Pitch Correction: Musical Ethics - Page 4

Originally posted by: kishore_bhakta

Greetings everyone.

With this small weekend of "freedom" from 80% of routine, I decided to write up a different aspect of music. I have discussed raga, tala, and North Indian classical theory, as well as some filmi musical tidbits. Today, I will look at musical ethics. There are many aspects to ethics to music, but this is one point I will make.

WHAT IS PITCH CORRECTION?

Pitch correction is technique that allows one to correct portions where an off-scale, or incorrect note is played (or sung) originally. Pitch correction can be done in two ways: manual or automatic.

Manual method is using a wave editor and listening to for points where pitch correction is needed. Then the user will select the points off-key points and adjust them accordingly using an appropriate transposition (pitch shift).

The automatic method uses software which looks at the entire wave form of the track and compares the wave points to frequency notes (A=440 Hertz, C, C#, Db, etc.). This is very helpful to the musician, as they do not need to listen to the whole file, but can compare the wave to the desired note and adjust accordingly without the need of transposition.

Does this mean an terribly off-key singer can sound like Lata Mangeshkar? Definitely not! One has to be somewhat gifted to be able to hit the notes nearby. Pitch correction is most useful to fine-tune almost-perfectly sung songs, which miss notes rarely or miss the note by only few microtones that pitch correction won't affect the voice.

What about terribly off-key singers? Pitch correction, as mentioned before, does require some singing knowledge. If you were to speak song lyrics, rather than singing them, you can change the pitch for each musical syllable and make the "speech" into a "song." It'll end up sound very cut-up and the voice will sound artificial, as transponsing voices more than 2 semitones upward or 1 semitone downward can make one sound completely different. In 1972, there was a famous Mukesh album which had old tracks reverbed, but every song in that album was down by a semitone and Mukesh sounded more sleepy, due to the transposition. If 1 semitone can affect a legend's voice this much, than imagine how pitch correcting an incorrect Sa to correct Pa (add seven semitones up).

But is it ethical? Because such a concept is introduced, can you slacken up your riyaaz schedule, since missing a few notes can be cleaned up? Can you still be called a good singer even though you depend on pitch correcting? Should it be used as a condiment used sparingly and not as the main course? Back in the golden days of music, this technology was not there, and singers did many many takes to make sure they were as perfect as possible. If you hear certain songs closely, you can hear off-key points, but they were handled sweetly.

I sure hope many respected members of this forum will "pitch" in some thoughts to keep this thread going 😊

Kishoreji wonderful topic. This is something that really bugs me. I have seen Alka yagnik live and believe me, she goes of pitch and sur many times I always wondered how they did it in recording, until I started singing. I have done a few light music recordings myself. Imet some really good singers there and realised theymake so many little mistakes like we do, like voice breaking, going off key etc and like you said it is all made up with this new technology.

I personally think it is cheating, but then againhow else does Abhijit from Indian Idol or Anuj or Sandeep can ever dream to sing and how would sony make money with these mediocre singers. I also think that might b one reason HR was inisisting on keeping his composition for Vinit in the finals as a recording.

In golden olden days, they did hours of riyaaz to perfect the song and for the youngsters to waltz in now and sing offkey and still sound good in the album is cheating andunethical Ithink. But I am old school

KBji nice article...as i see it
the mediocre singers r the ones that will benefit a great deal by this process of pitch correction..
the absolute besuras or the geniuses in music will not be benefited much - but this group is only 5%
mediocrity -its the majority and it rules 😉..frankly speaking not everyone can be a rafi/lata/kishore/asha....😉
...so pitch correction is here to stay....

Originally posted by: sarah.oamng

KBji nice article...as i see it
the mediocre singers r the ones that will benefit a great deal by this process of pitch correction..
the absolute besuras or the geniuses in music will not be benefited much - but this group is only 5%
mediocrity -its the majority and it rules 😉..frankly speaking not everyone can be a rafi/lata/kishore/asha....😉
...so pitch correction is here to stay....

pitch correction is here to stay and, in terms of providing the best entertainment possible to the audience, thankfully so!

again, i think if the sole objective is to award a prize for best singer, then pitch correction is unethical. perhaps for very similar reasons, they have taken the orchestra out of the show, to ensure that noone gets ahead or disadvantaged because of how the orchestra performs.

BUT, if the objective is to reach and entertain the audience, then to not use the best technology available is ridiculous. when you hear a song for your personal enjoyment, does it really matter whether it was done in 1 take or in 10, whether it was somehow "corrected" or not? do we not want our doctor to give us the best medicine available, or will we hold off on the treatment because the medicine has been processed artificially in labs?

if we really closed and eyes and heard the music, as so many of the folks around seem to want, then does it really matter in terms of our enjoyment as to how the track was produced? if you are saying that we should not support what some may consider an unethical practice, then fine. but in terms of sheer music enjoyment, does it really matter?

question, a bit off-topic but hopefully will illustrate something. a lot of folks find the old songs memorable. the new songs seem to disappear from consciousness within a short period. what about movies? isn't the same thing true with movies as well? or are we saying that the new movies are memorable and the songs are not? arent we better off with the new technological aspects in film-making?

if we say that pitch correction in music is wrong, then how about the use of new technology in movies? isn't touching up and using different chromatic lenses, dubbing using better sound technology etc., also unethical? or is it ok when making movies, but unethical when making music for public entertainment?

as for all the sniggering talk on "memorable", everything seems memorable when we look back, or someone has had the benefit of first dying. but another point is that there is a lot of new stuff bombarding our senses every day. that's making it hard for anything to really stick around and make a lasting impact.

again, if the intent is to award prizes for best singer, so that they and some others can feel good about themselves and have a trophy to put on the shelves, then fine, no pitch correction.
but to not do so when the common man can benefit is wrong in my mind.

Originally posted by: autmother

Kishoreji wonderful topic. This is something that really bugs me. I have seen Alka yagnik live and believe me, she goes of pitch and sur many times I always wondered how they did it in recording, until I started singing. I have done a few light music recordings myself. Imet some really good singers there and realised theymake so many little mistakes like we do, like voice breaking, going off key etc and like you said it is all made up with this new technology.

I personally think it is cheating, but then againhow else does Abhijit from Indian Idol or Anuj or Sandeep can ever dream to sing and how would sony make money with these mediocre singers. I also think that might b one reason HR was inisisting on keeping his composition for Vinit in the finals as a recording.

In golden olden days, they did hours of riyaaz to perfect the song and for the youngsters to waltz in now and sing offkey and still sound good in the album is cheating andunethical Ithink. But I am old school

"HR was inisisting on keeping his composition for Vinit in the finals as a recording"

- i thought it was ID insisting that Debo's performance be recorded.

"In golden olden days, they did hours of riyaaz to perfect the song and for the youngsters to waltz in now and sing offkey and still sound good in the album is cheating andunethical Ithink"

- agree with the first part. all else equal, practise makes "more" perfect. of course, too much rigid discipline can also be limiting in terms of creativity. but unethical? depends on the objective. in the context of a singing competition to determine best singer, for whatever that is worth today, clearly wrong. but otherwise?

"I have seen Alka yagnik live and believe me, she goes of pitch and sur many times"

- i had a similar observation about her. maybe we'd be better off listening to her songs if they had better technology for live recordings as well.

again, what is the purpose? to admire the singer or to enjoy the composition?

should we remove special effects from movies, dubbing from movies? where would K Night Shyamalan be without the special effects in Sixth Sense etc.? Or a Spielberg? why is it more ethical when used in the context of movie-making and not when making music?

Originally posted by: punjini

Imagine if the "pitch correction" facility was not available and we had listen to certain "performers" In their actual voices! 😊

and imagine if we did not have new technology and had to push the Fiats and Ambassadors around.😉

hopefully, we have been able to disabuse ourselves of the notion of always using primitive technology when we do have the advantages of using modern 21st century ones.😉

and great as KK, Rafi, Lata, Asha were in my opinion, could not some of their recordings been better if they too had the benefit of applying new techniques? [i dont know, but maybe others would... as usual😉]

Great topic...something I have always wondered about.

I have always thought how easier life is these days for singers compared to olden days. Indeed, it is quite a difficult task to sing a complete song perfect without minor pitch variations, so one must really appreciate the singers in the Golden Era.

It's a good thing to have since recordings can be done much faster. If 'singers get sluggish because of this technology', well, don't know if they can afford to. I feel, if a singer is genuinely desciplined and dedicated to music, he will not be satisfied with imperfections in his deliveries. He will definitely strive to do each take perfectly. If singers get lazy and don't stay sharp, it will difinitely take its toll on their quality in the long run and they'll be out in no time.

By itself, 'Pitch correction' is a great technology to have in my opinion.

Originally posted by: svm73

Great topic...something I have always wondered about.

I have always thought how easier life is these days for singers compared to olden days. Indeed, it is quite a difficult task to sing a complete song perfect without minor pitch variations, so one must really appreciate the singers in the Golden Era.

It's a good thing to have since recordings can be done much faster. If 'singers get sluggish because of this technology', well, don't know if they can afford to. I feel, if a singer is genuinely desciplined and dedicated to music, he will not be satisfied with imperfections in his deliveries. He will definitely strive to do each take perfectly. If singers get lazy and don't stay sharp, it will difinitely take its toll on their quality in the long run and they'll be out in no time.

By itself, 'Pitch correction' is a great technology to have in my opinion.

a Voice of Reason...

btw, singers today do have it easier in some ways. but it must be certainly a lot harder in other respects- so many singers, so much competition. of course, opportunity set is also expanding, but it's probably harder on balance....

Originally posted by: chatbuster

a Voice of Reason...

btw, singers today do have it easier in some ways. but it must be certainly a lot harder in other respects- so many singers, so much competition. of course, opportunity set is also expanding, but it's probably harder on balance....

The 'task of singing' itself is made easier for the singers thanks to better technology.

As for the competition in the industry today, it's a different topic, but I would still like to say something here. Competition and survival of singers in playback singing has various factors to it today. Compositions today are not the same as what they were in the golden era. They are not all beautiful melodies or semiclassicals anymore. So composers don't necessarily have to go looking for a 'complete singer', so to say. Today, dependability on a single male or female singer is far less. AR Rehman, for instance, picks singers based on the kind voice needed for his song (my observation, I could be wrong). He may pick Hariharan for a semiclassical kind of melody, Sukhwinder where he needs power and range, Chitra for soft numbers, Ashaji for strong solos etc..Coupled with that is the fact that advanced technology can fix the minor technical imperfections during recordings. All this makes it difficult today for one singer to really outdo another. Still, I would say Sonu, Hariharan, Sukhwinder... they have done well for themselves.

Great posts Abhijit 👏 👏
Liked your comment "his is just my opinion and opinions are like foreheads - everyone has one." 😆 😆