|
Post by fabulousbakers on Nov 24, 2018 21:00:11 GMT -5
...I can see a time when they sound so dated they struggle to pick up any new fans. We shall see. I can see that happening to a lot of music made before the modern trend of autotuning the vocals became so prevalent. I've heard that some new bands now are deliberately giving their vocals an autotuned sound - even when their lead singer is perfectly competent at singing a decent vocal - because that's what the new generation expect songs to sound like. Anything without that robotic autotuned sound now simply seems "old fashioned" to them. I got into an argument with a young guy at work who about autotuning. His argument was that autotuning was great because now anybody can become a pop star regardless of whether they have talent or not. He thinks it's only fair that everybody has an "equal chance". I started to get angry with his idiocy so I walked away but he really made my blood boil. I guess it's only a matter of time before some record company halfwit realises they can take an Oasis album or a Beatles album, feed the vocals through an autotuner to give it a robotic sound and re-release the album that way. They'll probably make a fortune.
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Nov 24, 2018 21:22:33 GMT -5
...I can see a time when they sound so dated they struggle to pick up any new fans. We shall see. I can see that happening to a lot of music made before the modern trend of autotuning the vocals became so prevalent. I've heard that some new bands now are deliberately giving their vocals an autotuned sound - even when their lead singer is perfectly competent at singing a decent vocal - because that's what the new generation expect songs to sound like. Anything without that robotic autotuned sound now simply seems "old fashioned" to them. I got into an argument with a young guy at work who about autotuning. His argument was that autotuning was great because now anybody can become a pop star regardless of whether they have talent or not. He thinks it's only fair that everybody has an "equal chance". I started to get angry with his idiocy so I walked away but he really made my blood boil. I guess it's only a matter of time before some record company halfwit realises they can take an Oasis album or a Beatles album, feed the vocals through an autotuner to give it a robotic sound and re-release the album that way. They'll probably make a fortune. Robot Beatles? I’m all fucking in.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 25, 2018 6:55:35 GMT -5
There's absolutely nothing wrong with autotune in a lot of cases. Liam's 90s vocals often used very similar technology, and using it to create a inhuman, cold and fragile feel was a great addition to pop music:
The Beatles would absolutely have used it creatively if it was around in the 60s.
|
|
|
Post by durk on Nov 26, 2018 18:14:06 GMT -5
Here's a question for the esteemed panel: 50 years from now is anyone going to care about the Beatles anymore? I ask because a local record shop owner told me recently that old Beatles vinyl is slipping into "Elvis territory", that is--- getting to be harder and harder to move. But perhaps that is due to market oversaturation, and the fact that by now everyone that wants an old copy of Peppers, Abbey Road etc. etc. already has theirs. But what does that say about the next generation of music fans? Of course, I guess the same could be asked about the Stones, Zep, U2, etc. etc. They're the Shakespeare of popular music. They'll always command respect. Whether people will keep listening is another question, though. There's a lot of talk at the minute about the increasing infantilism of western culture; and, though The Beatles are hardly intellectually challenging, I worry that their position in history will put them at a disadvantage with increasingly short-sighted and impatient people (if that is what will happens to us), as time goes on. Listening to very old records can be hard work. It took me a couple of years to properly fall in love with The Beatles, because I was comparing them to the guitar music of the 90s I loved and finding them tame by comparison. I concentrated my attention on just them for a while--I wasn't yet having my attention diverted to a thousand other things on streaming sites and social media--and yet I just couldn't get used to their sound. But when you look at the singles charts across the world you can't help but feel that many people are happy to just accept a lot of pap that gets served to them on the radio and in the clubs. I know that sounds a cheap and generically misanthropic thing to say, but am I not right that the general public's taste in music seems to have become much less eclectic in this century? People who can't appreciate eclecticism in music are surely gonna struggle with The Beatles. As to what will happen to the like of the Stones and Led Zeppelin, I really can't say. The hedonism and outlaw spirit of those two bands somehow seems further away from where we are now than The Beatles do. I mean, just imagine a song like 'Some Girls' being released now. How many Huffington Post articles would you see spring up in response, I wonder? But, then, things move in cycles, don't they? I remain hopeful we'll get over our collective hypersensitivity, sometime in the next decade, and allow a bit of fun and lightheartedness back into our societies and popular culture again. If we don't, I guess much of the "Classic Rock" of the late 60s and 70s will probably seem antiquarian to kids (if it doesn't already) in the future. I do worry for Oasis's reputation in the future a wee bit, though. They're doing fantastically well at the moment, but, it can't be denied, most of their best music does sound pretty shit through modern speakers. Unless they get remixed, like is happening with The Beatles, I can see a time when they sound so dated they struggle to pick up any new fans. We shall see. what a thoughtful, well-written post!
