What modern invention/innovation do you wish had *never* been developed?

[Dixie_Amazon]

Those gadgets are nice and work, but a cheaper way is just a pitch pipe.....but lets say on a Guitar, once a person listens to that fat bass top string, it should be fairly easy to recall the sound...and then the rest of the strings are easy to do the frets down and harmonize the next smaller string down to match the note. Been a long time since I have messed with a Guitar, my Husband has a dozen or more of them floating around.

I used the "My dog has fleas" method

 

[sheeplady]

I think long ago, such "dubbing" or changing a pitch issue was only done in the studio by a master control. I have heard they have the gizmos you are speaking of, and I am sure you are so very correct about Cher needing to use one. She is NO spring chicken....pluck pluck pluck! LOL!:eeek:

It's pretty amazing stuff to be able to immediately correct a note as it is being sung live...

However, I can often tell when it is being used (to correct, as opposed to enhance artistically) and I hate that. It's like when you are enjoying a delicious dessert and get an aftertaste from artificial sweetener. Amazing feat of physics, but if I can guess if it's being used, it's not that effective at hiding what's going on.

While I can sort of see it being used during a live performance and can see it for artistic purposes, I can't see it being used in the studio. If you can't sing in the perfect environment in a studio....

 

[Zombie_61]

...The auto tune that many singers use for live (and increasingly studio) performances uses digital technology to automatically "adjust" pitch. Cher famously used it for artistic purposes in her song "believe" in the studio, but it's gotten to the point where it's being used more and more.

It's pretty amazing stuff to be able to immediately correct a note as it is being sung live...

However, I can often tell when it is being used (to correct, as opposed to enhance artistically) and I hate that...

I can always tell, and I'd be surprised if it ever fooled anyone simply because it sounds so artificial.

...While I can sort of see it being used during a live performance and can see it for artistic purposes, I can't see it being used in the studio. If you can't sing in the perfect environment in a studio....

I've been to a number of live performances during which the various "singers" were so far off the mark that I couldn't help but wonder how they managed to sing the correct notes during the studio recording. lol

 

[Dragon Soldier]

Pitch pipes are not really much cheaper. They run about $12-15. Electronic tuners run $15-20. And the latter is easier, because actually it's not easy to recall the sound of a note. Not at all. In fact, it's extremely difficult. Secondly, matching the sound on the next string is also extremely hard for most people and takes years of practice to learn. With the electronic tuner, there is no excuse for not being in tune all the time, right out of the box.

I have a chromatic on my 'phone... Gets things close enough for government work.

I'm fairly certain I didn't pay for it.

 

[LuvMyMan]

I have a chromatic on my 'phone... Get's things close enough for government work.

I'm fairly certain I didn't pay for it.

That is nice. I am aware some of the "apps" on my new cell phone are fairly fancy. I do however have one really big complaint so far...there is NOT one single "app" on my HTC one phone to make fresh hundred dollar bills....bummer! lol!

 

[sheeplady]

I've been to a number of live performances during which the various "singers" were so far off the mark that I couldn't help but wonder how they managed to sing the correct notes during the studio recording. lol

I can understand how hard it is to perform on the road... and I understand a lot of "artists" today are drunk, drugged up, sleep deprived, road weary, etc. That must make it difficult to perform.

But it really makes me enamored of the artists of old that did it while being drunk, high, sleep deprived, and road weary and didn't need an autotuner to sound better than absolute crud.

Occasionally I'll see an artist on something like SNL that doesn't use it and I really appreciate their performance for at least being genuine. I think the first performance I noticed something was wrong was when Kelly Clarkson was on SNL. I asked my husband- "why does she sound so real? Most of the artists sound fake and distant? isn't she the american idol girl?" Then I learned that yes, something *was* up with all those other people- and it was called autotune.

Since then I've been able to spot with good accuracy who uses it and who doesn't but it is less on how the specific notes sound (some people can hear the vibration it makes) but how genuine and "pure" the notes sound. Autotune doesn't sound "pure" to me and I think I'm spotting the non-variation in the performance. I doubt I am as good as it as you are as I have no musical ear, likely a true musician can spot it right away.

 

[LuvMyMan]

I can always tell, and I'd be surprised if it ever fooled anyone simply because it sounds so artificial.

I've been to a number of live performances during which the various "singers" were so far off the mark that I couldn't help but wonder how they managed to sing the correct notes during the studio recording. lol

Some singers have to be drunk to sound right...and some of those listening to singers have to be drunk to think we're hearing a great song! lol!

 

[LuvMyMan]

I can understand how hard it is to perform on the road... and I understand a lot of "artists" today are drunk, drugged up, sleep deprived, road weary, etc. That must make it difficult to perform.

But it really makes me enamored of the artists of old that did it while being drunk, high, sleep deprived, and road weary and didn't need an autotuner to sound better than absolute crud.

Occasionally I'll see an artist on something like SNL that doesn't use it and I really appreciate their performance for at least being genuine. I think the first performance I noticed something was wrong was when Kelly Clarkson was on SNL. I asked my husband- "why does she sound so real? Most of the artists sound fake and distant? isn't she the american idol girl?" Then I learned that yes, something *was* up with all those other people- and it was called autotune.

Since then I've been able to spot with good accuracy who uses it and who doesn't but it is less on how the specific notes sound (some people can hear the vibration it makes) but how genuine and "pure" the notes sound. Autotune doesn't sound "pure" to me and I think I'm spotting the non-variation in the performance. I doubt I am as good as it as you are as I have no musical ear, likely a true musician can spot it right away.

