You consider auto-tune cheating? How wide spread do you think?

[borjam]

It can be fine to correct some minor mistakes. If you abuse, of course, the music will sound too perfect and will become boring.

I am the sound guy at a jazz club and I remember I have told some musicians that their records were a bit boring while their performances were briliant. The problem? Many musicians (maybe this affecs especially jazz musicians) are somewhat scared of the "final" nature of a recording. Once it's been recorded it's set on stone and you will be judged by it.

I remember a great Spanish trumpet player with awesome improvisation skills. Just playing in a trio he is amazing (I have had him on stage several times). When he released his first record he had added more instruments and it was just too elaborate to the point of sounding "wimpy". The same guy on stage can be pretty wild improvising.

I suggested him to just record a live concert and release it the next time. Even with the typical concert recording problems (a cough or two, glassware sounds in small venue recordings, etc) live recordings are great.

And it can be worse. I've been told that some well known classical music performers take obsession to the extreme, demanding editing to the individual bar level. Insane!

It's a pity not all concerts are recorded. I remember a really wild concert with The Fringe. I asked them for permission to record (I always do of course!). They didn't want it because of a rights problem, so I didn't. After the concert, which was insanely wild and awesome (one of the very best concerts in my life) apart from the fact that even with a minimal intervention policy I was really spent (lots of very subtle corrections!) they asked me "hey, how did the recording turn out?" and of course I hadn't done it because they didn't give me permission.

So, well, next time!

[coppice]

It's pretty crazy what they can do these days. Not auto-tune but probably very similar in practice.

Not that similar. Melodyne is a really amazing piece of software. Its far more sophisticated than auto tune. You can play a bum note in a chord on a guitar, let melodyne break down the individual notes of the chord, fix the one bum note, and end up with something super smooth and natural sounding.

[CJay]

I also think lots of the music from the 60s, 70s and 80s was really bad. I've been listening to lots of it recently and have come to the conclusion that older people think it was better, because it's what they grew up with.

And so the wheel turns, it's always been that way, nostalgia for an imagined past influences so many people to believe it was 'better in my day' and it will continue to be so, despite what the majority of people would like to think of themselves.

Most of the legendary music from the 60s and 70s was technically dreadful, the Beatles in my opinion are a great example of right image, right time, right place, the music itself could be argued to have been only a contributor to their success, they managed, with Epstein's help, to be one of the biggest groups ever, but if you take a critical stare at their music you can shred it, it's still selling though, fifty years later?

Conversely, a lot of the synth pop is technically perfect, computers made it so the beat was exact, the notes were pitch perfect etc. but it sounds 'wrong' because we as humans expect imperfection and when something is as close to perfect as possible, it sounds or looks odd so, music doesn't on some level is about more than the audio, it has to be about the performance, the image of the performer, even the hysteria of the fans because that's also infectious. 

[Cyberdragon]

Prefence for old music by percent in era

60s 5-10%
70s 1%
80s 40-50%

Performence is subjective to culture, they can have terrible performances compared to a lot of others and as long the people have marketing and culture shoved down their throats they'll like it. Of course, there is still a fine line of tolerance, things like wardrobe malfunctions will cause hysteria.

[alexanderbrevig]

Auto-tune is something different than pitch correction.

My brother actually wrote his master thesis on this topic

Being a musician and trying to live off it is nearly impossible, people expect studio recording but won't buy them. So, instead of doing 20 takes to get everything perfect, the better solution is to do three takes and fix with cutting and pitch correction. Less $ wasted is always a good thing.

I personally do cringe when people use pitch correction live, but they get an audience so all the power to them! Auto-tune as an effect is always OK to me, but very rarely I find it favorable.
What I feel about it has no impact on anything so I just smile and carry on.

[MT]

 Music as known today have been on a degenerating path for decades...


 


 

[coppice]

Auto-tune is something different than pitch correction.