|
|
|
Post by fabulousbakers on Nov 27, 2018 9:20:12 GMT -5
There's absolutely nothing wrong with autotune in a lot of cases. Liam's 90s vocals often used very similar technology, and using it to create a inhuman, cold and fragile feel was a great addition to pop music: The Beatles would absolutely have used it creatively if it was around in the 60s. The Beatles might have mucked about with it one afternoon in the studio for fun. Luckily for them it didn't exist back in 1962 or some talentless boy band probably have got a recording contract instead of them. And if those two tunes you posted were supposed to "sell" me on the merits of autotune then your choices have failed miserably. They're just woefully awful in every regard.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 27, 2018 9:33:11 GMT -5
There's absolutely nothing wrong with autotune in a lot of cases. Liam's 90s vocals often used very similar technology, and using it to create a inhuman, cold and fragile feel was a great addition to pop music: The Beatles would absolutely have used it creatively if it was around in the 60s. The Beatles might have mucked about with it one afternoon in the studio for fun. Luckily for them it didn't exist back in 1962 or some talentless boy band probably have got a recording contract instead of them. And if those two tunes you posted were supposed to "sell" me on the merits of autotune then your choices have failed miserably. They're just woefully awful in every regard.
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Nov 27, 2018 11:42:11 GMT -5
Thanks a lot, durk . Appreciate it, man. Always get a bit nervy sending off long posts like that, in case I just look like a tit who thinks he knows it all. I don't know how well I managed to get my point across about people in the future perhaps not being prepared to put the work in that's necessary with old records, and with acts as eclectic as The Beatles, if our attention spans continue to shorten, and people come to expect absolute instant gratification from their contemporary pop culture. (I personally believe that the worldwide popularity of beat-driven, clinically produced electric dance music is evidence that many music consumers are increasingly seeing music as a commodity to be relied upon to soundtrack their physical lives--their parties or their fitness workouts--rather than something to connect with over time, on a deeper, more emotional level. And that is why I worry a bit for the likes of The Beatles, who--for the most part--were all about emotion and feeling.) ...But I was at it half an hour, writing that answer to @id1edreamer 's question, and couldn't really be arsed spending any longer honing my thoughts (what's the point, when I've no concrete evidence to support any hypotheses I make, anyway?), so I just clicked post with that point on The Beatles ending somewhat abruptly.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 27, 2018 13:08:47 GMT -5
Thanks a lot, durk . Appreciate it, man. Always get a bit nervy sending off long posts like that, in case I just look like a tit who thinks he knows it all. I don't know how well I managed to get my point across about people in the future perhaps not being prepared to put the work in that's necessary with old records, and with acts as eclectic as The Beatles, if our attention spans continue to shorten, and people come to expect absolute instant gratification from their contemporary pop culture. (I personally believe that the worldwide popularity of beat-driven, clinically produced electric dance music is evidence that many music consumers are increasingly seeing music as a commodity to be relied upon to soundtrack their physical lives--their parties or their fitness workouts--rather than something to connect with over time, on a deeper, more emotional level. And that is why I worry a bit for the likes of The Beatles, who--for the most part--were all about emotion and feeling.) ...But I was at it half an hour, writing that answer to @id1edreamer 's question, and couldn't really be arsed spending any longer honing my thoughts (what's the point, when I've no concrete evidence to support any hypotheses I make, anyway?), so I just clicked post with that point on The Beatles ending somewhat abruptly. I really don't think we have anything to worry about. There's a lot of mindless pop now just as there was in the 60's, but there's a lot of deeply thoughtful artists who are immensely popular too - most notably, Kendrick Lamar. I'd argue To Pimp a Butterfly is a more lyrically layered, socially meaningful, and musically difficult album than pretty much any Beatles one. It's mainly comprised of jazz, soul, and hip-hop, it's well over an hour long, and it's easily one of the most popular albums of the decade. There does seem to be a trend in pop music right now to favour a vibe over a message (See the dominance of vibe-king Travis Scott), but perhaps that's an effect of the quite politicised mood of the past few years? I can't blame anyone for not wanting too many It's Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding) type tracks right now, it seems a lot more fun to throw on ASTROWORLD and sing along with that. Young people are voting more right now, and to be honest I'd rather we'd make our more thoughtful sides felt in the ballots than in the charts.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 27, 2018 13:10:05 GMT -5
Side-note: The first ten seconds of Lovely Rita are so fucking cool.
