So NOW they've butchered Simon & Garfunkel's live performance of a classic!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 тра 2024
- Tonight we're taking a listen to the isolated vocals from 'Bridge Over Troubled Water' by Simon & Garfunkel in 1981 and 2009!
1981 Performance - • Simon & Garfunkel - Br...
2009 Performance - • Video
TIME STAMPS -
0:00 Start
2:02 Art Garfunkel's Isolated 1981 Vocal
3:18 Analysis
4:59 Pitch Accuracy
8:41 Art Garfunkel's Isolated 2009 Vocal
9:41 Analysis
11:21 Level Playing Field?
15:12 Current Release Problems
16:07 Far Reaching Effects
17:12 Art's Final Note
20:29 Comment Section Feedback!
23:31 Overuse? - Розваги
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
I cannot even imagine a scenario where people decided Art Garfunkel's voice required auto tuning. The world has gone mad.
Contemporary art is anti-beauty. Beauty is considered mendacious by contemporary art critics, which is why so much art these days is ugly. Beauty implies the existence of an abstract value of goodness. Modern thinking regards everything as relative, and rejects "goodness" because it implies a moral underpinning to existence. That's why a scenario arose where someone thought Art Garfunkel's voice needed tuning - everything is reduced to a mechanical function.
For the 1981 performance, Garfunkel's vocals were so out of tune that he recorded his vocals again in the studio. There is a bootleg of the original recording that sounds terrible. You can tell this happened because on the songs where they sing as a duo, Garfunkel appears out of synch but Paul Simon does not because they couldn't edit the track to match the video.
Nobody can come close to Art Garfunkel.
To me, Garfunkel's 2009 voice sounds like he cannot normally reach large jumps to E4 and above accurately anymore. This song is incredibly difficult to sing and even minute errors are obvious (try it if you like). Then autotune is the only option especially if you want to stay in roughly the original key. Hopefully I'm wrong but older male singers often have range and voice mussel force and control problems. Normally I much prefer that the songs get transposed down significantly (not a semitone). S&G did the Central Park performance in 1981 at their top. It's not surprising if in 2009 they are no longer at their top.
I think the producers had no real choice and that with less autotune it was worse. In general audio engineers are not stupid and I assume that Garfunkel himself had a say in it. Also note that in 2009 autotune was quite bad and basic. In 2021 autotune does a much better job. Maybe they can re-autotune the raw 2009 performance.
Ok I know I'm going to get butchered over this.
This is the same world who calls Keanu Reeves an “actor.” Mad, indeed.
Every time a voice is autotuned, an angel loses its wings.
(And that goes X100 with the angelic voice of Art Garfunkel!)
I though a Pegasus loses its wings.
@@WayneKitching Depending on the song, both do...
@@WayneKitching 😂
Every time Autotune ruins a natural voice, the Robot Devil appears to take the perpetrator to Robot Hell!;)
That is a point wonderfully made.
What's interesting to me is how different the two versions *felt*. The first version nearly moved me to tears, and hearing the second, even though I could not "read the lines" and didn't know what was going on, I felt absolutely nothing. Fascinating--like they've figured out how to strip the human soul out of a voice.
Me too!
Yes, that’s exactly the point it’s an anti human agenda
My God! That is it exactly!
Absolutely!
I am chiming in as a classically trained violist who has been involved in a lot of recording sessions, who enjoys many different types of music outside of my own profession and area of concentration (historically informed performance, mostly with repertoire from the 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries), and who also happens to have perfect pitch. My CV includes two years of study at the Julliard School in the United States, a master's degree from Oxford, and a DMus from Cambridge University, as well as time as a professor of music at Cambridge. My discography includes recordings starting at the ground floor of the early music movement in David Monroe's Early Music Consort of London, The Academy of Ancient Music, The English Concert, and the Orchestra of the Age of the Enlightenment, among others. Now that I have established my credentials, and it is clear that I'm not any old crank, I'll proceed with what I think of the issue, and why.
First off, I think that going back and remastering for any purpose other than trying to remove noise (which in many cases can't be done without destroying the intended sound) is nothing short of vandalism. One might argue that if the sound engineers of the day had the tools they would have used them. The matter is they didn't, and it seems exceedingly presumptuous to me that an engineer today would presume to know how a previous engineer might have employed it, if at all. In a way, sound engineers are artists too, and in a recording session they are often interacting with the artists. That said, I find that a lot of sound engineers don't have a particularly good ear, and that may play in a little to how things end up sounding. I don't know anything about how sound engineering software works, but I can say without doubt that I can tell the difference between an overly engineered recording and a mildly engineered one, and I can definitely hear one where autocorrect and auto-tune have been applied. To me, they sound horrid. I also can readily tell the difference between a digital and an analogue recording, as long as the analogue recording is being played back on a reasonably good analogue playback device. It is particularly true when it comes to listening to the harpsichord part which is all-prevalent in music of the eras in which I was trained. That instantaneous little "tick" made as the plectra cross the strings is often truncated or absent entirely.
But here's the thing: most people can't hear that, and I dare say that the majority can't hear the difference in a recording without it being pointed out, and many times not even then. I'm not saying that to be elitist. That's just the fact. I'm gifted, and very likely the gentleman who made this video is too. Recording companies aren't recording for us. They're recording for the masses, with the intent of selling as many copies of an album as they can, while at the same time minimizing expenses. Most people are convinced that digital music sounds better than analogue music, and even I have to admit that it's an lot more convenient to have things in a digital format than in an analogue one. There are tradeoffs to be made, as there are with almost anything in life. Still, auto-tuning jars my ears, and it has led for me to a vast reduction in how much pop music I listen to.
There is another aspect that plays into this, and I've heard (and been told) about it both from sound engineers and record company execs. The issue is that sex sells, and for most people it subliminally sells much more than the music itself does. Most pop artists (again from the mouths of the execs themselves) are chosen for their looks, and their ability to perform is a very distant second. It wasn't always completely that way, and that is made evident by the two artists who are dealt with here. Art Garfunkel was no looker, and though Paul Simon had a more attractive face, he's quite short and probably wouldn't be a first choice of recording talent agents in this day and age. He would instead be relegated to the shelves of a songwriter, minus the singer status. So, you have an absolute sex god or goddess, but s/he can't carry a tune? No problem! Enter all of modern technology. Maybe the sound engineer does or maybe doesn't hear the difference, but definitely Joe and Jane Q. Public can't, and on top of that, they subliminally really lust after the person, and whether they are aware of it or not, it plays into their buying decision. There is a whole entire field both in music, and outside of it regarding what psychological aspects of various different things sell, and you can bet that those things will take priority over both the sound, and how well a piece is crafted. Whether we like it or not, music these days plays handmaiden to many other considerations.
There it is. My opinion is that changing an original master and then offering it to the exclusion of the original master is vandalism. Whether we like it or not isn't going to be listened to because of the economics of the thing. If you don't believe me, start a record company where the main issue is how good the talent is and how excellent the sound engineering, and see what happens. My bet is that it will go the way of a large number of startup recording companies which have tried just that. The all either modified their business plan to be much more like everyone else, or they went out of business with lots of unsold product. Those are the cold hard facts, and our ears aren't going to change that.