My brother actually wrote his master thesis on this topic

Auto-tune is pitch correction. Perhaps what you meant is its not the same as speeding up or slowing down the original to adjust the picture. Solutions like auto-tine maintain the formant structure of the voice, the rhythm, etc, and only change the pitch of the note being said or sung.

[John B]

So, this might be a good place to bring up that whole Fergie american anthem thing. When it was buzzing all over social media, I was expected to see some trainwreck performance. Maybe some performer who has relied on autotune their career and is now in a live situation.

To my surprise, I like the interpretation and couldn't see what the giant fuss was about.

I couldn't even ascertain what exactly people were unhappy about. But if I had to guess I would say it's about the fluid tempo, fluid pitch (ie the human voice rarely sits exactly on one pitch for a "note"), vibrato and vocal timbral nuances. Other than that, some people found the interpretation "disrespectful" to an anthem. However I won't deal with that claim.

At least to me it seemed like an indication of what has been lost from the public concious in terms of musical diversity. It was a live human vocal performance and was miles away from a "trainwreck" performance.

However the cynic in me feels that there was also a whiff of manufacture-versy around the whole issue. People (and news articles) jumped on a bandwagon saying how terrible it was without ever really articulating why.

[Bassman59]

Auto-tune is just another tool in the kit.

Is it cheating any more than using compression to even out a vocal performance or to fatten up a bass guitar line?

Is it cheating any more than overdubbing guitar lines, which makes a trio sound like there are four guitarists? (I'm thinking of Led Zeppelin's "Ten Years Gone," specifically here.)

Is it cheating any more than punching in to fix flubbed notes? Or comping vocal tracks, sometimes phrase by phrase, to get one complete track?

Is it cheating any more than recording cymbals separately from the rest of the kit? Or using Wendel Jr to replace drum sounds?

Is it cheating any more than hiring a session drummer instead of using the band's drummer? Or indeed replacing the entire band with session players (uh, Urge Overkill's "Exit The Dragon")?

Remember, music production is always done in service of the Song. The "Song" is what the artist envisions and it is the result of the work that goes into making it that vision a reality.

No doubt that some production decisions can distract and detract from the Song. One imagines that in retrospect, some artists might say, "I wish we hadn't done that," like mastering a record to the point where it has no dynamic range and is distorted to hell. Or maybe that awful 80s drum sound (which ruined the Stevie Ray Vaughan records) has to go.

If the Song itself is good, it can be performed in all sorts of different arrangements and instrumentations, and it will still be good. Maybe we should just say, "This is a great song!"

But I suppose that a lot of what passes for "Pop Music" these days are simply not good Songs. I hear too much of it -- in the morning before classes start at my son's elementary school, the PE teacher plays that stuff over the sound system while the kids jump rope and get their ya-yas out. "Imagine Dragons? I imagine dragons being slain! These kids need to hear the Ramones!"

[raptor1956]

Auto-tune is just another tool in the kit.

Is it cheating any more than using compression to even out a vocal performance or to fatten up a bass guitar line?

Is it cheating any more than overdubbing guitar lines, which makes a trio sound like there are four guitarists? (I'm thinking of Led Zeppelin's "Ten Years Gone," specifically here.)

Is it cheating any more than punching in to fix flubbed notes? Or comping vocal tracks, sometimes phrase by phrase, to get one complete track?

Is it cheating any more than recording cymbals separately from the rest of the kit? Or using Wendel Jr to replace drum sounds?

Is it cheating any more than hiring a session drummer instead of using the band's drummer? Or indeed replacing the entire band with session players (uh, Urge Overkill's "Exit The Dragon")?

Remember, music production is always done in service of the Song. The "Song" is what the artist envisions and it is the result of the work that goes into making it that vision a reality.

No doubt that some production decisions can distract and detract from the Song. One imagines that in retrospect, some artists might say, "I wish we hadn't done that," like mastering a record to the point where it has no dynamic range and is distorted to hell. Or maybe that awful 80s drum sound (which ruined the Stevie Ray Vaughan records) has to go.

