Are auto-tune abusers still artists?

Ascendant606 · Post by **Ascendant606** » July 22nd, 2014, 11:11 pm

Many artists use auto-tune. Auto-tune is great for any aspiring singer, especially if used sparingly to touch up a harmony gone slightly flat. However, many artists take it upon themselves to abuse auto-tune to the point where their voice is hardly recognizable. Because really, anyone can sing with auto-tune.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fTh0WRJoX4

Here is a great article about how auto-tune has dominated the pop music industry (and others to a lesser extent).

theverge.com/2013/2/27/3964406/seduced- ... -pop-music

So are people who sing heavily with auto-tune and do not write their own songs still artists?

Just for fun, "Forbes reported that Spears was the highest paid female musician of 2012, with earnings of $58 million, having last topped the list in 2002." (Wikipedia) Now listen to Britney Spear's leaked video without auto-tune.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrmjUKFQ7Lk

Not the worst auto-tone abuser, but definitely a culprit. Especially since she didn't even write the song

Theophane · Post by **Theophane** » July 24th, 2014, 9:42 am

Sure, in the same way steroid-abusing athletes are still athletes.

Ether · Post by **Ether** » July 24th, 2014, 10:59 am

I have always been of the opinion that limiting what we consider music to be, to terms such as iff (if and only if), which is logically what someone does provided their answer is no, is a limit on creation (meaning creativity) itself.

We are explorers, we must explore. The vagaries of the morality of the method and consequent aesthetic quality are for philosophers to decide after the fact.

In short, if they didn't do it, it wouldn't be a question, and we would be less philosophically rounded for it, regardless of your position on the issue.

Much as overly strong moderation on forums, has a double effect. It prevents idiots from being able to post on the board, but prevents and frustrates the efforts of the genuine philosophers doing genuine research from joining.

It is clear, freedom is worth more to society than sanction. Thus (from analogy) autotune is valid.

Vrmyqv · Post by **Vrmyqv** » July 27th, 2014, 10:51 am

Why aren't they artists? I don't really understand all this hate with auto-tune. Like anything, it can be done good and it can be done bad. A lot of hip hip in the last year uses auto-tune tastefully and Kanye Wests' 808s and Heartbreaks is another good example.

Auto tune is an instrument. There is music made by individuals who do it for catharsis, and there is music made solely to make money.

A Poster He or I · Post by **A Poster He or I** » July 27th, 2014, 7:16 pm

I don't see anything wrong with leveraging available technology to make music more musical. I myself create computer generated music as a hobby, via MIDI technology, though I know nothing formal about music or composition. I have fun. If the public wants to pay to see music that is processed through computer software, then it is a sign of current technology's affect upon our culture's aesthetics.

In the Hindustani tradition of North Indian classical music, a good singer is judged by how creatively they can control microtones in their voice, not the quality of their voice per se. I saw this pushed to the limits once, when I saw a highly regarded Indian singer named Dinkar Kankini perform live and he kept falling into coughing fits every minute or so.

SoylentGreen · Post by **SoylentGreen** » July 28th, 2014, 7:20 pm

There are no artists. There are only borrowers. Van Gogh only borrowed the ideas of the artists he liked, and he did not invent paint. He bought the paint, that was produced by others. And he did not invent colours. And he did not manufacture canvas or brushes or anything else. He borrowed and bought everything. So calling him an artist is stretching the truth; and if it was stretching the truth in his regard, it is that much more an abuse of the term "artist" when we choose to call other people artists. THERE ARE NO ARTISTS. There are only BORROWERS.

Theophane · Post by **Theophane** » July 29th, 2014, 7:49 am

So there's no such thing as creativity?

Present awareness · Post by **Present awareness** » July 29th, 2014, 8:37 am

Anyone who can speak, may also sing. Some sing good and others sing bad. Putting good or bad aside, am I an artist just because I choose to sing?

Once I have sung, the sound may be compressed, pitch corrected, reverb added and otherwise manipulated by technology. Perhaps the real artist, is someone whom can make a bad sound, sound good!

Theophane · Post by **Theophane** » July 29th, 2014, 9:41 am

@SoylentGreen

It's true that no human being can create anything ex nihilo, but that doesn't automatically relegate all creativity and artistic talent to "borrowing."

Stealing and borrowing do not detract from genuine creativity and genuine artistry.

LovelyLau · Post by **LovelyLau** » March 7th, 2024, 3:03 am

I love Britney Spears.
However I think autotune is making music a lot worse and people spit out songs in 5 seconds flat with no artistic value.
Whereas instruments and thought and taking time to write songs makes it a lot better.
I think it is unfair to say people are not talented maybe not as talented as some of the oldies but you know i think it is thing where the audience had gone to a really young and up-tempo place, taking a lot of class out of music.
So it is sad there is not a bit more of that around in modern music rather than all the up-tempo pop hits that are sometimes a dime a dozen.

LovelyLau · Post by **LovelyLau** » March 7th, 2024, 3:05 am

I think Britney Spears was not always unclassy but people made her more sexualised when she was a real wholesome beauty and had an innocent and wholesome image.
And that ruined her, mentally too.
I think she is talented, a good dancer too.