I know the best way... Just do Instrumentals.


Hey I realize Pitch Correction can be a handy tool. (oddly as it seems )
I even had a mild nip/tuck once, due to my sloppy pronunciation of "care".

But what are some of your favorite ways to minimize using it?
(besides LEARNING the song )
Both if you're a fellow Singer, or the clock is ticking on the Artist/Group.

FWIW been on a British Isle "Speaking Kick" lately.
Practicing to some of the usual Male Suspects.
(Gielgud/Ralph Richardson/Ronald Colman/Richard Burton/etc)*

Well... I could sense my sense of Pitch did improve somewhat.
So there's hope!

Unfortunately no "Auto Joke" for us here-Yet.

Which reminds me of a story...
Chris
* Gielgud for Tone/Albert Finney for cadence/emphasis seems so far, to be the call on my Speaking voice.

I don't think there's anything "wrong" with using it if you need it. It's fine to use reverb, compression, saturation, etc., so why not autotune? It's just a tool, and it's not going to make a really bad performance sound amazing. You have to be close on pitch otherwise it is obvious and sounds bad. Of course there are some who use it as a creative tool and want to hear it, which is also fine, but not for me.

The only way around auto tune, aside from a tolerance for nature's +/- 5-10 cents, is time. I have a silly rack tuner from the turn of the century when rock musicians were using them all the time. I find playing back a take with a send going to it is illuminating. Sometimes for an illusive song I'll even sing watching it, multiple times. Usually it gets really "in your head" sounding as a performance. I find I can work up a vastly improved intonation behind a weird, wooden delivery that comes from watching the lights and positioning notes really weirdly to open up sharp notes or pinch flat ones into shape.

This is usually where a break comes in. Sleep on it or do lunch. Then come back in. Listen to the awkward, pitch correct performance, have a good laugh. Do a more musical, natural take. Usually it's already in a good place pitch-wise. If rinse and repeat were required to get it solid, I'd say it's worth it. If drummers should practice parts at various tempos to a click, why shouldn't a singer woodshed their intonation with pitch monitoring technology?

You're going to laugh but I've learned how to sing on pitch by doing years of pitch correction on others (and myself - but 90%+ on others). And I mean MANUAL pitch correction. Over time, I learned what was off and what was on without it, and therefore make adjustments on the fly while singing. So now I can guess fairly precisely how far someone is off; basically learning relative pitch by continually correcting it by hand.

This actually makes a lot of sense. It's a form of ear training.

Sometimes it's an Artistic crutch.
And sound less natural.
Depends on intention, of course.

Now (again) Moderator "PM" did school me that sometimes with Synth's you HAVE to adjust the singer's pitch. I didn't realize that one!
Chris

Antares had a 'booth' with a little stage and seats at AES NY a few years ago. I attended the presentation they had with Greg Wells doing a demo on transparent tuning in graphic mode.. This was a good performance from a good singer, and many would have left it alone. At the end, when he played the before and after, you could not hear it as being "tuned" but it definitely sounded just a bit better. And believe me, I have been accused of being "too sensitive" to the artifacts.

The next guy up was a rap guy and I decided to stay for his presentation. He did more or less the exact opposite. For him, the 'robot voice' thing was just the beginning and he had some pretty cool tricks, assuming you were not expecting a human voice. In the context of what he was doing, it was at least 'interesting'.

In my work as an engineer, we use it when called for.

I usually lobby against any 'auto' anything - not for "moral" reasons, but because the artifacts are very grating to me. On the other hand, I certainly don't lay any kind of guilt trip on someone who needs it, that's not my role. Fortunately for me, most of the people I work with are accomplished musicians who will nail on the punch anything they missed in the take.

What software are you using when "tuning in graphic mode"?

Antares Autotune. The interface is a massive PITA, but it does seem to offer more 'control' than anything else I have seen.

I used to be 100% autotune focussed, but the ARA integration added to Antares' issues with the latest version of autotune, subscription nonsense etc has pretty much pushed me to melodyne...it's a different way of thinking and done well, just as time-consuming but it can have as much control and transparency.

I never thought I'd say that...the last version of AT with it's invisible lines and weird quirks just grated on me though!

As to the original question - to minimise the use, anything that's a struggle, tune it and resing with it as a guide - hardly revolutionary, but it can mean someone "gets" it!

<mod note - anyone whinging or proudly stating you don't use tuning - good for you, your post is getting deleted then repeated offences get you booted. That simply isn't the point of this thread!>

That's more when EVERYTHING is rigid in pitch (as with any synth-based production), a "natural" vocal doesn't sound so soulful anymore.

When everything is "natural intonation" - it's a different story.

The other point I like to make is tuning means you can comp for emotion and tune the pitch. Otherwise you have to reject what might be the best take performance-wise and go for something less emotive, but better pitch.

Read recently that Ray Charles would sometimes deliberately sing slightly Sharp,
to stand out in a heavier Band Mix.

It'd be interesting to compare practicing to a "Melodyned" track, with an Antares one.
Guessing they'd be close, other things equal.

I noticed if I practice a vocal line on a different Key (usually lower), to get the Intervals right...
Then return to the original key, it might help quite a bit.

Also with higher notes, by gently singing them in Falsetto first to help get the vocal "weight" more accurate, that could be handy too.
This has helped me get to a pretty comfy High A Natural. From a High G around 6 months ago.

I remember a post fairly recently by Thrill. where he mentioned he listens to the sound of someone's Speaking Voice.
To help determine mic selection. I also think the Tone of one's voice, helps determine the "angle of approach" for more challenging notes.

Emphasizing rest/water/etc. if possible, before serious recording, can only help too.
Chris

My approach criteria for minimizing depends on-

1. am I the singer, writer, and producer?
2. am I only the hired engineer/producer?

Since I only do scenario #1 , that sets the routes I'm willing to go without resorting to Autotune.

By the way, I'm historically under the belief that recording or listening to a recording of a GREAT SINGER .....one who is universally acclaimed as a TECHNICALLY great singer.....that is....GREAT SINGER.....are among my least favorite, complete uninteresting wastes of time for ME.

Boring as f***......

no offense to all the technically great singers out there on the planet. Just not into it.

Now, if I hear an INTERESTING tonality in an otherwise maybe-good....less than ok...completely faulty singer.....now THAT'S something I can work with and subsequently enjoy listening to.

My approach is the age-old overdub technique. When needed for lines, words, syllables, breaths.

I'm also fine with manually sliding things around in the daw

Rather than autotune/melodyne or timing apps.

So no Tiny Tim.
I get it.