If the Song itself is good, it can be performed in all sorts of different arrangements and instrumentations, and it will still be good. Maybe we should just say, "This is a great song!"

But I suppose that a lot of what passes for "Pop Music" these days are simply not good Songs. I hear too much of it -- in the morning before classes start at my son's elementary school, the PE teacher plays that stuff over the sound system while the kids jump rope and get their ya-yas out. "Imagine Dragons? I imagine dragons being slain! These kids need to hear the Ramones!"

Is it cheating any more than using compression -- YES!

Is it cheating any more than overdubbing guitar lines -- YES!

Is it cheating any more than punching in to fix flubbed notes -- YES!

Is it cheating any more than hiring a session drummer instead of using the band's drummer -- YES!

All these other techniques require the actual performance be performed by an actual musician.  Yes, we all make mistakes and in the recording studio you have the option to redo things when they need to be.  Even the best musician requires practice and everyone make mistakes in practice.

I've said this before but I guess I have to repeat myself...

When talent is passed over for someone with better looks or a better gimmick a better talent goes to waste.  The industry compensates with technology to raise the mediocre talent to "appear" more capable and the industry rots from within.  And, as I mentioned before, the other trend that goes along hat in hand with the above is the reduction in importance of actual musicianship as artists with a single name replace bands with musicians that people know by name.  Who's Taller Swifts guitarist or drummer -- I haven't a clue and it's as likely the guitarist now is not the same as the last album or tour.  Both of these trends have been proceeding apace for decades so it's not fair to say this began yesterday -- it didn't.  When the industry wants is "acts" that have an arc of a few years to a decade or so and then some crop rotation brings in new acts using the same formula.  This color-by-number approach works like this:

Look for really pretty girls in there mid teens that have a passable enough voice that can be augmented with tech.  MARKET this TEEN and ride the train for a decade or, in most cases, just a few years.  RINSE -- REPEAT!

There's room in here for real musical talent, of course, but the musician is a bit player these days and is seen as contract labor to be replaced at the whim of the artist or label.  Song writers fare a bit better and recording engineering is actually better off as they play a bigger role in tweaking the sound, even creating the sound. 


Brian

[wraper]

I agree. It's the end result which matters, in my opinion. I knew this would be a controversial subject, with lots of people hating auto-tune, but I wonder how many can really tell the difference? If I like a song, tune, beat, I like it, whether it's real or fake is immaterial.

And then live concerts become fake performance without actual live music. Because singers just can't do their shit.

[Zero999]

I've said this before but I guess I have to repeat myself...

When talent is passed over for someone with better looks or a better gimmick a better talent goes to waste.  The industry compensates with technology to raise the mediocre talent to "appear" more capable and the industry rots from within.  And, as I mentioned before, the other trend that goes along hat in hand with the above is the reduction in importance of actual musicianship as artists with a single name replace bands with musicians that people know by name.  Who's Taller Swifts guitarist or drummer -- I haven't a clue and it's as likely the guitarist now is not the same as the last album or tour.  Both of these trends have been proceeding apace for decades so it's not fair to say this began yesterday -- it didn't.  When the industry wants is "acts" that have an arc of a few years to a decade or so and then some crop rotation brings in new acts using the same formula.  This color-by-number approach works like this:

Look for really pretty girls in there mid teens that have a passable enough voice that can be augmented with tech.  MARKET this TEEN and ride the train for a decade or, in most cases, just a few years.  RINSE -- REPEAT!

There's room in here for real musical talent, of course, but the musician is a bit player these days and is seen as contract labor to be replaced at the whim of the artist or label.  Song writers fare a bit better and recording engineering is actually better off as they play a bigger role in tweaking the sound, even creating the sound. 

I repeat, how is that any different now, than 50 years ago?

Who were the bass guitarist and drummer in The Temptations? I doubt it was the same backing musicians playing in their classic tracks, probably different people played My Girl, than Just my imagination, running away with me. No doubt there were plenty of more talented singers around at the time, but they were overlooked, because they weren't so good performers.