I'm not sure if your viewers know what is meant by tempering, as this is the first of your videos I've seen. It does matter though especially if you are working with music from the 17th century and earlier, or with many kinds of folk music. Prior to the Renaissance, musicians used a system called pythagorean tuning. It was based on a whole different set of intervals in which the "perfect" fifth was the most consonant interval. In the Renaissance period, and on into the baroque period the third (either major or minor) became the primary interval of harmony, and thirds just don't sound right in pythagorean temporing. To make the thirds sound more consonant, musicians came up with a new way of tuning which we call mean tempering. In it, the interval of a fifth is a bit closer together, and is therefore a tiny bit less consonant and the ear therefore wants to hear it resolved. That's why music from that period on likes to end with what music theorists call a V-I cadence. The key of the piece is called the tonic, and five notes up is the dominant, so the music moves from a dominant chord to a chord in the tonic, and that's what our ear hears as being final, or a resolution. The thing with mean tempering was that the further afield from the tonic and the dominant the music got, the more out of tune it sounded. Late in the baroque period, composers and performers began to fix that by changing to a different tuning system which was called either even tempering, or well tempering, in which each interval is exactly as far apart as the next. Thus, a half step between B and C is exactly the same distance as the half step between C and D-flat, etc, on up the line. Bach is often credited with inventing the system owing in part to his piece "The Well Tempered Klavier." There are indications that other lesser known composers may have beat him to it though, as there are some pieces which pre-date his "Well Tempered Klavier" which don't sound right unless they are even tempered. At the same time, there are other pieces which don't sound quite right if played even tempered, including most early Bach, and pretty much everything Handel wrote. By the time we get to Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, everything was even tempered. So here's the issue: how do you autotune a mean or pythagorean tuned piece?
By the way, the pitch standard the orchestras I was as low as A=414 (Modern, as stated by the maker of this video, is 440, and sometimes as high as 442)! Also, the tempering depended on whose music we were playing and where they were from, as the tempering varied from region to region in the 18th century and before. We got no smoke from either the engineers or the record companies. I guess the world of classical music is a whole different planet in a whole other galaxy. People like David Monroe, Chris Hogwood, and Trevor Pinnock pretty much controlled the whole process, and if the recording companies didn't like it, that was not a problem for us. We were recording as a courtesy to them. All of us were making more money on the concert circuit than off of recording contracts, and further, we were all heavily involved in academics. If the recording companies didn't like it, we had more than enough to do as it was. That was a luxury which put us in the driver's seat to a far greater degree than top quality pop artists will ever enjoy, and that's unfortunate. There are some really fine artists out there who musically could run circles around the people who the record companies are offering up, but they lack the leverage to get their art out in front of the public. It's a pretty brutal world out there for them. My recommendation? Find top-drawer pop artists and support them almost exclusively. It's the only way they'll have even a slight chance. I also want to state that a small amount of variation in pitch can be put down to creative license, just as being a bit behind the beat is in some forms of jazz. Can you imagine a record company beat correcting Count Basie or Ella Fitzgerald? I'd better shut my gob. Next thing you know, they'll do it!
One last comment: I'm pretty sure that Bridge over Troubled Water was released either late in 1969 or sometime in 1970. It was already an oldie goldie in 1981, and the recording here was either a reissue or itself a remaster (it would have at the very least been a digital remaster). The original was an analogue recording, as digital recording technology had not yet been invented in 1970.
Dude, I've alluded to this before, but I want to make myself clear with this post: you are doing a huge service to humanity by doing these videos. THANK YOU.
Let's not forget it's only rock and roll
@@ronnyrono782 ... but I like it, like it, yes, I do.
@@KlausJLinke let's start a band
Humanity ?
@@StratsRUs yep
"Music" industry executives: "Art Garfunkel's voice needs correction."
Said literally nobody else, ever.
Letting music producers/editors mess with singers voices is like letting airline executives fly the airliners. Do we really want amateurs in control?
Right. Are they fixing a problem that no one perceives to be a problem?
@@victotronics that applies to just about everything these days.
Spot on. .. " said literally no one else, ever ". 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Thank you.
@@LTVoyager I agree entirely that record companies shouldn't so bluntly mess with artists' back catalogues (or live music, as in this example), but I don't think it's fair to call music producers amateurs just because you don't like pitch correction. And I think for your airliner analogy to work, it makes more sense if record company execs are the ones messing with singers' voices. And in reality, that's pretty much what's happening. Yes, some producers are super famous and have lots of creative control, but the rest just do the work they get paid to do.
Simon and Garfunkel have the most amazing, beautiful natural voices. What a crime to roboticize them. The music industry is headed straight to hell.
Along with the film industry--for some time now.
It's offensive. Like is it not good enough for you? I feel like Art Garfunkel's voice is so intimate it's almost uncomfortable, to go and manipulate that is really just shitting on something that's almost divine, I don't know how else to say it
It's heartbreaking that they're doing this! It's like going into an art museum and "fixing" a Monet. So frustrating. Thank you for making these videos!
Cute avatar❤️
it's called "leveling the playing field"
Next they will improving the smile of the “Mona Lisa” - rewriting what was to be what they want - If you have not yet, read Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury written in 1953
@@Updavidedattention I have my very own copy
I relate well to this analogy
The "imperfections" in pitch and tone are where EXPRESSION is exercised, not just technical skill. A perfectly tuned vocal note is ultimately devoid of expression that a natural performance would feature.
Yes! You nailed it.
I agree.
I think a Lot of skill goes into singing with good expression, boomer bends took me 40 years to play that way. My notes are always bending and wavering.
That's one of the things that I've noticed through these videos. That often when a note isn't hit quite right, it's because the vocalist is doing something to add some expressiveness to the note. It's one of the reasons why all music isn't 100% midi. We've had tone generators capable of making the notes for quite a few decades now, the Beatles even used a synthesizer at the beginning of All You Need Is Love over 50 years ago, but we do still use a lot of real instruments and real voices because it just has an expressiveness to it that can't yet be done purely digitally.
But today's artists know nothing of this
Hello Phil, I had the blessing of attending a Simon & Garfunkel concert in the summer of 1983. When they did this song - at an outdoor venue in front of 40,000 fans - you could hear a pin drop. That's how great they were, and that's how respectful and awestruck their audience was.
How dare anyone drop a pin while Art is crooning!😬
I think of Bridge and God Only Knows as the best recordings I have ever heard. Not surprising 40,000 were mute!
I saw them in Offenbach, Germany about that time.
Hi Bryan, was that one of the central Park concerts? I was at most of not all of them. I went to queens college, they used to visit just to hang out and play!
It was their college! Great guys! Better singers!
The thing that is really disturbing, is that in the case of someone like Art Garfunkel, who is such an amazing singer, autotune takes away much of the natural beauty of his voice; ultimately, we lose some of the humanity that music brings us…
well said
Precisely as the cultural marxists infecting our planet intend.They're at war with every expression of cultural identity.Those treasured momentos just have to be tampered with.
I am not a musician but I hear what you explain so well. Autotune is artificial. Like a lot of other things nowadays are artificial. As if just being human with a great talent is not good enough!
Thank you! 💞✨🎶
Sometimes, being a great talent doesn't matter now.
Totally agree with everything you've said. I'd rather listen to a person's real voice with all the emotion and heart singing out any day.
I think that when there's a new way of doing something that these companies feel that they can make it ,what they feel is perfect not good why does everything have to be perfect when there is no such thing as perfect. I am 64 and I love music I love lyrics, the instruments, voice. I use to love going to live concerts in 71 on I saw a lot of bands when they were starting out. I live in Las Vegas NV and am able to see many bands from my time, when I was younger. Now that I've been hearing about auto tune it makes me not really wanting to spend money on a concert that is auto tuned. Concerts are not cheap . How dishonest this is to the fans,and now the younger people are going to see these bands and really are not hearing them sing. How DISAPPOINTING.
@@pamelaimpink3826 Pamela, it is beyond disappointing. Younger generations are not exposed to artists today who actually know how to sing without a crutch such as auto-tune. And to auto-tune past performances of musicians/singers from let say 30 yrs. or more ago is sacrilege.
Of course, if it sounds as amazing as they did 1981, unreal!! Beautiful
You nailed it it’s a simple as that. As far as autotune goes Simon and Garfunkel were auto tuning themselves in real time while they were singing like a human because they had such good ears.
@@pamelaimpink3826 agreed!!!
Art Garfunkel should never be auto tuned. His voice is perfect. I'm shocked that auto tune is being used so frequently and now threatens to be used on older artists. I'd rather a voice that is not auto tuned any day. Great analysis Fil as usual. I'm really learning a lot from you!
This is so sad. Simon and Garfunkel do not need auto tune. So glad I still have the original records they are perfect.
His voice is no longer ' perfect". He is 80 plus years old now. Don't kid yourself. For all we know he may have asked for the 2009 performance to be auto-tuned a bit. The problem is that it was not autotuned a bit- it was was autotunes a lot, a real lot.
His voice was NOT perfect, and if it had been, I think he wouldn't have been so successful. It's the imperfections that give his voice character and soul.
1000% If I saw someone auto-tuning Freddie Mercury's old performances, the situation would almost certainly end in my arrest.
@@phillipanderson7398 I would still prefer to hear his natural voice with all of the imperfections that can be attributed to age, then some audio tech's idea of perfect tune. I can handle the reality, and it makes the history better, not worse.
The older version (without autotune) just sounds so much more emotional. That's the one I'm going to listen to. :-)
One of the greats I self taught myself to sing with alongside Peter, Paul and Mary and Johny Cash amongst many others
I was 21 in 1969 when the original version came out. Art's voice mimicked perfectly the notes of the piano at "like a" bridge... When he finished points in the song by taking his voice very high, it was a thrill. I listened to the song over, and over, and, to this day, I can't enjoy any other version of Bridge Over Troubled Water. Thank you for reminding me to listen to it again. It never gets old!!
Art Garfunkel's voice is/was a beautiful instrument and this is absolute sacrilege. S&G have always been one of my (very few in number) favorite artists and I owned this album when it was new in 1970. Played it incessantly on my "record player" switching between speakers to learn (mostly) Paul Simon's part. Honestly, this breaks my heart. It doesn't even sound like him once it's auto tuned.
I noticed also that Art Garkunkel didn't sound like the same person after processing.
@@featherbrain7147 it sounds horrible.
It doesn't sound like him because he was putting the pitches EXACTLY where he intended. He was using those slightly flat and sharp pitches deliberately as an expressive technique.
The problem is the people using these tools are not virtuoso's and do not understand this concept.
@@brendonwood7595
True. It makes the notes he hits sound more powerful.
@@Noumenon4Idolatry it makes it sound lifeless. Like he has totally loss the beauty of his voice.
It's gotta stop. That's so pathetic. Those two guys are known for some of the most heavenly harmonies of all time. Any change is just insulting. 2021 Music industry=poop factory
It's been like that since the late 00's. In 2014 I heard a lot of new chart music and nearly all of it was autotuned. They said it was a good year for music. It was awful. Just not as awful as in the few years just before it.
I actually can hear the flat and sharp notes, but it's never bothered me. One of my favorite songs and favorite voices of all times! As someone said, an angelic voice. And where would we be without Paul's songwriting genius? :)
Art's voice has gotten me through so much. I can't describe the feelings of comfort. To add the auto tune, it changes everything. For the worse.
Any audio engineer asked to do this should refuse. And any audio engineer who says “yes” to the job should be fired on the spot.
I grew up listening to Simon & Garfunkel & had a lot of their records. Absolutely loved them & their harmonies. You won't find a bad song from them. Why would anyone auto-tune artists who had such beautiful voices? Doesn't make any sense to me. Actually makes me angry.
I think it has more to do with a poor attempt to make current singers comparable to singers of the past. "Star making" as opposed to becoming one. The "look" and lack of integrity is more important than actual ability. Imagine running Janis or Geddy through auto tune.
Someone thought that they gotta keep the customer satisfied ?
Art has had issues with his vocal cords (health-wise), big time, and so probably needs a little technical help nowadays.
Since we discovered your channel, my husband and I have watched HOURS of your work.I haver to tell you this. It is clear that you are extremely talented both vocally and as a musician but more than that, your humility, goodness and depth of character shines through. I say this because of the pleasure and amazement you exude as you lift up the talent of others, combing through every nuance of what makes them great and offering tribute to them. This tells me the strings of your heart are way longer than your hair will ever be...don't cut either! ( I can see you...smiling.)
yes! And I love seeing the joy and love on his face when he watches and listens along with us!!
Very well said, Mary! Loads of respect Phil!
Praise well deserved!
Vibrato and slight frequency imperfections are integral parts of the timbre of a person's voice. Along with that is the fact that the frequency spectrum (how much of which frequencies are summed to yield the timbre) of a singer's voice is different when singing different notes. This is why The Chipmunks sound weird and not like people with very high voices. Pedantic as it may be, I could make the argument that an auto-tuned Garfunkel is no longer Garfunkel's voice.
.....As far as I'm concerned.... Art Garfunkel has " the voice of an Angel ", ......it has an " Ethereal quality " that is uniquely his own, his voice is an instrument in and of itself.... I'm 67 years young, and I've had all thier music ,in my collection, listening to this since 1970...; Evoking emotion ,from the Heart and Soul. Nothing can compare.
It is heartbreaking to hear this with Autotone ...... it's not ever needed for his caliber of sound .
Thank you, Fil, for explaining about Autotune , taking these Artists from back in the day and changing it,...which to me, is criminal. ( I knew a person in Vegas, ( sound engineer) who stated- in 2003- that without Autotune, many of these " singers " wouldn't be able to cut it.)
Art's 1981 vocal you showed at the beginning is absolutely stunning in how he nails those notes. What is even more revealing (and centrally crucial to this whole auto tune argument) is that very, very clear and obvious 'human' side in how he transitions through each note and onto the next - natural(!) pitch embellishment and adjustment, and, vibrato - and its natural affect on pitch. All this is what makes a performance 'human'. This is not the non-human pitch locking we see today, and understand that the studio use of Melodyne will have 'engineers' snap timing to inhuman perfection too.
Then, that 2009 monstrosity - the vocal sounds so damn inhuman here. Utterly disgusting how they've removed all of his 'human' touch.
You are doing a singularly fantastic job here in educating so many, with this video series, in just how much auto tune is being abused today (- the products of Antares and Celemony).
Advice for all potential vocalists - if you cannot sing live, then kindly get the f##k off the stage: STOP miming and putting out 'songs' you cannot sing live. If you can't do that, damn well INFORM your paying customers - BEFORE PURCHASE - that you're miming and/or using auto tune.
I agree but what chance does anyone have when this is becoming normal practice even in live performances and even TV auditions!! The world has gone mad!!
😆 pretty sure that wouldn't be so great for sales, and this is why pop music is becoming the cookie cutter industry that it currently is. if you don't have to worry about people actually being able to sing or write then you can put out way more songs per year and make a shit ton of money even though nobody's going to remember it a year later. just find somebody that looks good and crank out a bunch of albums. the lyrics don't even have to make sense they just have to hit all the trigger words. a line about sex here lying about doing drugs there line about being a gangster here, smoking weed and getting a blowjob, all interspersed with the f word and a good beat which has been created by the studio technician. it'll be about eight songs like that & about three "ballads" that have been "sung" with the liberal help of pitch correction, because the artist can't even sing... because you need to give the teenage girls something too, as their boyfriend plays it on loop in his wannabe Fast And the Furious Honda with the primer gray quarter panels and unfinished aftermarket spoiler that's been ad hoc bolted onto the trunk, which has been filled with the most expensive subwoofer that he could afford before even buying all the other things, which is why they are unfinished, and never will be because he'll burn up the motor before he gets the money to finish the exterior.
I have Asperger's syndrome. I live on the far slope of the Uncanny Valley from most people. (I am also cursed with perfect absolute pitch.)
That autotuned version sound like a fucking robot TO ME.
I grew up with S&G (I'm 69 years old) and if I had heard that second recording without being told it was Garfunkel I'd have said someone programmed a synthesizer to try to sound like him... and failed.
Fuck record companies anyway.
aggree ! I've seen a live video here on YT by the Foo fighters, featuring David Lee Roth.
Man, his voice has been so bad and he was slightley off so many times, but he was spreading such a good mood and great performance - just plain fun to watch and listen, that nobody would ever think about cherry picking.
To hell with auto tune
That's what I said at the most recent Bon Jovi concert. It was embarrassing for JBJ.
It's called character - the very reason to listen to different singers and that we fall in love with their tone and expression of the emotion in the music.
Being a solo singer, or a front-man, is all about *not* hitting that perfect note! It's about having the courage and confidence to play around that pitch line and find your true, soulful expression; to use a computer to strip that out is to remove the humanity of a performance.
I have perfect pitch and a good voice and started singing when a choir director heard me singing to myself in a shop when I was six. I trained and sang (joyfully!) in choirs till I was 19 but I considered myself to be another instrument of the orchestra (or a human lute in madrigal work 😆) and it was a wonderful thing - but completely different to singing solo - classical or rock - because there is just zero character to just hitting that note. I could make light and shade etc... but I was always going to sound like, frankly, a choir mistress singing pop 😂 (or Shirley Bassey singing "I'm coming up" 😬). And it's not a classical-to-pop thing - look at Pat Benetar!
It's all about the money - getting music consumers used to tuning-fork vocals makes the artists replaceable and, therefore, disempowered against the greedy, no-talent cretins who are desperately fighting against the independence and community that the internet offers artists and craftspeople of any discipline.
People have already said it, but this is sacrilegious. And Phil, thank you for your (correct) opinion about this, and especially on this particular song. Thank you for not being an autotune apologist. This autotune is shit. I really haven't heard a good argument on using autotune on ANYTHING at all. If a singer cannot get near a pitch that is in tune, they probably shouldn't be singing in the first place. This video really bummed me out if they really released this song like that.
This is justifiable reason to stop buying music.
Absolutely.
It's that human element that makes it so intriguing..
Those slight pitch differences make the feelings come through.
If I wanted a robot to sing I'd go to Westworld.
Using pitch correction on S&G is heinous. It can only do more harm than good. Yes, you're right about the sound of the auto-tuned voice. It sounds digital. almost like a robot.
You are doing a public service. To think that artists such as Freddie Mercury and Simon and Garfunkel are being auto-tuned gives me cold chills.
Very unnatural, almost sinister.
I hope you will keep pointing this out and speaking about this. I think it was a disgrace to autotune this classic performance and many others.
Sinister is a good word for it. Vulgar and obscene were the ones that popped into my head.
It seems more and more that "humanity" is being removed from music just as it is in other areas of life.
Yes
Definitely sinister!!!
I'm so glad that there's finally someone talking about that ridiculous autotuning. I was shocked to see dozens of comments on that video stating that he was singing better than in the old days and that his voice sounded even more angelical. I even tried to discuss with some of them, but had to gave up.
It's not technically "perfect"... it's artistically perfect! Every vocal performance has an emotional aspect which Art presents so beautifully! I hate autotune, it sounds so dead.
I didn't know why today's music sounded dead until I watched these videos.
Thank you, Kent, well said...that's an important distinction.
My God, have these people all gone INSANE? Art Garfunkel has one of the purest, most beautiful voices that was ever given a human being. He has the voice of an angel. Auto-tune on these voices is like gold paint on a beautiful, natural Lilly. What do they WANT?
What is beyond perfection? Artificiality is beyond perfection - and the destruction of everything that is worth listening to.
What MAKES the "old" vocalists better is BECAUSE they weren't "perfect."
These people who are in charge of these productions, need to have their eardrums slapped until they bleed, and they are deaf. The artists sound dead, and this is literally sacrilege.
The auto-tuned version sounds sterile and machine-like. What is truly sad is that a listener would even ASK "What's the problem with it?" They've been made stupid and unaware of what a beautiful voice really sounds like. They hear trash and think it's treasure - they've been made musically illiterate, in the name of a few bucks from "remastering and re-releasing" a song that could have just been re-released - and been a hit all over again. Why not just use printed lyrics and a robot reader using auto-tune to SOUND LIKE the original vocalist's voice. Does anyone think this isn't coming? The introduction of a "New" (virtual) vocalist, "Bobble-headed Roberta!".
I can't help but wonder how the original producers and audio engineers, who worked without (and without needing) auto-tune must feel about their original perfect recordings being auto-tuned.
I only had to close my eyes to hear that they had butchered Art's voice. (I couldn't help but close my eyes for the first live performance - it was so beautiful).
"These people who are in charge of these productions, need to have their eardrums slapped until they bleed" LOL. sigh. What is humanity coming to.
This was a great and elaborate exposition of why autotune is a problem. The example of Art Garfunkel was very well chosen, because this singer was incredibly good from a technical point of view. It is absurd to alienate his voice through autotune. Thank you very much for your great videos.
As a musician, I was always of the opinion that the slight tuning discrepancies between stringed instruments was part of their appeal. To do this with voices that are so good to begin with, takes away the passion, expression, and character of the performance. To me, a performance, particularly a live performance, is about the passion in that moment, and not the robotic accuracy of a techno-bot. Love the channel by the way.
See if this helps...the difference between auto-tune and a microphone and amplifier is this..
Auto-tune does NOT change the VOLUME of a sound it just squishes the top of the sound wave and the bottom of the wave into the middle so instead of the sound looking like the wave for surfing in the water park it looks like the water shooting through the pipe in the tube ride. There is no more water than when you started and no less water then when you started its just in a different shape, it's all condensed into a much TIGHTER SHAPE The high and low points are all squished into the middle!
A microphone and an Amplifier is like this: You and your siblings are having a water fight with squirt guns and it's a great time but suddenly your father steps around the corner with a FIRE-HOSE at full blast and goes after you all! Suddenly things got a whole lot wetter right! THAT is what an amplifier and mic does it turns a squirt gun into a Fire-hose!
I felt a shiver with the natural recording, it evokes emotion. The '09 version felt flat and lifeless.
I know eh. No emotion in the auto tune. Sad. They ruin new music, so people love the old music. Now they want to change the old music to crap. We should start auto tuning Bob Dylan, Neil Young , The Beatles, Geddy Lee, John Fogerty, David Bowie, Tina Turner , Leonard Cohen, The Tragically Hip. Hell lets just redo every classic album with auto crap! Bad enough, when they compressed it, now they want to totally destroy it. Just sayin.
Billy Holiday
@@seanmackey8552 I think this is part of their game. They are HAVING to auto-tune the old, classic recordings because by comparison, new recordings, for the most part (even from artists who have voices as good as the "classic" vocalists did), sound like shit - soulless, emotionless, and cold. This is making newer vocalists lazy (why should they work their asses off to sound great, when the producers will just "round it all off" anyway?). First, it was the fight to see who could produce the loudest recordings, using gobs of crushing compression and destroying all nuance and dynamics by slathering Compression all over the recording, and now, both that AND Auto-tune. If they make the older, "classic" recordings sound like the "new, improved, auto-tuned" robotic recordings, they'll never have to explain why a "hack vocalist" who couldn't carry a live tune in a bucket, sounds so bad when singing - they'll all sound exactly the same!
@@berretta9mm17 Thanks for adding that and you are correct in you're response. Sad.
Music is or should be a living experience, not an exercise in electronic precision. All the little imperfections in pitch and timing of a live performance are what make it special. A great example of how two singers can absolutely nail it time after time are the Everly Brothers. Search UA-cam for takes from their recording sessions of the song "When Will I Be Loved" with producer Archie Bleyer. It's a clinic on how music was and should still be made. They both come in totally synced and pitch perfect time after time. No tricks, no nothing, just talent and practice.
I wish Fil would do that video as a lesson on "how it's done". Art on the second example above is a travesty and a musical drive-by crime.
Spot on. I though of them as well. As with Lennon and McCartney, it is the imperfections of their voices in harmony which create the magic.
love, Love, LOVE the Everly Brothers. They were the Beatles favorite Band.
That's why vinyl is the only way to go..........
I listen to Animals As Leaders. The 3 of them do nearly everything on the DAW. Matt Garstka said that in one of the songs the MIDI drum part he made for himself was so hard that it took him several months to perfect it enough to then do a drum playthrough. My point is that back in the day they actually RECORDED in RECORDING STUDIOS but now everyone has a MAC and software at home. They work on their parts at home or together and chop, copy, paste and fabricate everything you hear. S&G are being edited by someone on his DAW and the artists in this case no longer have control over the actual production. Today you get STEMS not TRACKS because DIGITAL. Today you get Axe-Fx models not Fender Champ & Shure microphones. Today you have in ear monitors not wedges on the stage. You can sample your own voice and then produce various STEMS and MIDI on a DAW and produce an entire song w/ no actual instruments. On one hand "WOW THIS ID COOL" and on the other "WOW THIS ISN'T ANY GOOD"
I was one of the odd people who didn't like Art Garfunkel's voice in the 1970s. I thought he sounded strained, thin, and flat. Now that I hear him with Autotune, I think he sounds 80% worse. It bought out all the flaws in his voice. Does anyone else just think he does not have a musical voice? (No rock throwing please!)
Thanks for another good one, Fil. Whenever I wonder about someone, I head for your channel to see if you've covered them or not. It's great that you are doing this! Much appreciated!
Art’s voice is human. It sounds deliberate. It’s amazing. That song is incredible. The second one sounds ghostly. There is no emotion! His voice was butchered.
Non autotuned singers who can actually sing bring a beauty in the slighest vulnerability. There is a hideous discrepancy in the two versons. Simon and Garfunkel were perfect - for those of us who love older music I think many of us do have an ear tuned to reality.
What a beautiful comment…. It’s true, an outstanding performance has both strength and vulnerability.
Yes!!!!
I agree. Vocalist were once loved for the authenticity, raw emotion of their performance.
Wow, this is really helpful to me. I have been frustrated that my ear does not immediately pick up autotune. But in this video, in particular, I can really hear it, really hear how it takes Art Garfunkel's clear and beautiful sound and turns it into something muddy. Thank you for your service to music!
I never imagined it would make that much of a difference. However, after hearing the two, the autotuned version sounded totally devoid of character and emotion. It was almost robotic. If they'll do it to him, what's next? Eta James autotuned? 😲
Yes! It sounded robotic.
Cylon and Garfunkel.
Just heard bridge over troubled water at work on Spotify. My patient asked “who is that?” I of course said Simon and Garfunkel. Then I paused… it wasn’t “right”. I Shazammed it… it was S&G… this video just explained what I heard.
Hearing that was soul crushing. Thanks for explaining how they are doing this to old recordings.
Wow, you aren't kidding about Art's incredible intonation--I wasn't looking at the screen when you first played the '81 concert, and I immediately thought "well obviously this is autotuned, except it does sound fairly subtle." Nope, Art's voice is just that extraordinary. As for the actually autotuned versions... I would love to hear how these artists feel about this after-the-fact messing with their work.
@@marktait2371
Man, that was hard to read.
@@thechumpsbeendumped.7797 Mark is from Russia
I thought the first one was auto tuned, when he said it wasn’t I was thrown off, I guess the artifacting is from the isolation. I went and listened to the original, and yeah… he is just that good.
@@DoctorLazertron
I've listened to that song and the BOTW album thousands of times it's one of my all-time favourites and was going to say the same, it sounded so odd hearing it in isolation like that, that it threw me.
@@marktait2371
Does the poor signal delete all punctuation and alter spellings?😉
If it does, you can look forward to ByeDon’s Build Back Better Bill getting you better internet coverage.
"A computer being in charge of Art's voice."
I don't recall ever asking for a computer to be in charge of Art Garfunkel's voice, and I don't recall anyone else asking for that either.
Yet there were people on this earth who thought "Yes. Autotune. That's what Art Garfunkel's voice is missing." and went with it.
What a time to be alive.
Your comments as always are right on the money, you mentioned wanting to analyze a singer from 50 years ago who is still singing and recording, who we know has a great voice, would producers auto tune that singer in the studio today. Johnny Mathis’ last CD Johnny Mathis Sings The Great New American Song Book, produced by Baby Face, I hope they didn’t use auto tune or pitch correction. For a singer of his stature who is still performing live on stage, we life long fans know it’s not going to be 100% perfect and as you have said, that’s the point of a live performance by someone who is a great singer who is also human. Please analyze the CD and let us know what you think
"Butchered" is spot on-what a travesty. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would think autotuning this performance was necessary let alone a good idea. The isolated vocals in this and other videos in the series are a bit odd sounding, but the natural human voices still shine through. With autotuning all nuance is removed and to my ear it gives the impression of singing into a glass jar. "Correcting" performances such as this is madness. Thank you, Fil, for yet another brilliant analysis and commentary.
I can tell instantly. It sounds robotic. Many of the new artists can't even sing. I love you and your analysis. ❤ 🇺🇸
Wow. Art Garfunkels pitch was crazy-good in 1981. That's remarkable. What's also remarkable, is that I can HEAR the tinny-ness, that slightly robotic artificial quality of the auto-tuned version, and of course it's obvious on the waveform. Congratulations, Fil! You've educated a listener! LOL
good job explaining auto tune, Fil. I'm a baby boomer and a huge S&G fan and I do NOT like the idea of the companies auto tuning the 2009 performance! You can really tell the difference between the 1981 version and the 2009 one. The 2009 one, his voice seems cold, unemotional, just not natural at all. Thanks again!
While you talked, my first thought was "Oh hell. Autotune at karaoke night? Half the fun of karaoke is hearing people who can't hit any notes having fun! Now everyone will think they can actually sing while sober!" (I love karaoke. The only place I will sing in public is at a bar filled with drunks. They appreciate my lack of singing ability.) But the whole autotune thing...Hearing what was done with the great Art Garfunkel's voice? Nope. I like the perfection of imperfection. Much more pleasing to the ear. Maybe that's why I enjoy so much of the older stuff to the new releases. Even my 20 yr old loves 60s and 70s over much of what is released today.
If I was one of those living legends, I’d have a fit with the record labels if I found out my old performances are now being auto tuned. I bet they don’t even inform these artists. Do they have a right to do that? You send your analysis to the artists directly on social media or their managers because they deserve to know what’s being done to their voices.
Maybe you need to start a petition about auto tuning voices to send to every major record label and known indie labels/studios. They are abusing auto tune software and the artists by using it. I can understand if an artist wants to use it for artistic expression like Cher did with songs like, “Do You Believe?” but nobody wants to hear performances hitting every note perfectly, album recordings included. It’s no different than airbrushing celebrities on models in photos while people know they don’t look so perfectly in real life - and that’s why artists like Alicia Keys stopped wearing makeup permanently and many celebrities have done shoots showing all their flaws. If singers are not aware and people don’t speak up, labels are going to continue abusing auto tune to make voices unrealistically perfect.
My son often says he goes to see a band and they sound nothing like their videos or albums live and he’s very disappointed. I told him that those that started as pub bands etc are always better as they can actually sing without auto tune.
There is a kind of auto-tuning going on, but it's all done naturally in Art's brain, the pitch variations are being adjusted as he goes along. As you showed, if he very fractionally goes sharp or flat he generally corrects it quite quickly. This feedback is a constant for any good singer, a bad one doesn't have that finely attuned feedback loop. The other issue in a live setting is how loud the backing instruments are and how good the quality and volume of the monitoring system was, or was balanced. There's so many variables in a live environment and it relies heavily on how the singer can hear themselves performing in the mix, and the effects of the venue's acoustics. A pre-auto-tune era studio recording is a far better way to judge a singer's ability to stay on pitch as it's within a highly controlled environment. We just don't know how well Art could perceive his own voice in these live performances.
This is "simulated stereo sound", "Hank Williams now with Strings!" and that super harsh EQ that most music had when DDD mastering first came out all over again.
You reminded me of a story from back when I used to mix sound at church.
One practice I noticed the choir director not singing in to her mic.
In between songs I asked her if there was a problem and if I could fix it.
"The PA makes me flat."
I just walked away.
BTW this PA was an old school, made in the 80's Peavey 4 channel.
About as basic as you can get.
No pitch shifting option on this model.
BTW they have taken down the 1981 performance.
It's all those little flaws and imperfections that add soul.
Maybe you could have a look at Abba, if you haven't done it already.
@@paulfrench2650 particularly their new Voyage album
"There is a crack in everything - that's how the light gets in"
Leonard Cohen
I feel your passion Fil. Thank you. Who on God's green earth would want to auto tune Art Garfunkel singing Bridge over troubled water! I don't understand why producers/record companies are doing this. Aren't there a lot of good singers that they shouldn't have to do that. I hope Steve Perry wasn't/isn't one of them. You are doing us a great service Fil. It took me a while to understand what you were saying with auto tune but now I hear it, not like you can but I appreciate what your doing. Fil I wished you got payed what you were worth! :)
I'm guessing what's the "reason" behind mandatory auto-tuning of everything. Auto-tune allowed even horrible performers to sound "decent"; the music industry in love with profits, adopted it as a standard "fix". But when a bad vocalist is auto-tuned to perfection, the output sounds more in tune than a great musician who lived before the auto-tune. To destroy the evidence of an epic mess up, and because the people are waking up to the fact that most new performers & music simply aren't as good as the old, they want to destroy the evidence and begin "auto-tuning everything.
I apologize for commenting several times. I saw the episode where you analyzed Elvis songs and they haven't been auto tuned yet. When I used his name in an earlier comment, I only meant that anyone can now almost be made to sing wonderfully, when they are sorely lacking in talent! This is very, very sad. Once again, a huge THANK YOU to you Phil, for bringing this to our attention! You are greatly appreaciated by everyone who loves music!
You're so good Fil, and a great teacher. Since I discovered your channel just a few short weeks ago, I have listened to your analysis of some of my favorite artist and have learned so much. As a vocalist who also used to tune his own piano, I am familiar with 440 Hz and equal temperament. In tuning my piano over the years, I learned how to not tune each string in perfect pitch, as it made the whole instrument sound awful. There had to be slight variations in tuning in order to sound "perfect" to the human ear.
When I heard you start to play the 2009 recording of this piece, I could tell instantly that auto tune was being used, and it sounds just as awful as a piano in perfect tune!! You are right, they butchered this classic piece.
Keep up the great work, I am looking forward to more. By the way, you have a great voice as well, as I have heard you sing a few bars on some of your videos. Thanks.
It has been demonstrated (even at the royal lectures shown on TV) that it is the small imperfections that make real music so pleasing to the ears.
It is these same small imperfections that make the timbres of certain artists so pleasing to many peoples ears.
Mucking about like this does not increase the aural pleasure of these icons.
These new producers with their computerised conditioned ears should bog off and leave music real and unadulterated.
Real producers should be able to take the raw material and create a masterpiece without taking the soul from the music.
Great video. Thanks Fil.
Bang on as usual, Phil.
Autotune is steroids for music. It’s destroying the core of music.
It's steroids for the no talent bums who use it. It's the music that suffers the side effects.
I've avoided this because I didn't want to hear that beautiful voice destroyed with technology.
I recently had occasion to discuss what autotune and other electronic enhancements are for music with a 7 year old. She takes piano and dance, but loves kids' Disney songs, and the like. The best 'natural' voices she's probably heard include folks like Rihanna and Miley Cyrus, but mostly she hears vocals that have been greatly enhanced.
I told her how it used to be that singers had to be able to sing well, and now they essentially don't need to. I asked if she wanted to hear some really great natural voices with no enhancements or changes done to them. She did. I thought she would listen to each for a bit and then get back to her video game that was of great interest at the time.
I was wrong. I played her this song live with both of them from Central Park, and one by Carpenters, and the live of Bobby Hatfield singing Unchained Melody. She sat and watched and listened transfixed without saying a word to all of them then asked for another after the first one. Start them young understanding and appreciating good music and singers! :) I suppose I should try to explain the Bee Gees when she's a bit older lol!
A complete travesty to do this to Art's vocals. What in the world for? I don't know why the auto-tuned version sounded so bad to me, but it did sound just awful. Maybe it lost all emotion. Even if his voice wasn't so perfect to begin with, I don't like changing what people sound like naturally, not one bit. lol. I didn't need to see the screen as I could tell the difference pretty immediately.
Love your analysis Fil as I always do. Thank you.
A voice like that does not need auto tune!
The day that they auto-tune Karen Carpenter‘s voice is the day that I will go apesh*t mad 😡
Yeah, that will be a horrible day and will mark the end of beauty
They better not do that to her.
What a horrible thought!!!!!
Her brother double-tracked most of the records anyway.
Can't see Richard ever allowing that. If anyone understood and appreciated the vocal mastery of Karen it was her brother/collaborator/producer.
Bite your tongue!
The whole notion of autotuning near-perfect performances is absolutely outrageous. To the average listener, those vintage performances were just fine. The Beatles, in the recent Get Back film, banged out those vocals and harmonies beautifully- and “live” no less. As has always been the case, there’s no substitute for talent. What do record execs know? Lol Thanks for helping to prove the point, Fil!
Fil - You are so articulate. Thank you for explaioning so well!
I have (well my boys have split up all my vinyl now) this vinyl album in its perfectly preserved sleeves. I have dozens of Elvis vinyl albums, some still in the original plastic covering, never played, perfectly preserved. Plus all the hundreds of my 45's. I am so happy to have these, always stored in properly, to pass-on to the next generation. Whenever I see vinyl stacked one on top of the other it drives me batty. My boys are acutely aware of how to store them in a temperature regulated environment. It is so nice to be able to pass on all my heirloom vinyl. The record companies can't autotune or pitch monitor my vinyl! I love your analysis Fil, your livestreams, and your talent! Love from a huge music nut in the USA! BTW: I was able to cast the analysis from Patreon onto my TV! YAY!! The soundbar with subwoofer by my side is much superior to my computer speakers!!! YAY!
Spot on...the auto-tuned voice has no soul, it sounds robotic.
I dont care so much about pitch perfection, my ear is not that good. But I do hear the strangeness that autotuning introduce. As you say it feels robotic and have no soul. It is like listening to a tone generator.
On a side note? When you listen to his great voice, AND his breathing, the "slightly sharps" begin to make sense, because a human being, in their brain, KNOW where they want to go with their voice, and so they begin to build for the upcoming lift or fall, which will, most times, show up on the wave form
When notes are snapped to the line? You remove this part of their humanity, which gives the vocalist, their essence, their personality, their style.
Your last paragraph: 👍 Nothing more needs to be said RE: auto-tune ✌️
The great singers of the swing era knew how to slide for emotion, how to beg a pitch to give it a bluesy sound. They had real ears, and real voices.
@@tgbedini Absoluteyl
@@rickrickard2788 The Italian big three, (Crocetti, Benedetto and Sinatra) Joe Williams, Nat Cole, and the great ladies, Ella, Sarah Vaughn, on and on. they knew their craft, and the craft was delivering the song, and making you believe it.
For that matter, groups like the Sons of the Pioneers had to be so darned good to deliver tight 3 part harmonies, which sound like crap if any one of them is out, and they did it sounding human and real.
Right on, Rick. The breathing that's left after auto tune makes no sense. It's singing by a being without real life internal organs. The body is missing and the soul flees.
Well done Inspector. I've talked til I'm blue in the face to younger musicians and industry members about the excellent points you are making and revealing in this video.
I myself, found my vocals had been auto tuned, without my approval,, after all studio work on the last album that I had written and recorded in a professional L.A. studio, had supposedly been finished. The unauthorized effect, being done by an experienced and respected industry producer, after sessions had been completed and prior to the formal final listening session before the recordings were to be sent out for the final mastering and product/album production.
I found the effect of auto tune to be so jarring and altering to the original feel and sound of the performances of the songs, that the band and I found ourselves having flashbacks to Vietnam. None of us were anywhere near the age of serving in Vietnam, let alone being born yet.
You can imagine, this was a bitter, jagged pill and wake up call for everyone in the group mixed with the distinct flavor of betrayal.
After tens of thousands of dollars had been spent on the recording sessions and the time spent writing and rehearsing the songs prior to even beginning recordings, we were being asked to listen and to approve the mastering with a "rubber stamping" sort of expectation by the producer. As if, I or the band wouldn't even notice the auto tune having been slapped on, in the ham fisted way you describe Garfunkels 2009 performance had been. I believe the producer even expected that I and the band would be wowed,thrilled and amazed, with what was his final-super secret, unauthorized final-final mix and master.
As we all listened, my band mates and I, exchanged subtle glances to one another, best described as "WTFF?" looks of horror. After the conclusion of the listening and a short private conversation with my band mates, we took the only path of musical and artistic integrity, of not approving the masters and of firing the Mr. Big Boy pants, star maker LA producer.
The entire episode and shady practices of the producer, convinced me that I wanted nothing more to do with the L.A. music business, industry and its bully like pressure and threatening "we know better than you, rube, do what we say you piss ant" attitude that it treats the preponderance of new and upcoming artists and performers with.
It is easy to see why, at that stage of the process many younger artists or groups hungry for their break would simply relent to these types of producers and company men rather than face the blowback, threats and intimidation of these types of industry or label personnel. Those that have reminded you time and again how they`ve so graciously taken you under their wing and benevolent auspices.
I`ll never walk away from making music and creating but I've never regretted walking away from the L.A music industry or L.A, for that matter. It is a place and industry which seems to be designed to destroy souls.
Love your channel and work, and I've actually followed and been subscribed to you as "Swivel Hips" for several years.
Wishing you a Merry Christmas, a jolly holiday (Joliday) season, and much success in the new year.
This is so depressing. The quality of an artist’s voice and the performance does not affect you because they’re as accurate as a computer, it’s the expression they put in the voices. True beauty always has some imperfection.
Art's vocal from 1981 is just magical.
Time to let the record companies know that if they want to make sales, this must cease. Either that, mass education of the consumers is in order. I appreciate these presentations. Thanks!
Auto tune is unnatural, and wrecks the entire artform and experience. Anyone who can sing does not need it. It is only needed for creators who can't sing a lick. Lip syncing, and auto tune equates to lack of skills and good judgement.
It wouldn't really work, people have flocked to concerts for people who mime even older people, I went to see Frankie Valli and was horrified to hear something like this: ua-cam.com/video/HkZZsEjycx4/v-deo.html, now I understand older artists lose their voices and ability sometimes, I've been to see Paul McCartney sing out of tune (it was still great) Ben E King. I know they're older and can't always do what they used to but it was still a great authentic hearing them. But back to Frankie Valli, when I spoke to most fans they either couldn't tell he was miming, didn't care or where pretending he wasn't.
@@flemit35 If you only want to hear great music, just listen to their old original recordings at home. If you want to see the person and the ambiance of the live concert, then go hear them and not worry about the perfection of their music. That’s my philosophy anyway.
It's going to take more than convincing record labels. You're going to have to convince today's artists. I imagine most want to be auto-tuned to cover-up their shortcomings. It's a sad sad shortcut to 'talent'.
@@LTVoyager Surely though, the ambience is damaged if this hideous practice is in use?
@@flemit35 Frankie has been known to mime for a few years now. He should stop touring. He should have paid off his debts by now.
Personally, I much prefer Elvis Presley's performance of Bridge Over Troubled Water. No autotune, no pitch correction, just pure magnificent unmatched talent. Auto tune and pitch correction rips the soul, humanity, and magic out of the music and is used to prop up people who lack genuine talent. It makes me absolutely sick it is now being used to butcher the music of true artists like Freddie Mercury, etc.. What is considered music in most cases nowadays is garbage. The creativity and genuine talent of artists in the past has been replaced by the industry in favor of people with maybe a little talent plus auto tune, pitch correction, and other technologies who would have been laughed off the stage in the past. I will never understand how what passes for music today can be accepted or popular. Elvis Presley, Freddie Murcury, The Beatles.... There is no one today I'm aware of that could remotely compare.
Spot on as usual. I recall watching the TV series Glee when it first came out in May, 2009. At first I thought 'OMG, these vocalists are dead on pitch... what amazing singers!' This was before autotune became mainstream. But I could tell something was amiss with these 'too perfectly pitched' singers/songs. I don't mean to be elitist, but I can hear any autotune immediately, as in the S&G piece you analyzed here. Completely ruins the vocals. HOWEVER many if not most listeners, and certainly 'casual' listeners have no clue regarding the software alteration of the voices.
Art's voice takes me back to when I was a boy, early 70's, riding with my Dad in his orange VW bug, listening to their greatest hits on an 8 track tape. Good times.
That performance in Central Park is mind-blowing. It's so incredible. Possibly the best live version of Bridge over Troubled Water.
Auto tune is the audio equivalent of beauty filters on TikTok. I applaud your efforts to explain this to people! Producing music with as little digital manipulation as possible has become my purpose in life. The feeling it creates is entirely different than the robotic and false digital artifacts that happen when you make pitch AND rhythm, too perfectly quantized. Dark times, my friend. Keep on keeping on cosmic solider!
Fil, I haven't been able to bring myself to watch this yet- I've been listening to S&G's "Old Friends" a lot recently, and it was released in 1997. I'm so furious that some a&&hole record company (or whoever) would DARE use auto-tune on any of their work I can't even think straight. I'll check it out as soon as I don't feel I'm in danger of throwing things. I also wanted to thank you for suggesting Disturbed & Myles Kennedy's live version of Sound Of Silence. My God, I'm still crying over the beauty of it! Take care and ROCK!🎸💞
You're right Fil. Greats are greats because they sound NATURALLY good and sing as close to pitch. Nobody's perfect. I'd like to see you do this with a Linda Ronstadt song say " Blue Bayou" in the 19702. Good work Fil showing how things are.
Thanks for this. This is honestly what I have been thinking for years. I don't necessarily blame the artists themselves, but I do blame the recording engineers and executives who have 'trained' modern audiences to think the weirdness created by autotune is normal and music without it doesn't sound right to those ears. I think big pop stars like Beiber and Swift would never have made it back in the pre auto tune era. I am really disappointed because the music companies have started to produce a LOT of country music so it has the same artificial sound as pop.
There’s a live album of The Beach Boys 50th anniversary reunion tour with Brian Wilson from 2012. I bought the album because I got to see that tour and it was fantastic with even the often unpredictable Brian in consistently great voice and spirit. I was horrified by how much auto tune and reverb was slapped all over the album, often in the most unnecessary places. What’s the point of recording a live album if you’re going to turn it into a monstrosity in the studio? Recording studio overdubs for live albums was always common back in the day but they still made sure that they captured the spirit of the live performance and that they didn’t make it sound like it was tinkered with in the studio. Nowadays, they don’t seem to care much about that. It’s insulting to the artist and the listener.
I love that Simon and Garfunkel are poets as well as singers with beautiful voices
S&G was my late brother's, (who was a bass, baritone choir singer himself), favorite singing duo. He had quite literally every single album of theirs and had been to every concert that he could attend. I had the good fortune of seeing them in person numerous times myself. what these people who use autotune don't realize is that when the human voice quivers across the notes especially the way his does, that this is where emotion comes from. Hearing that conveys the sadness of the song and create simpatico. When you autotune or AutoCorrect, all of that is lost and it sounds like a robot singing the song. It has lost the emotion and creates no simpatico. It does not resonate the same emotional chords because it sounds ingenuous. a human being by nature will tend to quaver when faced with a tremendously emotional situation and that is just not present in the newer version. Cher made autotune famous, but she did so as an "effect" which sadly laid the foundation for the most misused technologies ever conceived in music. It opened the door for a lot of mediocre singers "who had the right look, but not the right voice" and the worst part is the younger audiences who grew up with this technology don't even realize what it is they're missing. They just see it as "normal" I used to think I was crazy because I've always noticed that on singing competitions, some voices always sounded more "produced" than others, and almost invariably those were the voices that would win the competition's. Now I have a deeper understanding as to why that appears so. And that I wasn't just "hearing things". Thanks for your series on this subject.
