X-Factor Auto-Tune scandal (maybe others too)

[Dave]

Hi everyone,

Auto-Tune is something that has angered me for years. It is a computer technology that can be used to automatically or manually correct any or all out of tune notes sung by singers (usually those who cannot sing in tune!). Even though it sometimes produces an odd sound (the Miley Cyrus sound, for example), it's usually hard to convince most people that their favourite singers' voices can be and often are faked - but it happens all the time on CDs.

Well now, we know for certain that it happens on TV talent shows too - even "live" broadcasts - so beware - what you hear may not be what they sang.

There has been massive Internet and Twitter discussion about Saturday's first UK X-Factor broadcast of the new series because the use of Auto-Tune to enhance some singers' voices and make others' voices sound worse was blatantly obvious to some people who understand these things.

Well now, the story has broken in the newspapers and other mainstream media so I'll link to the Daily Mirror story today www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2010/08/24/x-factor-auto-tune-scandal-deepens-amidst-claims-performances-were-altered-during-live-finals-115875-22509159/ and quote an excerpt from it:

X Factor is supposed to be a fair talent contest where aspiring singers compete to become stars with the help of TV viewers.

But a Mirror probe today reveals both contestants and fans are apparently being cheated on a surprisingly wide scale by producers tampering with Auto-Tune to alter performances.

In a scandal that has rocked Britain’s favourite show, new claims have emerged singers’ voices were doctored to improve their appearances on the ITV1 show including the live finals.

Other performers are said to have been cruelly edited by technicians in the auditions to make them sound even more out of tune.

X Factor bosses have already admitted using the audio wizardry to alter performances in Saturday’s show.

But fresh allegations the TV trickery was more widespread than first thought is overshadowing the show’s opening weekend ratings of 11 million viewers and casting doubts over its integrity.

Forum comments I've read from sound engineers confirm that it's even possible to Auto-Tune voices singing "live" and that X-Factor has the necessary equipment to do this. And of course, it can be and is used to remove the advantage that the few singers like Hayley have, their ability to sing always in tune. It is also in my opinion cheating in exactly the same way as athletes who take drugs.

I am absolutely certain that X-Factor is not the only TV show and talent show to use this technology so beware, what you hear may not be what they sang. This kind of thing just makes me angry.

Rant over.

Dave

[nicola]

As I have always said - X-Factor is not a talent contest.

This doesn't shock me in the slightest.

[Richard]

Hello folks!

As I've said before, anything connected with Simon Cowell is total rubbish!

Richard

[nicola]

Ooh, I wouldn't go that far, Richard! I remember when I went to the Classic Response concert this year and with a jolt, I realised that about four of the artists there were Cowell/reality related. He's put crossover to the mainstream, with G4, Rhydian, Paul Potts, Il Divo, Escala, Faryl, Andrew Johnston, Angelis, Jackie Evancho, Grace Bawden and so on. All of that exposure allows artists like Hayley, Katherine, All Angels to continue having a chance with major record companies. True, the albums he has these artists record are repetitive rubbish (Jackie, Grace and Faryl never recorded with him, though) but it's enough to make such artists popular and give them a market.

But I rather dislike Simon Cowell, too. He is a businessman, not a musician.

[Dave]

BBC website has three examples of auto-tuning from the show, with an explanation.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11056050

The sad thing is that Gamu is in fact a very good singer, I've heard her sing 'live and raw' in other concerts (she's on YT) and she doesn't need auto-tuning. If this scandal doesn't go away quickly, it could wreck her chances.

And it will make many people suspicious of every other TV talent show in recent years, their competitors and winners. The necessary equipment has been out there for a while for any show that wishes to use it.

Dave

[stevemacdonald]

I don't think a singer should be disqualified because of auto-tune any more than an opera singer should be attacked for using a microphone. Technology marches on and if it helps perfect a musical performance, where's the harm? In fact, some of the very best vocalists are now embracing auto-tune for its artistic effects. For example, Lady Gaga has a well-trained, naturally pitch-perfect voice but she creatively distorts it in certain songs with auto-tune. Audiences appreciate the irony of great singers resorting to the tech. And to my discerning ear, even Hayley has benefitted from studio tricks along the way. Her voice is distinctly different in songs such as "Heaven" and "Across the Universe of Time" in that one can hear filtering and subtle echo effects. The best music producers can keep their manipulation well hidden, but don't be naive that it doesn't happen.

And by the way, at least 10 percent of my words would be mangled if not for spell-check, so I sympathize with anyone who makes good use of an excellent computer assistance factor.

[nicola]

Steve, whilst I'd normally agree with you, it is entirely inappropriate on a talent search which is solely supposed to be based on singer's ability.