Nothing has really changed. Technology has moved on, but performance has always trumped talent.

[Cyberdragon]

Performance implies they have a talent to perform with. If they're lip syncing, they aren't performing any better than a machine.

If preformers are having machines sing for them, have perfectly coreographed cheap and plastic dances, and no improvisation or humanity...we might as well replace them with robots! Then you wouldn't have to feed them!

[floobydust]

I'm repairing gear in a recording studio, and a producer and sound engineer are trying to mix a song with a terrible singer. They shake their heads and give up, even though they have multiple takes of the same song to cut'n'paste snippets where she's in-tune.

I asked them about using auto-tune, and they said it's beyond that, her timing is way off and her pitch is all over the place. The time to edit it would be just too much and still end up with poor results.
Even though they're paid by the hour, they say "no" to using it. Some performers are musicians and some are entertainers.


Modern pop recordings have perfect timing, with midi-quantization and vocals DSP processed excessively.
I listened to Taylor Swift's music and I can barely tell a human being is singing, it's so over-produced.

In the 50-60-70-80's music was not about being computer perfect (timing, pitch). It had a raw, human feel with expression in timing and pitch nuances. Frank Sinatra smooth, or Robert Plant wailing - those were talented musicians, not bubble gum pop entertainers entirely propped up with auto-tune.

Auto-tune is pretty much like cosmetics, makeup on your voice.

[raptor1956]

I've said this before but I guess I have to repeat myself...

When talent is passed over for someone with better looks or a better gimmick a better talent goes to waste.  The industry compensates with technology to raise the mediocre talent to "appear" more capable and the industry rots from within.  And, as I mentioned before, the other trend that goes along hat in hand with the above is the reduction in importance of actual musicianship as artists with a single name replace bands with musicians that people know by name.  Who's Taller Swifts guitarist or drummer -- I haven't a clue and it's as likely the guitarist now is not the same as the last album or tour.  Both of these trends have been proceeding apace for decades so it's not fair to say this began yesterday -- it didn't.  When the industry wants is "acts" that have an arc of a few years to a decade or so and then some crop rotation brings in new acts using the same formula.  This color-by-number approach works like this:

Look for really pretty girls in there mid teens that have a passable enough voice that can be augmented with tech.  MARKET this TEEN and ride the train for a decade or, in most cases, just a few years.  RINSE -- REPEAT!

There's room in here for real musical talent, of course, but the musician is a bit player these days and is seen as contract labor to be replaced at the whim of the artist or label.  Song writers fare a bit better and recording engineering is actually better off as they play a bigger role in tweaking the sound, even creating the sound. 

I repeat, how is that any different now, than 50 years ago?

Who were the bass guitarist and drummer in The Temptations? I doubt it was the same backing musicians playing in their classic tracks, probably different people played My Girl, than Just my imagination, running away with me. No doubt there were plenty of more talented singers around at the time, but they were overlooked, because they weren't so good performers.

Nothing has really changed. Technology has moved on, but performance has always trumped talent.

As I've said before and will repeat again the game that's being played isn't new -- the difference is that while 50 years ago half the music was composed with un-named session musicians now it's more like 90%.   Also, back then many of the un-named session musicians would go one to form BANDS.  Guys like Jimmy Page did a lot of session work but he also formed Led Zeppelin.  Today there are few options for BANDS as the industry has little interest in them.  There are, of course, bands today but they have largely been marginalized by file sharing etc.  Today the money is in touring and the industry prefers the pretty and the weird over actual talent. 

So, these same themes were at work 50 years ago and today they dominate to the exclusion of talent!


Brian

[lordvader88]

There's a whole genre of hip-hop I think, but IDK what it's called, but its CRAP. It's all auto-tune bling/club music aimed at 12yo wanna-be gangters, and it's listened to by lots of 40yo's too, and they think they are so tough, listening to these douche bag crap rappers.

