Have you grown out of really listening to music?

[saluki]

Auto-tune was created as a tool to correct slight pitch variances in vocal tracks. A lot of today's pop recordings use it. When used correctly, you shouldn't notice it, and you don't. The CHER effect comes from over correcting, like they do when they turn speech into a kinda rap music.

Listen to live music and some singers are really bad at keeping their pitch steady, and you can't use auto tune live, so they always sound perfect on record.

I can spot autotune within a few seconds of listening to southing.

I wold love to hear some of these superstars try to sing a simple Schubert song live. THAT would be entertainment on a whole new level.

 

[Tawnos]

I can spot autotune within a few seconds of listening to southing.

I wold love to hear some of these superstars try to sing a simple Schubert song live. THAT would be entertainment on a whole new level.

Liar.

 

[saluki]

Liar.

I was a violin prodigy when I was young. I practiced 5-6 hours a day and participated in hundreds of recitals, masterclasses, and concerts.

There's nothing music related you know a tenth as well as I do.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Shots fired!
Action in this thread!!

I wold love to hear some of these superstars try to sing a simple Schubert song live. THAT would be entertainment on a whole new level.

As far away from my likings as all this stuff is, I'll just point out that T-Pain got crapped on for using auto-tune and he has a very nice/good voice. That's all I know about the whole subject, don't get your violin out, I surrender!

 

[Tawnos]

I was a violin prodigy when I was young. I practiced 5-6 hours a day and participated in hundreds of recitals, masterclasses, and concerts.

There's nothing music related you know a tenth as well as I do.

Good for you, but you're literally claiming to have an ability that no human being has. The Cher type of auto-tune, and whatever degrees of it, sure. Most of us can. Making an assumption that the pop song you're listening to used auto-tune, sure. Most of it uses it.

The type of auto-tune that poster was talking about? It's not humanly possible to distinguish the type of pitch variance as something that's been changed. We're typically talking about adjustments of a few cents. It's rarely changing something from one note to another, but rather tuning the note to perfection so it sits properly within the harmony of the whole. It's considered necessary for the polished feel that pop music is usually going for.

I think it's worth mentioning that my job for 12 years was literally to discuss this kind of stuff with producers and engineers. While I don't know as much as them, or as you most likely, I'm no neophyte.

 

[peate]

I was a violin prodigy when I was young. I practiced 5-6 hours a day and participated in hundreds of recitals, masterclasses, and concerts.

There's nothing music related you know a tenth as well as I do.

I wish I knew more about the theory aspect like reading and playing at the same time, but I've got near perfect pitch and can pick out the chords in pretty much anything. I also played in different styled bands and not a bad singer and accompanist. That makes me a credible music critic to some degree. I'm always looking for something new and exciting.

 

[saluki]

When identifying autotune its not the notes themselves that give it away.

It's the type of connection between the notes. A non autotuned voice has a different type of connection - a more mechanical one, less natural. It's not hard to hear.

 

[Tawnos]

And now I know you don’t know what you’re talking about, since the type of auto-tune we’re discussing is specifically designed to preserve those connections.

 

[Shareefruck]

I'm a little weary and skeptical of the whole "knowledgeable musicians have superior opinions that make them more of an authority" assumption, personally. Wouldn't a musician with different goals and pre-occupations than a listener just introduce a whole slew of other biases that skew their perception (for example, how technically impressive it is that someone is able to do something that they can or can't suddenly becomes so much more of the focus than it probably should)? It often seems like artists are rarely the best judges of other artists.

Could be wrong, though, and it is a fascinating perspective regardless, I guess. But for example, I would probably value and think more highly of someone like Kihei's opinion on movies over some actual brilliant film-maker's opinions on movies, personally.

 

[Tawnos]

I'm a little weary and skeptical of the whole "knowledgeable musicians have superior opinions that make them more of an authority" assumption, personally. Wouldn't a musician with different goals and pre-occupations than a listener just introduce a whole slew of other biases that skew their perception (for example, how technically impressive it is that someone is able to do something that they can or can't suddenly becomes so much more of the focus than it probably should)? It often seems like artists are rarely the best judges of other artists.

Could be wrong, though, and it is a fascinating perspective regardless, I guess. But for example, I would probably value and think more highly of someone like Kihei's opinion on movies over some actual brilliant film-maker's opinions on movies, personally.

A few responses here.