Not that it really is. Hence why this happens.

[Dave]

Aug 24, 2010 13:55:12 GMT stevemacdonald said:

Technology marches on and if it helps perfect a musical performance, where's the harm? In fact, some of the very best vocalists are now embracing auto-tune for its artistic effects.

Audiences are asked to vote not on a studio production but on a singer's ability to sing 'live' and well - an important part of which is their ability to sing in tune. If they all sound equally and exactly in tune, the audience is going to end up judging them on other things and even less on their vocal abilities than they already do.

I have no problem with productions like Cher's "Believe" which uses auto-tune technology overtly to produce interesting effects.

Aug 24, 2010 14:55:44 GMT nicola said:

Steve, whilst I'd normally agree with you, it is entirely inappropriate on a talent search which is solely supposed to be based on singer's ability.

Yes indeed Nicola, that's the point.

Dave

[stevemacdonald]

Aug 24, 2010 14:55:44 GMT nicola said:

Steve, whilst I'd normally agree with you, it is entirely inappropriate on a talent search which is solely supposed to be based on singer's ability. ...

Nicola, having good pitch control on a talent show will win you some votes, but I think the primary consideration is the ability to deliver an effectively entertaining performance. Overall expression matters most, and I'm not opposed to anyone harnessing technology if it serves that end. Artistry will shine through, no matter what. Personally, I'd hate to see a false note ruin the chances of someone with a wonderful song in their heart and the desire to put it across beautifully. Luckily, we have a cure for such imperfections and I say take it.

[nicola]

So you'd have someone like, Jedward, for example, have their voices corrected, so their quality of vocals are as good as, let's say, Hayley's, and you think Jedward would then win the vote fair and square because they were more 'entertaining'?

It's a con on the audience. The audience pay for their votes. The dishonesty is just not on.

[stevemacdonald]

Aug 24, 2010 18:39:02 GMT nicola said:

So you'd have someone like, Jedward, for example, have their voices corrected, so their quality of vocals are as good as, let's say, Hayley's, and you think Jedward would then win the vote fair and square because they were more 'entertaining'?...

That depends, even though we're comparing apples and oranges. If removing the distraction of faulty tone works to make someone more enjoyable, then maybe that's no worse than sweetening a voice like Hayley's by giving it the right microphone and plush accompaniment. In the end it's about what sells and all singers are more salable when fortified by the technology. Hayley obviously doesn't need artifice, but her appeal might extend farther if she did trick up her vocals for the mass market. I guarantee you she would be a major sensation in the Pop arena if she took that plunge.

[nicola]

You still miss the point, Steve. It's a singing contest. People may well vote for different reasons, but there's a group of people that vote according to who has the most vocal ability. I know if I voted, that's what I'd do. It's a competitive environment with the whole nation dipping into their pockets according to what they believe they are hearing. You don't think there's anything wrong with this?

I'm all for this technology to be used in various ways, but the singing competition is not the place.

[Dave]

Aug 24, 2010 19:30:51 GMT stevemacdonald said:

If removing the distraction of faulty tone works to make someone more enjoyable, then maybe that's no worse than sweetening a voice like Hayley's by giving it the right microphone and plush accompaniment. In the end it's about what sells and all singers are more salable when fortified by the technology.

Steve, you seem to be saying that the ability to sing in tune is no longer an important aspect of being a good singer. That's seems to be a a strange thing to say for for a fan of someone like Hayley, one of whose main attributes is her ability to sing 'live' and in tune.

We are talking about 'live' performances here, and the use of technology to fool audiences into believing they are getting something they are not. Its use in CD production is a different debate altogether, as is the use of microphones in general.

Dave

[stevemacdonald]

Nicola, I fully understood your point but I wanted to contrast it with my own, which is that it shouldn't really matter whether they cheat on their live vocals since they will cheat anyway when they sell their recordings.

Dave, I doubt that anyone is "fooled" by auto-tune, since its signature is so unmistakable. What I think is going on is that its use is more brazen than ever and no one's apologizing for it. Indeed, it's become a question of how much finesse is involved. It's much trickier to do live, and some credit must go to those who successfully pull it off.

[nicola]

But performing live and recording in the studio are two completely different dynamics. If I pay to see someone live, I expect to hear them live. They should have the talent to sing without the gadgets; that's what they get handsomely paid for and why they get such recognition.

I know there are artists that mime/cheat when they sing live, but they aren't the type of artists I go to see.

Dave, I doubt that anyone is "fooled" by auto-tune, since its signature is so unmistakable

Of course people are fooled. The masses trust what they've been told. People that know anything about music may spot it, but don't expect every Tom, Dick and Harry to notice.