It's utter garbage on most all levels. Brainwashing crap is all it is.

[Electro Detective]

Oh yeah... let's not get started on those deadass hip hop gangsta rappaz with dropped pants (full nappy)  Yo Yos       Disgusting creatures, end of story    
They need AutoDumpster not AutoTune 


Back to CHEATING:
If they used session musos back in the day on recordings, it's because 'time was money' and producers did not want stoned artists doing take after take after take
to get the track right and ready for mixdown, release, flogged on the radio, and book tours to help recuperate invested cash, and pay back loans and not lose the house !

Many artists could play the parts and most did LIVE without the recording studio "getting it right"  pressure,
some pop toyboys actually took lessons from pros so they could deliver the goods on stage and better themselves without the dud vibe hovering overhead 


That said, today's totally talentless hicks and former street criminals and thugs dribbling into microphones, cranking the Aurotune to maximum levels, being paraded as 'mainstream come latest thang'
and making big cash are basically CHEATING

They are an insult to the concept of real music, shafting real musicians and vocalists out of any form of future prospects, be they fame or fortune or to pay the rent. 

What they produce from looped samples, drag and drop files, and tons of Autotuned cheating is somewhat 'appealing noise' to a dumbed down generation that would not suspect they are being taken,
basically robbed of their entertainment dollars, convinced it's 'music' and following their herded youth peers to fit in socially     

Their so called 'recording engineers' (unemployable roadies, dealers, entourage creeps) are just as low for assisting in this fraudulent activity with a   -Use By Date- already 20 years overdue

Apologists playing the 'age' card     please try another angle, otherwise classical and jazz music* as examples would have not made it this far,
anyone young and not so young can embrace and appreciate it today.
Who will be listening to the Autotuned 'oink oink' racket in 50 years time... without belly laughing?   

*Classical and jazz music doesn't need a cheater bar to firmly clamp peoples attention   


 

[DimitriP]

I kinda feel the same way about the latest ELO/Jeff Lynn stuff where he has re-recorded the music mostly himself to be what he always wanted it to be and without the imperfections of the other musicians he had around him (necessarily at the time). Technically perfect but completely devoid of soul or feeling and boring as batshit to listen to.

Small topic diversion:
I had hoped over the years that Jeff Lynne  would pull his/their  head out of his ass and "put the band back together".
Instead he come up with the abomination that is Jeff Lynne's ELO of today.

Jeff Lynne's post original ELO is Fisher of the 80s and 90s,  JBL and altec lansing of the 21st century.

He re-recorded the music " to be what he always wanted it to be". I call bullshit.
He needed to sell the new recordings. So he said what he needed to say.
 
Just because I have the rights to use the name "duck" i can't take a camel and call it duck.
He has the rights to the ELO name. He could hire Laurie Berkener record "I'm a litttle frog" and call lit ELO. Well, it's not. Ever.

His head is apparently still firmly stuck at the same place.
I still have the original recordings and blast them in the car daily.
...and here I'll stop before I let anyone know how I really feel ....

(Mr. Blue Sky playing on the Advents in the backround )

[BradC]

He re-recorded the music " to be what he always wanted it to be". I call bullshit.
He needed to sell the new recordings. So he said what he needed to say.

I don't really think Jeff *needs* to sell anything. I honestly think he has the revisionist disease that also got George Lucas whereby "the original vision was never as good as what I intended it to be, so I'll go and revise it until I'm happy with it, fans be damned". I honestly believe he thinks what he is doing is an improvement. And I suppose there are people out there who think that enough to buy it.

Opinions are quite personal however and I am under no illusion that anyone else shares mine (or needs to).

I had a copy of the "50th anniversary Cliff & The Shadows" album where they re-recorded a whole heap of the classics. Unfortunately this time around they were all in separate parts of the world obviously recording to a click track, and again technically perfect and completely devoid of feeling, expression and soul. I deliberately left the CD in the last car I sold to ensure I was never tempted to try to listen to it in the event I started to look back with rose tinted glasses.