-There’s nothing wrong with bias when discussing something as subjective as quality of music. You weren’t saying that explicitly, but there was a negative implication behind what you did say, so I thought I’d mention it.
-It’s probably better to value non-musicians and musicians opinions differently, rather than putting one over the other.
-All this really depends on what’s being judged. If what you’re judging is just the work’s value as art, that’s one thing and certainly all opinions stand on roughly equal ground. Maybe someone with a wider listening experience has more weight than someone with less, but that’s about it. If you’re judging the technical merits, that’s another thing, and expertise of those technical merits plays a larger role. How something is done takes on a different aspect in that discussion.
-The degree to which we blend these things in our different viewpoints is entirely up to each of us. Personally, I’d say that a lot of the technical merits take a back seat to the artistic ones. Possibly because the entirety of the technical side is demystified for me, making the result more interesting than the process.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

A few responses here.

-There’s nothing wrong with bias when discussing something as subjective as quality of music. You weren’t saying that explicitly, but there was a negative implication behind what you did say, so I thought I’d mention it.
-It’s probably better to value non-musicians and musicians opinions differently, rather than putting one over the other.
-All this really depends on what’s being judged. If what you’re judging is just the work’s value as art, that’s one thing and certainly all opinions stand on roughly equal ground. Maybe someone with a wider listening experience has more weight than someone with less, but that’s about it. If you’re judging the technical merits, that’s another thing, and expertise of those technical merits plays a larger role. How something is done takes on a different aspect in that discussion.
-The degree to which we blend these things in our different viewpoints is entirely up to each of us. Personally, I’d say that a lot of the technical merits take a back seat to the artistic ones. Possibly because the entirety of the technical side is demystified for me, making the result more interesting than the process.

 

[Shareefruck]

A few responses here.

-There’s nothing wrong with bias when discussing something as subjective as quality of music. You weren’t saying that explicitly, but there was a negative implication behind what you did say, so I thought I’d mention it.
-It’s probably better to value non-musicians and musicians opinions differently, rather than putting one over the other.
-All this really depends on what’s being judged. If what you’re judging is just the work’s value as art, that’s one thing and certainly all opinions stand on roughly equal ground. Maybe someone with a wider listening experience has more weight than someone with less, but that’s about it. If you’re judging the technical merits, that’s another thing, and expertise of those technical merits plays a larger role. How something is done takes on a different aspect in that discussion.
-The degree to which we blend these things in our different viewpoints is entirely up to each of us. Personally, I’d say that a lot of the technical merits take a back seat to the artistic ones. Possibly because the entirety of the technical side is demystified for me, making the result more interesting than the process.

There's nothing wrong with bias, but differences that might result from them shouldn't necessarily be mistaken for point-proving authority, was more my point/contention (not that that's necessarily what they were going for in this case, but you do see that attitude a lot and I do assign something negative to THAT). But yeah, that has a lot to do with my perspective that I see more value in the artistic side than the technical side, and that having a wider listening experience is something that I'm more inclined to re-consider and re-evaluate my own views based on rather than having more technical expertise, so I'm really just sharing that view.

Personally, the idea that artistic sensibilities and effect can completely supercede technical impressiveness is a huge part of what makes art more interesting and worthwhile to me than other fields where technical expertise would give you more undeniable authority on what's good or bad (like the way I would obviously value a doctor's medical advice compared to someone who isn't a doctor).

 

[SirClintonPortis]

I can spot autotune within a few seconds of listening to southing.

I wold love to hear some of these superstars try to sing a simple Schubert song live. THAT would be entertainment on a whole new level.

I'll offer up Joanna Noelle Levesque and Mariah Carey to take that challenge any given day of the week.

 

[SirClintonPortis]

I wish I knew more about the theory aspect like reading and playing at the same time, but I've got near perfect pitch and can pick out the chords in pretty much anything. I also played in different styled bands and not a bad singer and accompanist. That makes me a credible music critic to some degree. I'm always looking for something new and exciting.

You've got more natural talent than I. Near perfect pitch? I'm about nearly tone deaf regarding pitch-wise. But such "blindness" can enhance my sense of understanding the "whole" of the work and especially, the soundscape unique to individual composers.

I'm pretty good at picking out the obvious rhythms though and thus can pick out discrepancies. I learned some piano as well, so I have some sense on how to perform music.

 

[Xelebes]

I was a violin prodigy when I was young. I practiced 5-6 hours a day and participated in hundreds of recitals, masterclasses, and concerts.

There's nothing music related you know a tenth as well as I do.

OH yeah. I'm a viola player. Come at me bro!