Art Garfunkel's voice is one of the most beautiful in music. And he was just so accurate. Brilliant vocalist.
So appreciate learning about this. I know this is different....but I personally don't care for synthesized music. When listening to the music, I will try to find an instrument that I recognize, and it isn't there. Just like these voices being auto tuned; when I listen, I can't hear a real voice. I found a soundtrack of a favorite movie, and thought since the movie was so good, I would like the soundtrack, as I am very influenced by music. It turns out that is all synthesized music. Though it really worked in the movie, didn't stand out, seem to fit the mood of each scene, but just to listen as a soundtrack, there was nothing there. Just an interesting thing.
I have only time to listen to the first 133 minutes of your presentation here, but let me say Thank You! Also, another thing these new studio exec/producer/honorable mention musicians don't realize about playing music with a band or in weather or for a crowd with a certain vibe is that there is a reason for coming up from slightly below a pitch or descend from slightly above that has to do with feeling the vibe of the audience and playing to that .. healing it. Also, sometimes, for instance when playing fiddle in a band with guitars, the low string on the violin needs to be tuned a tiny bit sharp in order to match the guitar chords and that makes the vocalists have to adjust. There is a lot to making live music well. God Bless everyone who gives this to us and everyone we play for. Thank you for this. God Bless you richly ... Keep on!!!!
You mentioned it when you mentioned Cher, i too dont mind artistic use of auto tune, it can create a certain sound that fits well with certain songs.
But these days its rarely used artistically, its used to mask flaws, handy for those who cannot sing too well but it should not ever be used for actually skilled singers/vocalists.
To me, auto tune is often pretty clear as it tends to take the life out of the voice, emotions get reduced, i dunno.. but i do know i dont like it much lol. (i dont always catch it, but most of the times i do)
Imagine Postmodern Jukebox auto-tuning their singers... first of all... none of their singers needs it and second of all.. their music being vintage style.. auto tune would stick out like a sore thumb.
I'm loving these "how to recognize auto-tune" videos Fil, educational and sometimes its a "i knew it!!" kind of situation when you show a song i suspected of suddenly having been auto tuned. (re-releases they "remastered")
Simon and Garfunkel will be amazing 200 years from now, and Paul Simon's lyrics & melodies are in concert with Dylan, Lennon / McCartney, John Lennon, Joni Mitchell, Ray Charles, et al. Thanks, Fil, for the clear, all in context explanation of auto-tune. I'd never have thought S&G we're modified in '81. Can we hear any of your tunes plunked on the graph? You're a spectacular asset to musicians. Hope opening the auto-tune door for for so many enhances your audience multi-fold. Man would I love to take basic chord-shape lessons from you. Peace out.🤟
It's so nice to be able to hear artists who aren't being produced by major labels, who don't need nor use auto tune
Just need to comment on this before I forget, Just at the 1981 wav at the moment. Art does a fantastic example of what I like snapping to the natuarally, Listen where he's singing. "Like a a a a bridge....." Even on the wave you can see a snap spot on the line as hes descending. This is something great singers have been doing for years. One of my favorite examples (or choose any Ella tune), is Rose Marie. On the Dick Van Dyke show, she performed a song called crying my heart out over you. Absolutely incredible snapping on that one. If and when I get this software that will be my first vocal analysis I'll do. (on that Rose Marie track, when she sings "on a lonely beach" at the end, Such control. Brilliant. Also these natural snaps sound infinitely better than any auto snap for a singer not as gifted. I mentioned in other comments, I can usually tell an auto snap instantly because it actually hurts my ears. When I hear this naturally, I just get goosebumps. THAT is vocal control. Loving this series. You have finally put to words what Ive been trying unsuccessfully to explain. How AutoCorrection removes the richness and the soul from a vocal. Vocalist are so concerned about not being flat or sharp at the expense of losing vocal soul.
Regarding your last point, I remember seeing a video of this guy who recorded his rather vocal cat. he then composed a piece based on the closest tone the cat managed, and then auto tuned the cat. Fascinating video..... but, it did sort of prove my point that you can make anyone singer today. Another great commercial we used to have here in Norway, was this girl in a studio with a couple of sound technicians frantically pressing buttons while she sang beautifully. As the camera panned behind the glass into the sound booth, she was screeching out of key. At the end, they got their record. And quite a bit of sweat dripping off the engineers. Something tells me this parody probably snaps to the truth line.
"Mistakes" and raucous performances make the old stuff human. The Beatles "Twist and Shout" is often crapped on nowadays for the strained performance. Because we know the story of why, make perfect sense to us all. Auto-tuning Garfunkel is sacrilege. That man had the voice of an angel, this performance brings me to tears with just his voice...leave it alone.
This is why when I buy older albums on CD, I look for the 2nd hand ones which were near enough plain copied from the original vinyl production tape, just to fill the CD catalogue in a hurry in the 1990s.
Yes, the levels are sometimes low (increasing digital artifcts, a bit) but at least there's a good chance nobody took away its feel.
Some remasters are things of beauty. Others are more like vandalism.
I am a part of the "back in the day" crowd, and proud of it! Is nothing sacred anymore? REALLY, come on...
Cindy I'm with You on that! 👍
Here is an updated version of Johnny Russell classic song "Act Naturally"
They're gonna put me in a recording studio
They're gonna make a big star out of me
We'll record a song about a man that's sad and lonely
And all I gotta do is let them Auto-Tune me. 😂
@@drewpall2598 Drew, how does anyone know how to act, or sing, naturally anymore?!! It's a completely different world out there today. I enjoy your comments and feedback, (really I do, I'm being truthful here, I promise 😊!!). I am 100% real, no fillers or auto-tune here!!😘 ROCK 🎸
@@cindypowers4993Hi my friend. I know you are real and honest, and I like the real thing! 😘 Keep being the one and only Cindy who Rocks Naturally🤘
@@drewpall2598 Aww gee, you are so sweet! I love the real, honest Drew Pall !! By the way, did you know that you were the first person I commented to about a year ago when I first subscribed to Wings of Pegasus? There was something about your comments that "Drew" me in!! Sorry for the pun, I couldn't help myself 😇✌️💚🎄☃️
Interesting video. Honestly, I'm amazed by two things: Art Garfunkle's phenomenal pitch accuracy, and also by the fact that anyone thought "yes, that auto-tuned version sounds good enough to release". The first even more than the second though.
Oh, and I never realised anyone pronounced "flanger" like that. ;)
You gave such an excellent explanation of auto-tune I've ever heard. I've gotten the, sort of, idea of it over time, but never understood it like this. Great analysis and teaching too, as always!! 🎼😊
I remember first hearing the 2009 version and wondering what happened to their voices - did they just get old? Then I realized the were "enhanced" by autotune.
I’ve been at live performances of S&G, The Carpenters and many times to John Denver, all back in the day. My only complaint about S&G live is the way The Boxer ends up. It’s still a great song, but the percussion of the studio version (Hal Blaine I believe) takes that song into the discussion of the greatest song of all time. Karen Carpenter live simply never missed a note. Her voice was perfection even without the studio effects and overdubbing Richard put in. And John Denver, for me, was also virtually perfect in his concerts and I thought most of his concert versions were better than the studio cuts (one exception being Rocky Mountain High, where the intro by Mike Taylor and the slower tempo of the studio version tops the later, faster live versions). None of the artists of that time needed auto tune and would likely have bristled at the suggestion. They all shared one thing in common…..tremendous natural voices. Auto tune is a crutch.
I totally agree with the drumming on The Boxer. That's why I like the original mix of The Sound of Silence.
So glad there is someone like Fil H. around to address these obviously robotic, technical ‘corrections’.
Essential viewing/listening for anyone interested in music performance and production.