It's the imperfections in the originals that made them what they are. The obvious energy you can "feel" when you listen to the music knowing the musicians are all in their little parts of the studio bouncing off each other. I feel the same way about the Bon Scott era AC/DC stuff. It's full of flaws, which is what makes it so good. The first 2 or 3 chords of Highway to Hell make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. That absolute raw mix of overdriven harmonics combined with Malcolms chord phrasing that just makes me smile. I've played guitar for 30 years now and I've never managed to get a sound that comes close to the reaction I get when listening to those chords.

[Bassman59]

When talent is passed over for someone with better looks or a better gimmick a better talent goes to waste.  The industry compensates with technology to raise the mediocre talent to "appear" more capable and the industry rots from within.  And, as I mentioned before, the other trend that goes along hat in hand with the above is the reduction in importance of actual musicianship as artists with a single name replace bands with musicians that people know by name.  Who's Taller Swifts guitarist or drummer -- I haven't a clue and it's as likely the guitarist now is not the same as the last album or tour.  Both of these trends have been proceeding apace for decades so it's not fair to say this began yesterday -- it didn't.  When the industry wants is "acts" that have an arc of a few years to a decade or so and then some crop rotation brings in new acts using the same formula. 

You seem to confuse “pop music shows” with concerts.  Taylor Swift and all of that ilk are performers, not musicians, and their performances are not what we think of when we go see a rock band play a show.

You’re not the target demographic. So whether you think it sucks and is not “real music” is utterly beside the point. I’m not the target demographic, either, and I want the kids who are the target to listen to real music, too, but the argument about “not real music” is as old as popular music. Hell, the jazz snobs look at indie rock and go “what the fuck is that noise?” and the classical music snobs look at the be-boppers and go “what the fuck is that noise?”

I look at it this way. A friend who is a top-shelf live music front-of-house mixer did a tour as monitor engineer for the Jonas Brothers. They’re three teenage boys fronting a group of top (but anonymous) touring musicians. Did he stop to consider what that meant for his serious punk rock cred? Fuck no — the paycheck took care of that, especially when the high-cred bands he was working for found themselves on the back end of their career arc and as such could no longer afford him. And anyway, those tours employ a lot of crew, as in an FOH mixer, a monitor mixer, a Pro Tools rig jockey, a handful of backline techs, not to mention lighting and other crew. Sure, they were entertaining teenagers, but they were all well paid to do it, and besides, teens need to be entertained too, especially because the drinking age prevents them from getting into the punk rock clubs.

[Bassman59]

I agree. It's the end result which matters, in my opinion. I knew this would be a controversial subject, with lots of people hating auto-tune, but I wonder how many can really tell the difference? If I like a song, tune, beat, I like it, whether it's real or fake is immaterial.

And then live concerts become fake performance without actual live music. Because singers just can't do their shit.

They’re not concerts, they’re performances. Singing (some), dancing, flashy light show, music playback. Go see the symphony if you want a concert.

[raptor1956]

When talent is passed over for someone with better looks or a better gimmick a better talent goes to waste.  The industry compensates with technology to raise the mediocre talent to "appear" more capable and the industry rots from within.  And, as I mentioned before, the other trend that goes along hat in hand with the above is the reduction in importance of actual musicianship as artists with a single name replace bands with musicians that people know by name.  Who's Taller Swifts guitarist or drummer -- I haven't a clue and it's as likely the guitarist now is not the same as the last album or tour.  Both of these trends have been proceeding apace for decades so it's not fair to say this began yesterday -- it didn't.  When the industry wants is "acts" that have an arc of a few years to a decade or so and then some crop rotation brings in new acts using the same formula. 

You seem to confuse “pop music shows” with concerts.  Taylor Swift and all of that ilk are performers, not musicians, and their performances are not what we think of when we go see a rock band play a show.

