What normal sounds like...in musical performances...1939 vs. 2024
Replies to: What normal sounds like...in musical performances...1939 vs. 2024
I remember watching that video sometime back.
It's a nice reminder that not all technological advances are actually good.
As Jim notes below, the marketability of a vocalist now is more important than how well they sing, because they can fix that in the studio. I give heavy blame on that to television and the music video. It makes you wonder how many of the older greats would have made it big nowadays.
Good post. Thank you.
(no message)
Autotune and the death of session musicians have ruined music.
(no message)
Drum machines are usually known as the death of session musicians.
But in this case of auto tune for voices the vocalist can have all the right or merchandiseable qualities but doesn’t have true vocal talent, auto tune fixes it all. I don’t think it killed session musicians. It just gave producers more control over their merchandise.
It’s more important to have a wide octave range than to be on pitch.
Whitney Houston in her later years had great difficulty with pitch - no problem auto tune saved the day.
PS - I don’t think the drum machine actually killed the session musician. It may have given less talented bands
a helping hand or for artists like Trent Reznor - the Pet Shop Boys and someone like Brad Delp better access to the mainstream arts. In any event, drum machines and electronica had created a new sound. Synthesizers have broadened popular music the way that he electric guitar did.
Yep. It's given us many, many manufactured "stars."
(no message)
That clip is a brilliant example of how technology has injured the recording artist.
It has created mediocrity as the apex of what we accept as talent.
I'm reminded of the Britney Spears situation, from soup to nuts.
Obviously, everyone's familiar with her breakdown and the issues that ensued, with the discussion around her voice being "gone" after the years of substance issues and health issues (mental and otherwise). But the reality is that she could really never sing. All of it going back to the late 90's was a product of voice-synthesizing equipment and dubbing. I don't believe she ever "lost" her voice....it was a creation.
And to Clarkson who is roundly considered a good voice is doctored as well.
Sad.
Where the hell is McSweeney when we need him on this?
(no message)
Wait, what??? I didn't know that at all.
I swear that I thought she was a natural vocalist. I was unaware of this.
I think it’s become industry standard. But yeah, she has a big voice but
she is also not pitch perfect.
he makes an important distinction here. Vocals by talented artists rest not on a perfect note
but move in and out of the note when interpreting a songwriter’s lyrics. Yesteryear with singers we talked about hitting the whole note from flat to sharp to deliver the writer’s intention. Hitting the center of the note isn’t as effective in poetry or story telling. The use of the vibrato is important here. Garland and very few others have the breath control and accuracy to hit the notes center consistently. Female singers I can think of - Rosemary Clooney, Ella, Nancy Lamott, Barbra Streisand are all singers who never used correcting software and never needed to. They are accurate and brilliant interpreters of song.
Today’s vocalist are in general just working on vocal gymnastics hitting ridiculous high notes with little regard for accuracy or finding a the intention of the song writer.
Outside of Broadway singers the pop artist is more of an invention than a talent. A personality with a useable ability.
Generally agree, to the extent I understand. I'm not an expert. That just makes sense.
(no message)