To Cheat Or Not To Cheat?02 Apr 10
Autotune, Vocalign, re-triggering, quantise, even the simple copy and paste function. To some, they’re vital tools of the trade. To others, they are responsible for an invasion of sterile, diluted and de-humanised music across our airwaves.
So where to begin? First thing’s first, how do we define cheating? And what exactly is pure and free from technical tampering? It was once widely opined that compression was “cheating”. When it was first used, it was often referred to as “lazy man’s faders” – the inattentive engineer’s easy way of reducing peak levels in order to optimise the signal level going to tape. Nowadays, compression is one of the most basic and requisite tools in any recording studio.
After the advent of multitrack recording, the age the overdub dawned. George Martin and The Beatles famously stretched the technology to its extremes in the ’60s, even arguably giving birth to dance music by running reels of tape out of the room, down the corridor, round another tape machine and back again on Revolver’s “Tomorrow Never Knows” thereby creating the first ever drum loops. In 1969, Abbey Road was recorded almost completely separately, with the Beatles rarely in the studio at the same time. Is this a magical feat of audiological illusion, or is it just a con? After all, it’s recorded to sound like an ensemble project. Of course, building up a track separately is now the most common form of recording bands.
In 1975, Queen were the latest in a long line of notable dirty cheats, using bounces on newly available 24-track tape to create 180 separate overdubs for the vocals of Bohemian Rhapsody (“but that’s not possible in real life!” I hear you cry).
These days it seems studio engineers have almost God-like powers when it comes to manipulating music. And perhaps more importantly, having access to this kind of power no longer comes with its own mortgage! But, getting back to the original topic, is it a good thing, or is it going to be the ever-anticipated “Death Of Music”? Well, just like police brutality, doesn’t it all come down to what’s appropriate? I would argue that the use of autotune and other pitchshifting effects on “Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger” by Daft Punk is progressive and innovative, whereas its use to keep Katie Price’s vocals palatable to enough people to make a few quick bucks for a major label is shameful and reprehensible. Still, at least it’ll keep Britain’s silicon and botox industries thriving.
As the mildly inspirational Toby Maguire once said: “With great power comes great responsibility”. I have to say, I know exactly how that crazy little spider feels. Some genres of music are almost defined by their use of technology. That’s why many pop producers reach for the autotune even with the best singers. Is it even possible any more to produce a current-sounding, slick pop/R&B track without outrageous use of vocal processing and rhythmic quantising? Not unless you manage to successfully reinvent the genre. But by unthinkingly and automatically applying the same mindset to an young rock band with all the palpable energy and excitement of a group of young musicians driven by passion and self belief, I certainly believe you risk losing something special.
It’s worth remembering that Nina Simone sometimes fell slightly flat, Miles Davis occasionally split a note and Bob Dylan, well, let’s be honest, nobody in their right minds would even sign him these days.
Cracking blog post guys, I really enjoyed it! Which one of you legends wrote this inspired piece? x
What?! Katie Price can’t sing? Silly silly boy, I bet you don’t believe in Father Christmas either.
“Just like police brutality, doesn’t it all come down to what’s appropriate?”
Gotta love it man,outstanding!
a very interesting read while i was scratching my gunt. more of the same please!
read this whilst lying in the garden with the dogs…very interesting mr cobb!
What’s a gunt? Is that a typo? Did he meen gut?