 

[SirClintonPortis]

I was a violin prodigy when I was young. I practiced 5-6 hours a day and participated in hundreds of recitals, masterclasses, and concerts.

There's nothing music related you know a tenth as well as I do.

Musical performers need not be capable in writing music to perform. While it is possible you can do everything like Mozart could, I doubt it, especially since classical training these days do not encourage the attitude that the music played can be non-finite and that the text need not be religiously adhered to if the performer can "make it work".

Spotting autotune as sole pitch correction and not as a deliberately used instrument is mainly about the the subtle changes in diction and timbre, where the diction is off and the notes can sound "tinny" if the correction is severe.

Since you were a prodigy, yes, you could have a better ear than most, but all that extra learning doesn't really help in picking out autotune.

 

[SirClintonPortis]

I'm a little weary and skeptical of the whole "knowledgeable musicians have superior opinions that make them more of an authority" assumption, personally. Wouldn't a musician with different goals and pre-occupations than a listener just introduce a whole slew of other biases that skew their perception (for example, how technically impressive it is that someone is able to do something that they can or can't suddenly becomes so much more of the focus than it probably should)? It often seems like artists are rarely the best judges of other artists.

Could be wrong, though, and it is a fascinating perspective regardless, I guess. But for example, I would probably value and think more highly of someone like Kihei's opinion on movies over some actual brilliant film-maker's opinions on movies, personally.

If there are poor opinions from musicians, it's normally regarding commercial enemies or styles that are revolting to the listener. I mean, I can tolerate nearly everything but Billie Eilish. Beethoven could appreciate Handel and Mozart but despised Rossini.

When a musician praises another for ability influence, integrates something from another into their own, or "covers" the others work in some way, all ears should be open though. Bach won over Mozart and he literally was inspired to work the contrapuntal techniques into the current musical language of his day, which had already changed from Bach's time.

 

[Shareefruck]

If there are poor opinions from musicians, it's normally regarding commercial enemies or styles that are revolting to the listener. I mean, I can tolerate nearly everything but Billie Eilish. Beethoven could appreciate Handel and Mozart but despised Rossini.

When a musician praises another for ability influence, integrates something from another into their own, or "covers" the others work in some way, all ears should be open though. Bach won over Mozart and he literally was inspired to work the contrapuntal techniques into the current musical language of his day, which had already changed from Bach's time.

Mmm... in the indirect sense that the merits of an artist's opinion has the advantage of being able to be personally tested and demonstrated through their own material (such that if you value the result then you have to appreciate the source to the degree that it borrowed from it), sure I guess I can agree with that (but then again, I suspect that less interesting ideas can also influence more interesting ideas, so I have some hesitation there). But the thought itself without that demonstration being more credible and more worth listening to than a dialed in listener's thought by virtue of them being a great artist, I'm not so sure about.

 

[NyQuil]

Unless you are a musician, there is always going to be a technical aspect of music that you will be unable to appreciate.

And that's fine, it applies to virtually any field of endeavour. Visual arts, architecture, medicine, sports, you name it.

But it does explain how some bands end up popular among musicians and yet don't have traction among non-musicians.

While it's certainly beating a dead horse, a lot of the support for Rush comes from the musician community. There's a lot about Rush that is easy to dislike, often Geddy's voice, some of the cheesier lyrics, but in terms of technical proficiency, there's a lot to appreciate and learn from.

As someone who has been much more actively playing music in a collaborative fashion over the last 5 years or so, and getting into steady gigging and performances with fellow musicians, how I listen to music has changed fundamentally from pure sonic appreciation into the mechanics of how I would perform the song with my band, what parts of the song would be more complex to interpret, how I would chart it for different instruments and voices.

There are songs that I thought were easy to pull off that were actually deceptively difficult and vice versa. After trying to write lyrics for some original material, I have a new appreciation for how difficult it can be to turn a phrase in a song, and I spend a lot more time listening to the words than before.

It's not better or more important IMO, it just adds another layer in terms of interacting with the artform. I can't turn it off, so it's just part of my filter at this stage.

 

[Unholy Diver]

For me it has been the opposite, I have always been into older music( I am in my early 40's) since that was what my dad listened to as I was growing up, the "oldies stations" I still don't care for much current music but I have come around to several bands that I did not care for previously such as The Moody Blues. I also started working from home in the fall so I get to listen to Sirius throughout my entire workday instead of just on a 30 minute commute so that has helped me broaden my horizons

 

[SirClintonPortis]

Unless you are a musician, there is always going to be a technical aspect of music that you will be unable to appreciate.

