Jump to content

Talk:Auto-Tune: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Stimpy77 (talk | contribs)
89 edits
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Reqmusic}}
{{Reqmusic}}

== Melodyne ==

Why is there no mention of Melodyne? Meloyne has been used heavily in the industry not just for auto-tune but also for tone-accurate pitch shifting (without causing chipmonks or the like) and it was my understanding that it played a prominent role in the industry for years. [[User:Stimpy77|Jon]] ([[User talk:Stimpy77|talk]]) 01:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


== Futility ==
== Futility ==

Revision as of 01:18, 30 July 2009


Melodyne

Why is there no mention of Melodyne? Meloyne has been used heavily in the industry not just for auto-tune but also for tone-accurate pitch shifting (without causing chipmonks or the like) and it was my understanding that it played a prominent role in the industry for years. Jon (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Futility

Um, how is Auto-Tune when used as a vocal effect terribly different than a regular vocoder? It seems futile to argue so much about this...T-Pain is hardly the first person to rock a vocoder. Check out Tommy Shaw's vocoder work on the Styx songs The Best of Times (1980) and Mr. Roboto (1983). Also, I remember from 1996 the video to Tupac Shakur's "California Love" where a man riding in a helicopter is seen using a vocoder to make the effect that T-Pain has tried to claim as his own. 65.248.164.99 (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad James

As an artist who uses the effect and as a producer the "Cher effect" is one in the same with Anteres Auto_Tune. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.39.242 (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

It seems pretty clear that the second paragraph violates the NPOV policy. I removed "Many feel that this approach devalues real musical talent. Some liken it to computer spell-checking. Others know rightfully that it is an absolute evil, causing almost all a capella CDs for modern groups to sound inhuman and much worse. No musician with any hint of talent should have to use it as it is much like using a metronome on stage. It brings the world no see-able good.".
Most of this article ought to be nuked, actually, as it's about 'pitch correction' as opposed to Antares's 'Auto-Tune' which is what I assume it was supposed to be about in the first place.
Jimduchek 06:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen! This freaking article drives me insane, most if not all of the listed artists use a VOCODER to produce the effect that has been erroneously attributed to Antares' Auto-Tune. There is no discussion about envelope-followers or any real technical aspects of what the algorithm is doing, just the further perpetuation of the myth that the "Cher effect" was done with Auto-Tune. Eli lilly 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Most artists use vocoders, and if you've ever actually used auto-tune, which I'm most certain you all have, you'd know that it gets a distinctly different sound. This page needs to be rewritten using more than just a small number of examples to claim that Auto-Tune can be used in place of vocoders, especially in techno or electro production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.145.224 (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability and sources

Please don't add a performer to this article unless you can provide a reliable source proving that the performer uses Auto-Tune. FreplySpang (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence

People are just adding names of people who they 'assume' use Auto-Tune. There is no evidence whatsoever.yo

Word, Auto-Tune gives you pitch correction alone, not that robotic type voice that most of the mentioned artists use. There's a video on youtube of a guy using an actual rack mount vocoder (I think it was called a helicon or something like that), and it sounds much more like the effect that T-pain and other artists use. Auto-tune is just a cheap way of achieving a somewhat similar effect. Here's the video with the real thing being used: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpu6C70WROM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.59.47 (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is indicated that Auto-Tune was available by Antares as early as 1997. Why is there no mention of Mac OS 8.6 or 9.2? Mac OS X was not made available until late in 1999, and even then the audio engine was not working properly as all programs by digidesign, e-magic (now owned by Apple), and steinberg did not support OS X until the fall of 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.3.41 (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cher?

Regarding Cher's Song Believe - I believe this used a Vocoder, and not Autotune. If someone can verify this with a source, then her name and song should be removed from the article —This unsigned comment was added by 172.209.119.176 (talk • contribs) .

What's the difference? —Keenan Pepper 00:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. It was Auto-Tune (you can also read it its manual... if you set it to full strenght you get the infamous Cher's effect). What really puzzles me is the fact that "Freak Like Me" is quoted here - it has NO trace of Auto-Tune in it, why was it added here? MoLo 10:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, AutoTune wasn't used to achieve the effect in Cher's "Believe." The engineers who worked on it describe their process here: [[1]]. That said, AutoTune can be used to achieve similar effects, and the current language in the article doesn't exactly imply that AutoTune was used on that track, although it's probably furthering a popular misconception, so maybe it ought to be changed. 158.223.26.22 16:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is insane. It doesn't really describe what autotune does, only comparing it to an effect found in a bunch of tracks that all seem to have actually been effected via vocoder, when the two don't really work or sound the same. I intend to remove those references and to try to rework the article citing verifiable references only. Eli lilly 02:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it has a nice photo, however, doesn't it? Re: Cher, while those effects may not have been achieved via Auto-Tune, most of those who have subsequently used the effect have used Auto-Tune, set, as the article describes, to rather extreme parameters. Other than perhaps garage bands, no commercially meaningful (even in the Indie sense) band has ever used Vocoder to achieve the "Cher" effect. Other effects, even similar ones, surely, but not exactly that one. And plenty of bands have used that same effect. This comes from my brother-in-law, who is a drummer and producer, and whose knowledge of the music industry is impressive.
At least CMX, one of Finland's most popular bands, has used a vocoder to replicate the "Cher effect" on the second track of Aion, their 2003 album. The source for this is the band's own Q&A page [2]. (Ironically, the band falsely claims in their answer that Cher used Auto-tune in the making of "Believe".) Kaivosukeltaja 09:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's now a note added to the article that 158.223.26.22 linked to. It claims that Auto-tune was in fact used to create the effect in Cher's "Believe.", and that the producers deliberately spread misinformation in order to keep the technique they used a secret. - makomk 14:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hellogoodbye

Removed the following:

"The somewhat robotic vocal effect can also be found in the song "Bonnie Taylor Shakedown... 2K4", from the Californian power-pop four, Hellogoodbye's self titled EP. It can also be noticably heard on the tracks "All Of Your Love", "Here (In Your Arms)", "All Time Lows", "I Saw It On Your Keyboard" and "Touchdown Turnaround" from their debut album "Zombies! Aliens! Vampires! Dinosaurs!"."

It's a long section about a comparatively obscure band. The other more well known songs mentioned (far more briefly) in the paragraph are sufficiently illustrative of the effect, IMHO.

T-Pain??!

T-Pain's not listed on here. What's up with that? He's the Auto-Tune King! Seriously, most of his songs are used with this thing.

That's very doubtful, you are probably confusing Auto Tune with a vocoder. This entire article does. Eli lilly 15:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just heard T-Pain saying on the radio that it is AutoTune he is using. He popularized its use and he said that Kanye West met with him to find out how to use AutoTune better, and Kanye started using it on a lot of his new songs, etc. Personally, I'm getting tired of AutoTune being used on all these songs. A is putting the smack down (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

This is just sad. If I couldn't sing I wouldn't want a machine to do it for me. I can't believe they market this to actual musicians! It's insulting. If people didn't use it, those with true talent would rise.

SwedishConqueror 00:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror[reply]

You could say the same thing about reverb (or any other effect, really) and this thing is marketed to studios, not musicians. It's just another tool. Studios don't just record top-name acts, a lot of amateurs come in as well. Maybe a tiny bit of correction on that one blown note will make the demo sound just a little better, perhaps giving a young artist enough pride and satisfaction to continue practicing and working with their vocal coach. Eli lilly 16:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No its so people who cant sing but look pleasant can get famous!123.255.55.52 17:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, No, if you had ever used autotune you would know you actually DO have to be able to sing, atleast at a basic level, to make it sound good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.59.47 (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split

I suggest there should be a separate article for the "auto-tune effect", a.k.a "the cher effect". A more general name for it independent of song, or program used to create it would be the "electronic voice effect" (a phrase used in the article) or the "tonal mangling effect". Such an article could then list all the recordings that use the effect. This article is not a good place for that list, because this article is about the Auto-Tune program, not the effect. Egriffin (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further investigation reveals the article Cher effect redirects here. I suggest it should be a separate article. I'm adding the Split-apart template to the article. I don't know what Wikipedia's policy is on writing articles about something without an official name. Egriffin 15:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No replies, so I did it anyway. See my efforts at the article Cher effect. Egriffin (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Autotune4.jpg

Image:Autotune4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I saw the earlier discussion, which appeared to be a merge proposal with pitch correction vs. Auto-Tune. I believe that the Auto-Tune article has sufficient information regarding the use of the technology in ways other than the original intent. A section describing the popularity of this technique following Cher's "Believe" would be adequate to replace a full article. Especially when the full article includes unreferenced lists of songs. -- TRTX T / C 15:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

auto tune the news

i was just checking out the "auto tune the news" thing being done by some guy in Brooklyn. one of the videos has over a million hits on youtube and Time magazine has done a write up of it. Might be worth mentioning here. Basically he is using auto tune to create R&B type songs from popular news segments. I think i read somewhere the BarelyPolitical picked him up to do something for them in the same style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.131.22 (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything holding you back from adding that bit. Time magazine is a good source. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linux?

Why is Auto Tune marked as running under linux? The website makes no mention of this and I can't find anything enlightening on the web. -- Chaosite (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akon, Ron Browz

Somebody keeps putting Akon and Ron Browz into the article, but the reference right there doesn't mention them. Snoop Dogg is mentioned, but has been removed by whoever wants Akon in. I think a reference is required for each artist in the article, including Eiffel 65. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Auto-Tune&oldid=304987891"