having brought only some semi-awkward samba-like side-stepping -- though it's more than I or the karaoke singers could do! Once you start looking at the best singer-dancers rather than the best singers, you'll get closer to the real prerequisites for that genre.

(And of course, "the obviously artificial sound" can be an aesthetic choice made by vocalists fully capable of recording impeccable vocals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIjXUg1s5gc)

> A pop singer I'll not name performed on a late night show and was a target of internet ribbing for having brought only some semi-awkward samba-like side-stepping

For anyone wondering, I believe this is referring to Lana Del Rey. Not sure what the purpose of redacting the name was...

Maybe that's not who you were referring to though? Iirc, the criticisms weren't just about her swaying, but singing that was described as "mumbling". That latter criticism is explicitly the opposite of what we're discussing.

It was not referring to Lana del Rey, that criticism would be the opposite of what we're discussing, and thus it's sort of funny you'd assumed that's whom I'd meant... The purpose of redacting the name is that I like the singer, her music is great, and I don't think there's a point to invoking her as "a bad dancer" in a discussion on HN of all places.

> The purpose of redacting the name is that I like the singer, her music is great, and I don't think there's a point to invoking her as "a bad dancer" in a discussion on HN of all places

It's kind of funny that you'd think this invocation would be harmful, given that the very premise is that how she chooses to move onstage is irrelevant to her musicianship.

Because the technical proficiency of a singer, or any musician/instrumentalist for that matter, is not what makes a song interesting or memorable.

There is no single thing that makes a song interesting or memorable, but technical proficiency is one of factors. Of course, I don't think that being "at the top" in technical proficiency makes a song any better than being just among a broader set of "best performers", but autotune makes people sound flat, generic, robotic, which is on the opposite end of the spectrum. That it doesn't contribute positively to a song is an understatement.

Does a trumpet with a straight mute contribute positively to a song? Compared to an unmuted trumpet it has reduced dynamic control and a flattened, generic timbre. But using them is common, and the distinctive sound is a key part of many well-known musical passages.

The technical proficiency of a trumpeter is completely orthogonal to whether they use a mute on a particular piece, since it is just a simple hardware technique. And the same thing with autotune. Incredible singers can and do use it for its technical effect, because they think that effect contributes to the song.

As a listener you can disagree, just as I find the heavy strings vibrato of classic pop a distraction. But you can't assess how good a song is by categorizing techniques used in it. Claims that new techniques rob music of something ineffable, or just sound bad, are ubiquitous for new musical techniques and are as old as instruments at least.

If you think autotune is the First Bad One when people said the same things about piano pedals, metal violin strings, geared tuning pegs, electric amplification, I just want you to consider the company you're in here.

You can not like it but stop claiming it's objectively bad when it is not.

You make it sound as if pop singers used autotune selectively, judging when it's better than natural technique. I wrote my comment in the context of large swaths of pop singers who use autotune indiscriminately in all their songs, throughout. (At least that's my impression from songs recommended to me by YouTube in incognito mode.) Now show me an acclaimed pianist who keeps their foot down on a single pedal throughout all their performances. I'd be surprised if the most common motivation for using autotune wasn't being unable to hit the right notes.

You're making assumptions about the motivations and goals of the people making the music. It's likely they do think it adds something to every song they use it on. The same way almost all contemporary musicians use amplification and digital mastering "indiscriminately." Not using those techniques is a specific, intentional part of the "sound" of some genres, and outside of that they are ubiquitous.

I'm not saying autotune is this good. I'm saying that if nearly everyone is using it and continues to use it after, at this point, decades, they must be getting something out of it. Masterful singers also use it, some quite a lot, so it can't be as simple as covering up limited skill or range.

>I think there's something to the complaints about music. Why does pop music

I'm going to stop you right there and point out that there is an absolutely massive space outside of Top 40. If you're willing to actually expend some effort to go looking, there's undoubtedly music out there for you. And this is nothing to do with age. I'm 40 and there's more new music coming out that I like than I can keep up with. I was recently talking to my almost 60 year old uncle and he finds the same to be true.

Pop music is about so much more than being a good singer. The hook is key, as is the content, the brand (artist), and how it's marketed. It takes a village to manufacture successful pop music. Being able to sing super well isn't required anymore, but having an army of people to assist making it popular most certainly is. The rare artist that goes viral on a shoestring quickly accumulates all the same help that other pop artists have to ensure future releases are also hits.

My take on it is that because there are so many good singers out there, people generally don't really care about that aspect of music as much (anymore?).

With so much technology available to basically anyone who cares enough to learn how to use it, it's becoming much more important to use that technology creatively than to have some natural talent for singing.

I can't believe they autotune so much kids' media these days. Daniel Tiger will teach your kid that their amazing singing voice sounds wrong, because all the singing on DT is auto-tuned like crazy and doesn't sound like actual human singing. WTF.

It's because pops stars need to be gorgeous celebs and also dancers, so singing gets replaced by computer.

Because good musicians don't need to make pop music anymore.