|
|
|
Post by durk on Nov 27, 2018 17:31:47 GMT -5
Thanks a lot, durk . Appreciate it, man. Always get a bit nervy sending off long posts like that, in case I just look like a tit who thinks he knows it all. I don't know how well I managed to get my point across about people in the future perhaps not being prepared to put the work in that's necessary with old records, and with acts as eclectic as The Beatles, if our attention spans continue to shorten, and people come to expect absolute instant gratification from their contemporary pop culture. (I personally believe that the worldwide popularity of beat-driven, clinically produced electric dance music is evidence that many music consumers are increasingly seeing music as a commodity to be relied upon to soundtrack their physical lives--their parties or their fitness workouts--rather than something to connect with over time, on a deeper, more emotional level. And that is why I worry a bit for the likes of The Beatles, who--for the most part--were all about emotion and feeling.) ...But I was at it half an hour, writing that answer to @id1edreamer 's question, and couldn't really be arsed spending any longer honing my thoughts (what's the point, when I've no concrete evidence to support any hypotheses I make, anyway?), so I just clicked post with that point on The Beatles ending somewhat abruptly. again- spot on
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Nov 28, 2018 14:40:58 GMT -5
Autotune to fix little imperfections is okay (and don't go all snobby, because more records than you are aware of have autotune on them), but I can't get behind the examples TheEscapist posted. Those 2 songs show me exactly what's wrong with autotune.
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Nov 28, 2018 14:59:02 GMT -5
Shit song is shit song, with or without autotune. Like those two songs would be any better without autotune...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 15:28:50 GMT -5
Talking about shit songs, there is that ultra mainstream song I hear everywhere with a singer sounding like a piss poor Bill Withers. Don't know the title but fuckin' horrible...
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 28, 2018 16:06:20 GMT -5
How Kanye and Cudi's autotune movement made them the most important artistic duo of the past decade:
|
|
|
Post by MONO on Nov 28, 2018 16:38:58 GMT -5
the most important artistic duo of the past decade The what? Lol Two artists releasing a collab album doesn't turn them into a duo. Seems more like a one off project. The most important artistic duo of the past decade are probably The Black Keys and before them The White Stripes.
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Nov 28, 2018 16:48:16 GMT -5
Talking about shit songs, there is that ultra mainstream song I hear everywhere with a singer sounding like a piss poor Bill Withers. Don't know the title but fuckin' horrible... I think I know which one you mean, but just to be sure: What does it go like? Do you know any words?