You’re not the target demographic. So whether you think it sucks and is not “real music” is utterly beside the point. I’m not the target demographic, either, and I want the kids who are the target to listen to real music, too, but the argument about “not real music” is as old as popular music. Hell, the jazz snobs look at indie rock and go “what the fuck is that noise?” and the classical music snobs look at the be-boppers and go “what the fuck is that noise?”

I look at it this way. A friend who is a top-shelf live music front-of-house mixer did a tour as monitor engineer for the Jonas Brothers. They’re three teenage boys fronting a group of top (but anonymous) touring musicians. Did he stop to consider what that meant for his serious punk rock cred? Fuck no — the paycheck took care of that, especially when the high-cred bands he was working for found themselves on the back end of their career arc and as such could no longer afford him. And anyway, those tours employ a lot of crew, as in an FOH mixer, a monitor mixer, a Pro Tools rig jockey, a handful of backline techs, not to mention lighting and other crew. Sure, they were entertaining teenagers, but they were all well paid to do it, and besides, teens need to be entertained too, especially because the drinking age prevents them from getting into the punk rock clubs.

Not confused for a second about what pop music is or that it's been around since forever.  In fact, the Beatles were in the earliest incarnation, a pop band.  It's not so much the genre as the trend in the ENTIRE INDUSTRY!

It's really quite simple -- when talent is relegated to being the nameless faceless folks that work in the background to make the music, color by number style, while lesser talents with a hook garner all the attention and the lions sharer of the money the consequence is a devaluation of talent and ultimately ... music itself.  In the end music suffers and music is important -- too important to let this continue.  Arguing that the way things are is somehow OK because, reasons, is pathetic!

Miley Cyrus made more money in one year peddling nothing than just about all real musical acts combined.  What's really sad about Miley is that she actually has a pretty decent voice if you like them raspy, and I often do.  Yes, she's a pop act but more than anything she's an act.  Her act, like many others like her, is more pantomime than music, but I guess if that's what floats your boat.

Lastly, although I'm no fan of Taylor Swift she is actually a musician -- not a top drawer one for sure but she does know how to play.  She also writes much of her own lyrics, though I can not for the life of me understand how that translates into gold and platinum.  She's know more as a singer, of course and its in this regard that she is most deficient -- her voice is terrible, thin and weak.  What's relevant about her in this discussion is that as much money as she brings in no one knows who her backing musicians are. 

Interestingly, many of the top composers of the classical era went largely unnoticed while they were alive and when fame and fortune came they were already dead.  The music business has always been unfair.


Brian

[coppice]

It's really quite simple -- when talent is relegated to being the nameless faceless folks that work in the background to make the music, color by number style, while lesser talents with a hook garner all the attention and the lions sharer of the money the consequence is a devaluation of talent and ultimately ... music itself.  In the end music suffers and music is important -- too important to let this continue.  Arguing that the way things are is somehow OK because, reasons, is pathetic!

You would need to fo back to the 19th century to see anything fundamentally different. As soon as electronics became involved, the bulk of the talented started to be relegated to working behind the scenes. By the 60s MoTown was the biggest thing, based on the audience only seeing the singers. Most people had no idea who the writers, arrangers, musicians or producers were. A small number of people, like Quincy Jones, became famous for their work behind the scenes, but they were rare. Then we started to find many of the singer only bands were not the actual people who performed on the recording. At least auto-tune means we hear the actual named performers, however heavily processed.

All the typical audience really cares about is the final show they are presented with. That's not the case with a hardened classical, jazz or rock audience, but they aren't the bulk of the market. Its still hard to achieve a long successful career without genuine talent, whatever kind of music you are involved in, so maybe it all works out fairly in the end.

[wraper]

At least auto-tune means we hear the actual named performers, however heavily processed.

Then they might be cats just as well.

[coppice]

At least auto-tune means we hear the actual named performers, however heavily processed.

Then they might be cats just as well.

Or conversely: