That statement is true by itself ofc. However, my point still stands because there have never been more artists using purposefully misadjusted autotune than today and there are even genres now in which it is mandatory.
Plus vocal correction in general has been done for ages, it was just much more labour intensive before autotune.
How is that relevant to my comment? Sure, vocal correction is what Autotune was initially developed for but as we all can hear that is not what they do with it nowadays, instead they purposefully misadjust it to create the most unnatural vocal sound possible …
Issue: “I don’t like music where autotune is used to heavily modify the singers voice.”
No, that is not my issue. What I am unhappy about is that genres I started to listen to when there was zero autotune abuse (and which I loved very much), have been ruined for me because now 80% of the releases have Autotune robot vocals.
Investigation:
There are artists which do not use this type of effect in their music.
What to do:
You can listen to music which does not incorporate this type of sound.
Examples of other sounds you may avoid if you do not like them:
Screaming, the tuba, Ed Sheeran, etc.
Nope, there are many details that define the style of an artist or a genre, if they use Autotune is only one of those. I am certainly not going to listen to artists and genres I do not like, just because they use their natural voice.
Not sure what you mean to imply, please elaborate. All I know is that:
Antares Autotune was first released in 1997, before that there was no Autotune, so it was definitely not used before that. The intended use was to inconspicuously correct small mistakes, when singers would not hit the exact note, in a way that listeners would NOT notice if the plugin was adjusted correctly.
One year later, Cher made purposefully misadjusted autotune famous with the song Believe
Yes it was, because you could hear the singers/rappers actual voice, instead of purposefully misadjusted autotune.
There’s a lot of artists today who don’t do that?
Plus vocal correction in general has been done for ages, it was just much more labour intensive before autotune.
That statement is true by itself ofc. However, my point still stands because there have never been more artists using purposefully misadjusted autotune than today and there are even genres now in which it is mandatory.
How is that relevant to my comment? Sure, vocal correction is what Autotune was initially developed for but as we all can hear that is not what they do with it nowadays, instead they purposefully misadjust it to create the most unnatural vocal sound possible …
Issue: “I don’t like music where autotune is used to heavily modify the singers voice.”
Investigation:
There are artists which do not use this type of effect in their music.
What to do:
You can listen to music which does not incorporate this type of sound.
Examples of other sounds you may avoid if you do not like them:
Screaming, the tuba, Ed Sheeran, etc.
No, that is not my issue. What I am unhappy about is that genres I started to listen to when there was zero autotune abuse (and which I loved very much), have been ruined for me because now 80% of the releases have Autotune robot vocals.
Nope, there are many details that define the style of an artist or a genre, if they use Autotune is only one of those. I am certainly not going to listen to artists and genres I do not like, just because they use their natural voice.
Cher used auto tune a lot and most of her career was in the 70’s.
Not sure what you mean to imply, please elaborate. All I know is that:
Antares Autotune was first released in 1997, before that there was no Autotune, so it was definitely not used before that. The intended use was to inconspicuously correct small mistakes, when singers would not hit the exact note, in a way that listeners would NOT notice if the plugin was adjusted correctly.
One year later, Cher made purposefully misadjusted autotune famous with the song Believe
You could be a bad singer before Auto tune and still have a career.
Sure, why not.