Going back in time, about the most "input" a band or singer would have to the sound, would be an echo chamber effects or a repeater or reverb. The real great singers in both bands or a recording artist that was "solo" in their performances, did not need to depend on anything other than talent to sound great.

You made me dig out some old records and a record player! Geez, Eddy Arnold, Judy Garland, Louie Armstrong, even the Doors, sure sound one heck of a lot nicer than the garbage of today. And, you can actually understand what they are saying/singing about! No rat "RAP" music here in our home!

 

[LuvMyMan]

I used the "My dog has fleas" method

I am not much of a music player, ( no instruments do I play) but my Husband was/has been playing a guitar for over 50 years...he is super good, but due to issues with his health and loss of most of the motor skills in his hands now, he just cannot play.. But he recalls the "My Dog has Fleas"....that and reminded me, do ra me fa so la ti do"..if I spelled that right! lol!

 

[Zombie_61]

Some singers have to be drunk to sound right...and some of those listening to singers have to be drunk to think we're hearing a great song! lol!

A friend and I have a pet theory that the audience being drunk, stoned, or both, is the only possible explanation for the popularity of The Grateful Dead and Jimmy Buffett, because we of the not-drunk/stoned variety find them to be among the most boring bands in the history of music. lol

 

[Horace Debussy Jones]

I'd have to agree. Some of The Grateful Dead's music is lyrical and interesting, but I can't get downright fanatical about it like so many folks do. And Jimmy Buffet just grates on my nerves, I never could "get into" any of that parrot head nonsense.

A friend and I have a pet theory that the audience being drunk, stoned, or both, is the only possible explanation for the popularity of The Grateful Dead and Jimmy Buffett, because we of the not-drunk/stoned variety find them to be among the most boring bands in the history of music. lol

 

[jamespowers]

A friend and I have a pet theory that the audience being drunk, stoned, or both, is the only possible explanation for the popularity of The Grateful Dead and Jimmy Buffett, because we of the not-drunk/stoned variety find them to be among the most boring bands in the history of music. lol

Add The Beatles, Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix to that and I agree.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Add The Beatles, Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix to that and I agree.

The Baby Boomers hijacked practically every decade since the '40s.

 

[jamespowers]

even the Doors, sure sound one heck of a lot nicer than the garbage of today. And, you can actually understand what they are saying/singing about! No rat "RAP" music here in our home!

I think you may be stretching it there a bit with The Doors. lol lol

 

[jamespowers]

The Baby Boomers hijacked practically every decade since the '40s.

You mean the Beatniks and the hippies.:doh:

 

[vitanola]

Going back in time, about the most "input" a band or singer would have to the sound, would be an echo chamber effects or a repeater or reverb. The real great singers in both bands or a recording artist that was "solo" in their performances, did not need to depend on anything other than talent to sound great.

You made me dig out some old records and a record player! Geez, Eddy Arnold, Judy Garland, Louie Armstrong, even the Doors, sure sound one heck of a lot nicer than the garbage of today. And, you can actually understand what they are saying/singing about! No rat "RAP" music here in our home!

Arnold, Garland both benefited from electronic reverb and various forms of signal processing, as did Armstrong in the 1950's and 1960's. I always thought that the test of a real singer was to place him or her in front of a recording horn and see what the subsequent record sounds like. Recording in those per-1925 days required both a knack and a certain vocal timbre. Many successful stage performers found it impossible to make a good recording in those days.




In the acoustic period the vocalist was left exposed, with nothing to cover his deficiencies. In addition, sibilants recorded poorly, if at all, and one had to accent them with a rather deft touch to be understood.

[video=youtube;OIC2wI6UVeU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIC2wI6UVeU&feature=youtube_gdata_player [/video]

 

[LizzieMaine]

The Baby Boomers hijacked practically every decade since the '40s.

Never before has one generation so thoroughly obliterated the memory of everything that preceded it. Even in the Era, the average American had a decent command of the popular music of the 1880s, 1890s, 1900s, and 1910s, thru constant repetition in grammar-school music classes, around Scout campfires, and around the old family pump organ. The popular culture of the twenties, thirties, and forties existed alongside that which preceded it -- but didn't completely erase it from memory.

 

[jamespowers]

Never before has one generation so thoroughly obliterated the memory of everything that preceded it. Even in the Era, the average American had a decent command of the popular music of the 1880s, 1890s, 1900s, and 1910s, thru constant repetition in grammar-school music classes, around Scout campfires, and around the old family pump organ. The popular culture of the twenties, thirties, and forties existed alongside that which preceded it -- but didn't completely erase it from memory.

I wish I could erase the 60s and 70s from the collective memory.......:doh:

 

[vitanola]

Never before has one generation so thoroughly obliterated the memory of everything that preceded it. Even in the Era, the average American had a decent command of the popular music of the 1880s, 1890s, 1900s, and 1910s, thru constant repetition in grammar-school music classes, around Scout campfires, and around the old family pump organ. The popular culture of the twenties, thirties, and forties existed alongside that which preceded it -- but didn't completely erase it from memory.

To wit:

[video=youtube;wH5X_sd7ZQo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH5X_sd7ZQo&feature=youtube_gdata_player [/video]

 

[vitanola]

[video=youtube;Rg7wQEVCaUU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg7wQEVCaUU&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]