So I've got to know if you want to go So you may think that someone like Louise
here would not be able to become a world class pop star... Not with that voice right?! But with modern vocal production, it's more
than possible. Let me show you how. Hello, and Welcome to “Pop Theory”, the
series where we dive into the secrets of modern pop music. This episode is all about vocal production,
that is, how to make a singer sound as good as possible in the studio. You’re probably already familiar with Auto-Tune,
or rather, pitch correction. Do you know what auto-tune is? Auto? It sounds a little bit like a robot. Like a robot? When you don’t really have a lot of talent,
press the Auto-Tune and make it sound perfect. If I would tell you that Taylor Swift uses
Auto-Tune, would that change… I don't think that Taylor uses that kind of
stuff. Justin Bieber uses auto-tune?! For most people “Auto-Tune” has become
synonymous for all kinds vocal processing. But actually, the branded processor Auto-Tune
can only do a specific set of things. The first hit single to use Auto-Tune was
Cher’s “Believe,” and it used the most extreme setting, making it sound robotic in
a way. That kind of sound had not been heard before,
so within a year of the release of “Believe,” Auto-Tune had been sold to every major studio
in the world. The inventor said that Auto-Tune might be
to music what Photoshop is to photography: everyone uses it, but not many are keen to
admit it. Let’s quickly listen to what Auto-Tune can
do. Here I have a short phrase of me singing. “Just because I… I want you to love me.” Okay, so let’s try to put Auto-Tune on it. “Just because I… I want you to love me.” Can you hear the subtle difference? It’s a bit more accurate and you could say
that it’s got more of a “pop” sound to it This is the Retune Speed wheel which changes
how extreme the effect is. You can get the effect from Cher’s “Believe”
by turning the wheel to 0, while turning it the other way will make the effect less and
less noticeable. Basically, Auto-Tune takes the incoming signal,
that is, the voice, and takes it to the closest note, making it in pitch. You can think of it sort of like a guitar
where wherever you push on the neck, you’ll get a real note because of the frets, but
the voice without Auto-Tune is more like a violin, where you have to kind of slide around
sometimes to get to the note you want. The pitch of a note is defined by its frequency,
and is measured in Hertz. The note A has a frequency of about 440 Hz
while the closest note above it, A sharp, has a frequency of about 466. So if I would sing a note in between these
two frequencies, Auto-Tune would try to correct it either to A sharp or to A. And if the note
I’m singing is actually pretty much perfectly inbetween these two notes Auto-Tune might
have trouble identifying which note I am going for and it would create a “warbling” effect,
like this. “I want you to love me.” But changing the frequency is only part
of what Auto-Tune does. Have you ever wondered why speeding up a song
sounds like a chipmunk is singing? It’s because you are increasing the frequency
of the sound. But it also means you’re shortening the
note. So the cool thing that Auto-Tune does is that
it changes the frequency AND the length of the note. First, we record every phrase of the song
on its own five times. We make sure that Louise sings in a few different
ways so we have more options later. “That’s perfect, let’s do that” Once
we have the best possible takes from the singer, let’s get to the production magic. Through a process known as “comping,”
we’ll listen and find the best parts of every take we recorded, and combine them. This creates a sort of Frankenstein’s Monster
where sometimes every note comes from a different take! Then we do some cutting and time-stretching to make sure that every note is exactly as long as we want. Now, I’ll use a combination of two separate
tools, Melodyne and Auto-Tune, to sort out the pitch. “I can’t make it on my own, I can’t
make it on my own." Finally, I use the original vocal to generate
dubs and backing vocals to give it a bigger, fuller sound. “I can’t make it on my own…” Do you think that you guys could be pop singers? Anyone can be nowadays. You can get anyone off the street, Auto-Tune
it. (Singing) And then Auto-Tune kind of… (Singing) Brings it together. *random man passing by singing* So is vocal
production a bad thing? As with anything, I wouldn’t say that the
answer is a clear “yes” or “no”. There are a few positive things that modern
vocal production has allowed for in music. First off, more precise vocal recordings. And secondly, it has allowed for faster work
flows in the studio meaning that your favourite artists can make music way faster. And thirdly, it has allowed people like T-pain,
Kanye, and Drake to make music in new ways sounding kind of like robots, but it’s like
a new aesthetic for singing. So even though your favourite artist probably
“cheats” a bit in the studio, try to remember that the tracks that you love by them might
not have existed without this technology speeding up their workflow. So with that in mind let’s listen to what
vocal production has done for Louise. I don’t want to be alone anymore, anymore. I can’t make it on my own anymore, anymore. So I gotta know If you want to go Grab a cup of joe And then buy me a dog, a
dog, a dog, a dog
I watched the entire video trust me. I understand what he said. My only disagreement was with the click bait aspect of it with MY face and the word "cheat". Because, as we all know, Ppl just read titles and see thumbnails and go straight to the comments. He actually explained the tool well but I just chalked this video up to be promotion for his music. I get it.
Now she just needs a program to write her better lyrics.
I don't really understand the obsession with autotune to be honest.
Essentially, from the inception of recorded music, producers have been tuning the vocals to get a track that is perfect. What many people would call "cheating" for those using autotune. The difference is, you no longer have to do everything manually, alongside potentially hundreds of takes. The effects are virtually identical, in terms of the "cheatery" nature of it.
All this has done is allowed more people to make music, and at a lesser cost. And if they wanna sound like a robot too, sure, go ahead, but I wouldn't say that's "cheating".
I'm just tired of all the "back in my day" talk when this has been going on for so much longer than most people think.
I'm gonna guess this guy has never heard me sing live. NPR, national anthem at the dodgers game, etc. but hey get the views buddy. I just don't agree with the term "cheating" insinuating that we don't deserve what we've earned. I get it tho. Keep doing your "magic".
Reminds me of this actress http://www.imdb.com/media/rm280284928/nm0767233
She has lots of credits for sound engineering.
I have a bunch of this software on my tablet and desktop. I bought it thinking that it could make up for my lousy singing voice, since I'd like to sing along with playing my guitar. It doesn't. I still sound more of less like I do, only I am more in pitch, but to my own ear it still sounds terrible.
In short, it won't make a lousy musician into a good one.
Is it "cheating" to do multiple takes in the studio and select the best one?
Should all the instruments have to play in the same room, at the same time, on the same track, at the correct volumes in order to not "cheat"?
For a video about audio editing the aduio editing of the video itself is pretty bad. In addition to all the visual fast cuts that are annoying as hell there are audible audio fast cuts in the sections with graphics.
if an artist sucks live, well.... they suck.