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 28, 2018 17:03:41 GMT -5
the most important artistic duo of the past decade The what? Lol Two artists releasing a collab album doesn't turn them into a duo. Seems more like a one off project. The most important artistic duo of the past decade are probably The Black Keys and before them The White Stripes. Cudi contributed a lot to 808s & Heartbreak, and Ye contributed a lot to Man on the Moon. They've done multiple iconic tracks and an iconic album together since then, but that video and my point is about the way they collaborated heavily from 2008-2009 to create the vulnerable, autotuned hip-hop sound that now dominates the charts. It was artistic, visionary, and incredibly influential - just like The Beatles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 17:16:27 GMT -5
Talking about shit songs, there is that ultra mainstream song I hear everywhere with a singer sounding like a piss poor Bill Withers. Don't know the title but fuckin' horrible... I think I know which one you mean, but just to be sure: What does it go like? Do you know any words? I think it says "Blame on me" at the end of the chorus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 17:59:01 GMT -5
On the White Album subject, I've listened to it today again for the -I don't count anymore- time and for me the masterpiece of the album is still Dear Prudence. It's one of the best Lennon (and even Beatles) tracks ever, and the way it keeps building and building until lhe last "won't you come out to play ?" and then finishes the same way it started with Lennon arpeggios. Gorgeous. I've posted my ranking of the album on an other forum a few days ago. I've moved some things towards the middle (it always depends on my mood) but the top 10 (and the worst 5 ) is pretty much always the same: 1. Dear Prudence 2. Julia 3. Happiness Is A Warm Gun 4. Back in the U.S.S.R. 5. Sexy Sadie 6. While My Guitar Gently Weeps 7. I'm So Tired 8. Cry Baby Cry 9. Blackbird 10. Yer Blues 11. Helter Skelter 12. Glass Onion 13. Revolution 1 14. Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey 15. Mother Nature's Son 16. Why Don't We Do It In The Road? 17. Martha My Dear 18. Long, Long, Long 19. Birthday 20. Piggies 21. Rocky Raccoon 22. I Will 23. Savoy Truffle 24. Honey Pie 25. Ob-La-Di-Ob-La-Da 26. Revolution 9 27. The Continuing Story of Bungallow Bill 28. Good Night 29. Don't Pass Me By 30. Wild Honey Pie
|
|
|
Post by mystoryisgory on Nov 28, 2018 21:24:15 GMT -5
I really don't see a difference between using Auto-Tune and other vocal effects. Does anyone seriously think that The Beatles wouldn't have used Auto-Tune in their songs for artistic effect in the same way that they didn't hesitate to double-track their voices or put vocals through a Leslie Speaker, had it been available in the 60s? Of course they would have. The Beatles were all about creating unnatural sounds in the studio, and I don't see why they would have shunned Auto-Tune yet embraced the cutting edge of vocal effects that were available then. Nor can I understand why people think that Auto-Tune is for talentless fucks or that it erases the emotion or distinctiveness of a vocal performance. Auto-Tune, in fact, can be used to convey a wide range of emotions. Listen to Daft Punk's One More Time or Bon Iver's 715 - CR∑∑KS. It's because of the Auto-Tune that the happiness with a slight veil of sorrow of the former and the demented helplessness of the latter work. Auto-Tune is every bit as expressive and versatile as an electric guitar or synthesizer, and should be embraced as another instrument. And like every other instrument, it can be used in terrible ways that grate on your ears or absolutely brilliant ways that make songs masterpieces.
People shouldn't shun Auto-Tune because of concerns about "authenticity" and the like. Such complaints are all too reminiscent of those made about electric guitars and synthesizers when they were first invented and used in pop music. Just like its forerunners, whether you like Auto-Tune or not, it's here to stay!
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Nov 28, 2018 21:56:31 GMT -5
I really don't see a difference between using Auto-Tune and other vocal effects. Does anyone seriously think that The Beatles wouldn't have used Auto-Tune in their songs for artistic effect in the same way that they didn't hesitate to double-track their voices or put vocals through a Leslie Speaker, had it been available in the 60s? Of course they would have. The Beatles were all about creating unnatural sounds in the studio, and I don't see why they would have shunned Auto-Tune yet embraced the cutting edge of vocal effects that were available then. Nor can I understand why people think that Auto-Tune is for talentless fucks or that it erases the emotion or distinctiveness of a vocal performance. Auto-Tune, in fact, can be used to convey a wide range of emotions. Listen to Daft Punk's One More Time or Bon Iver's 715 - CR∑∑KS. It's because of the Auto-Tune that the happiness with a slight veil of sorrow of the former and the demented helplessness of the latter work. Auto-Tune is every bit as expressive and versatile as an electric guitar or synthesizer, and should be embraced as another instrument. And like every other instrument, it can be used in terrible ways that grate on your ears or absolutely brilliant ways that make songs masterpieces. People shouldn't shun Auto-Tune because of concerns about "authenticity" and the like. Such complaints are all too reminiscent of those made about electric guitars and synthesizers when they were first invented and used in pop music. Just like its forerunners, whether you like Auto-Tune or not, it's here to stay! Whatever auto tune they used for DBTT Oasis should get their money back because Liam doesn’t sound too hot on a handful of tracks.
|
|
|
Post by madferitusa2025 on Nov 28, 2018 22:20:10 GMT -5
I really don't see a difference between using Auto-Tune and other vocal effects. Does anyone seriously think that The Beatles wouldn't have used Auto-Tune in their songs for artistic effect in the same way that they didn't hesitate to double-track their voices or put vocals through a Leslie Speaker, had it been available in the 60s? Of course they would have. The Beatles were all about creating unnatural sounds in the studio, and I don't see why they would have shunned Auto-Tune yet embraced the cutting edge of vocal effects that were available then. Nor can I understand why people think that Auto-Tune is for talentless fucks or that it erases the emotion or distinctiveness of a vocal performance. Auto-Tune, in fact, can be used to convey a wide range of emotions. Listen to Daft Punk's One More Time or Bon Iver's 715 - CR∑∑KS. It's because of the Auto-Tune that the happiness with a slight veil of sorrow of the former and the demented helplessness of the latter work. Auto-Tune is every bit as expressive and versatile as an electric guitar or synthesizer, and should be embraced as another instrument. And like every other instrument, it can be used in terrible ways that grate on your ears or absolutely brilliant ways that make songs masterpieces. People shouldn't shun Auto-Tune because of concerns about "authenticity" and the like. Such complaints are all too reminiscent of those made about electric guitars and synthesizers when they were first invented and used in pop music. Just like its forerunners, whether you like Auto-Tune or not, it's here to stay! I'm sure they would have played with it. Maybe even used it on a couple of tracks. They did prefer to use those beautiful voices though. They had it, and they knew it. Beatles would not be havin' T-Pain It is here to stay though. Like anything else, use in moderation.
|
|
|
Post by MONO on Nov 29, 2018 3:03:45 GMT -5
Cudi contributed a lot to 808s & Heartbreak, and Ye contributed a lot to Man on the Moon. They've done multiple iconic tracks and an iconic album together since then, but that video and my point is about the way they collaborated heavily from 2008-2009 to create the vulnerable, autotuned hip-hop sound that now dominates the charts. It was artistic, visionary, and incredibly influential - just like The Beatles. You may like their music, but they are not a duo and they're definitely not comparable to the Beatles. The Beatles are in a league of their own (just like Elvis). Todays music scene is simply too fragmented to allow anybody to reach what the Beatles have achieved back in the days. And yes, that includes Oasis.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 29, 2018 10:05:26 GMT -5
Cudi contributed a lot to 808s & Heartbreak, and Ye contributed a lot to Man on the Moon. They've done multiple iconic tracks and an iconic album together since then, but that video and my point is about the way they collaborated heavily from 2008-2009 to create the vulnerable, autotuned hip-hop sound that now dominates the charts. It was artistic, visionary, and incredibly influential - just like The Beatles. You may like their music, but they are not a duo and they're definitely not comparable to the Beatles. The Beatles are in a league of their own (just like Elvis). Todays music scene is simply too fragmented to allow anybody to reach what the Beatles have achieved back in the days. And yes, that includes Oasis. Tonnes of acts over the years are comparable to The Beatles; comparable does not mean equal to. What Ye and Cudi did as an artistic force between 2008/9 is absolutely reminiscent of the way that The Beatles would take pre-existing technology and rethink how it was incorporated into pop music forever. Great art is great art, no matter when and where it comes from.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 29, 2018 10:09:20 GMT -5
I think you need to distinguish between auto-tune as voice correction and auto-tune as an artistic effect. Would The Beatles have used it to correct their vocals? Every now and then, sure, everybody does. Would they have used it in the way Cudi (a great singer without any effects) does? Absolutely. Lennon would have been absolutely all over it and most likely would have took pleasure in the outrage from the same people who thought rock 'n' roll was stupid and dumbed-down music not ten years before.
|
|