And that's fine, it applies to virtually any field of endeavour. Visual arts, architecture, medicine, sports, you name it.

But it does explain how some bands end up popular among musicians and yet don't have traction among non-musicians.

While it's certainly beating a dead horse, a lot of the support for Rush comes from the musician community. There's a lot about Rush that is easy to dislike, often Geddy's voice, some of the cheesier lyrics, but in terms of technical proficiency, there's a lot to appreciate and learn from.

As someone who has been much more actively playing music in a collaborative fashion over the last 5 years or so, and getting into steady gigging and performances with fellow musicians, how I listen to music has changed fundamentally from pure sonic appreciation into the mechanics of how I would perform the song with my band, what parts of the song would be more complex to interpret, how I would chart it for different instruments and voices.

There are songs that I thought were easy to pull off that were actually deceptively difficult and vice versa. After trying to write lyrics for some original material, I have a new appreciation for how difficult it can be to turn a phrase in a song, and I spend a lot more time listening to the words than before.

It's not better or more important IMO, it just adds another layer in terms of interacting with the artform. I can't turn it off, so it's just part of my filter at this stage.

In my listening "journey", I happened to devour 86 CDs of Beethoven's complete works released by Brilliant Classics.

One thing I learned is that arranging material also requires musical talent. The Op. 104 is a string quintet version of Beethoven's Op. 1 Piano Trio and its origins apparently begin with a Herr (Mr.) Kaufmann attempting to arrange the work, Beethoven saw the version by this author, and proceeded to make his own because that other version sucked and he then burned the "bad" arrangement.

String Quintet in C minor, Op 104 - Hyperion Records - CDs, MP3 and Lossless downloads

The need for arrangement was prevalent even then, as major works like symphonies were popular but it wasn't feasible to bring a full orchestra into a house for a family to play, and so reductions in many forms exist. I personally prefer Beethoven's reduced piano trio version of his Symphony No.2 to his original.

 

[Lshap]

Since you were a prodigy, yes, you could have a better ear than most, but all that extra learning doesn't really help in picking out autotune.

True. Hearing nuances within music is a separate skill from hearing technical nuances within music production.

how I listen to music has changed fundamentally from pure sonic appreciation into the mechanics of how I would perform the song with my band, what parts of the song would be more complex to interpret, how I would chart it for different instruments and voices.

One thing I learned is that arranging material also requires musical talent.

I've worked with some amazing orchestral arrangers. It's pretty intimidating when you see the long sheets of notation for each instrument. One layer on top of another on top of another, all working together to complement the main musical themes. It's freakin complex -- you need to be fluent in the notes and limits within each set of instruments -- and makes you appreciate how much of arranging is, in fact, songwriting.

What I find fun and very cool is the opposite -- the DE-constructing of a complex arrangement into a simpler form. Extracting the essence of a song so that it works in a two/three-person acoustic performance requires less technical training, but it takes considerable intuitive skill to make it groove. There was a thread on this board about scaled-down acoustic performances of popular songs which I ate up. I love that stuff.

 

[NyQuil]

What I find fun and very cool is the opposite -- the DE-constructing of a complex arrangement into a simpler form. Extracting the essence of a song so that it works in a two/three-person acoustic performance requires less technical training, but it takes considerable intuitive skill to make it groove. There was a thread on this board about scaled-down acoustic performances of popular songs which I ate up. I love that stuff.

My current group is split by geography, so half the time we play as a duo and half the time as a four-piece.

So it's interesting to develop two different versions of most of our material.

Typically we try not to emulate the actual song too closely (our instrument make-up is usually different anyway) so as to avoid direct comparison which usually isn't flattering.

 

[Lshap]

My current group is split by geography, so half the time we play as a duo and half the time as a four-piece.

So it's interesting to develop two different versions of most of our material.

Typically we try not to emulate the actual song too closely (our instrument make-up is usually different anyway) so as to avoid direct comparison which usually isn't flattering.

That sounds like a lot of fun. Having two configurations tackling the same music is great training for how to fill space and leave space. In fact, leaving space is one of the most valuable lessons most bands can learn. Put a bunch of guys together and most inevitably overplay their instruments. I've gotta find that acoustic thread -- some great examples of how to translate a full band into two acoustic guitars without losing the flavour.

 

[peate]

In a way music is a lot like painting. You start with an empty canvas and slowly fill it in. Silence (space) in music is like black in painting; without it, there is no light.