Pitch Correction: Musical Ethics - Page 5

Bhaktaji,

That was a very good post on pitch correction.
Based on your article, I think there is one aspect that emerges resoundingly:

Desire to present good music. If there are blatant fluctuations in Sur, then it becomes noise.

Ethics come into play if it were a competition and people used this to gain an unfair advantage. It is just like using performance enhancers like they do in sports.
On the other hand, if there a good compositions for popular music and "musically challenged" people wish to present it for whatever reasons, it is good for them.

For seasoned people with a lot of riyaz and good understanding & knowledge of music, it is easy and they do not need to use these as an aid to better these.
Also pitch corrections have to be used off-line in a studio and may not yield the best results in a live performance.

Gold becomes much more strong only after some impurities are added

Music is universal and so everybody should get an opportunity to enjoy it. Pitch correction is a good invention if it is not used to win contests unfairly.

My 2 cents

Please pardon any spelling/ semantic errors

absolutely agree with you Surtaal! 👏 👏 👏

what is the purpose of technology, in any field? either to extend human life or to make it better, more convenient and even more enjoyable. pitch correction is part of the newer technology which can help folks derive more enjoyment from music. whether to leave a track with picasso-and amitabh-type defects or not is immaterial. that's a judgment call for the creative folks to make, in search of what is more appealing. but the option to choose either approach should be available. and as for selecting "best singers" in a competition, we've agreed that the use of any "enhancer" would be unethical.

in my field of investments, folks have often worried about data mining applications obviating the need for traders. hasn't happened. in other fields, it has been the use of sophisticated technology to substitute for labor. society has generally ended up better for all of that, temporary dislocations aside. it has challenged people and societies to continue developing better "product" or find a way to be even more useful than before. sure, in any process, some people are left behind, but society gains in the long-run. if we had pitch correction, perhaps singers will be pushed and will find even more creative and effective ways to entertain.

movies have become more entertaining in the era of special effects techniques, paintings have become better when restored with new technology, why should music be left behind?

and finally what is important? that something was achieved after a 1000 hour riyaaz or that something was delivered which was ultimately more enjoyable? i am certain that even the great singers would have sounded nicer at times if they had the benefit of the new techniques. wld it have been so bad if they had?

Originally posted by: qwertyasdfgh

You are giving too much importance to the content than the process which leads to that content.. Have you ever found a fakir singing on the streets who suddenly has grabbed your attention.. its not his perfect pitch but intensity which has managed to reach you.. Perfection engineered using technology will always fail to match up the flaws natural singing... but when you buy CD's this intensity itself might be engineered so it would make sense in this case to deliver precision at the cost of honest and intense music which is akin to buying a costly furniture which has neither ulitity nor value...

Wah qwerty Wah - dil khush kar diya bhai! 😊

Originally posted by: qwertyasdfgh

You are giving too much importance to the content than the process which leads to that content.. Have you ever found a fakir singing on the streets who suddenly has grabbed your attention.. its not his perfect pitch but intensity which has managed to reach you.. Perfection engineered using technology will always fail to match up the flaws natural singing... but when you buy CD's this intensity itself might be engineered so it would make sense in this case to deliver precision at the cost of honest and intense music which is akin to buying a costly furniture which has neither ulitity nor value...

sorry, miss your point and how it relates to the topic question (Pitch Correction: Musical Ethics). I dont see how your or someone else's tonal, sur and pitch preferences for "naturally flavored" flawed singing has much to do with ethics. 😉

Question for me is whether there is an ETHICAL problem with having folks who feel otherwise having the choice to create what they think the audience would enjoy, even if that means "pitch correction", and for the audience to benefit from that creativity? [Notice i was the one who stated upfront that it is wrong in the context of a competition, so we are not debating that here.] So is there an ETHICAL problem?

Is there?

Essentially I agree with Chatbuster and Surtaal.

But let me pitch it another way (playing the devil's advocate as they say). Suppose there is a composition I like a lot. If I come to know later that it sounded good only because certain correction techniques were employed, I would feel cheated. I want to hear a singer with all his/her flaws and know him for what he/she is in reality.

As someone said on another thread on Begum Akhtar, he was thrilled because he saw a live recording where Begum Akhtar actually sang the wrong words, then realised her mistake, gave a sudden big smile and corrected herself. He says this scene will be etched in his mind forever. Now, this scene could have been edited out to show a flawless Begum Akhtar. But by retaining it, viewers were offered a different kind of pleasure.

Even in a non-contest atmosphere, we tend to evaluate singers/composers. Yes, I might like to hear something which has been achieved after a 1000-hr riyaaz, as you put it, Chatbuster. 😊

Originally posted by: punjini

Essentially I agree with Chatbuster and Surtaal.

But let me pitch it another way (playing the devil's advocate as they say). Suppose there is a composition I like a lot. If I come to know later that it sounded good only because certain correction techniques were employed, I would feel cheated. I want to hear a singer with all his/her flaws and know him for what he/she is in reality.

As someone said on another thread on Begum Akhtar, he was thrilled because he saw a live recording where Begum Akhtar actually sang the wrong words, then realised her mistake, gave a sudden big smile and corrected herself. He says this scene will be etched in his mind forever. Now, this scene could have been edited out to show a flawless Begum Akhtar. But by retaining it, viewers were offered a different kind of pleasure.

Even in a non-contest atmosphere, we tend to evaluate singers/composers. Yes, I might like to hear something which has been achieved after a 1000-hr riyaaz, as you put it, Chatbuster. 😊

well, sorry but all this is still in the realm of your personal preferences. i am sure there are enough singers/ MDs with your fine sensibilities who'd love to keep the flaws "in tact" so that they can "reach" folks like yourself. but arent we as usual getting into the business of being culture-regulators if we denounce pitch correction etc as unethical"?

to quote your examples, so you like the 1000-riyaz output. (actually that i find a bit amazing- it's like saying a guy who spends countless hours learning math but still cant produce a useful answer shld get an A, not the guy who is somehow naturally good at it). fine you like to find out that something was not corrected. your preferences. if there are enough folks like yourself, maybe MDs will try and satisfy your urges. but shldn't MDs have that basic choice for themselves to make, without having it implicitly taken away on grounds that it is unethical?

btw, if we push the line of reasoning i am hearing too far, we might want to also find "touching up" film shots as unethical. ever seen some of the glamor heros and heroines in real life? a lot do not look anywhere close to what they seem on screen. so that's unethical also?

[on the riyaaz bit, on 2nd read, i guess u're not really saying that, so sorry... but still laying out my reasoning there in case someone else wanted to...]

Originally posted by: qwertyasdfgh

Ok I jumped a few hoops... basically ethics are directly impacted when people dont care the means they use to achieve the end... I was just trying to explain the difference bet' a price tag for an item and its value which is the same we try to achieve by embellishing musical appearance using pitch corrections..... 😊

sorry, i got only some of that.

if i understand right, you wld want to denounce something as unethical because folks might misuse the technology or start taking shortcuts or lose interest in all the riyaaz, something folks here consider so sacrosanct? am i reading right?

To rationalize it further, it is very similar to using a calculator in your math exam. Is it ethical? Maybe not, when all the otehrs are using their heads.

Riyaz is important to grasp the nuances and compose good music. Now a days we have electronic drums, Digital handpads which emulate almost every known percussion instrument. But unless you know the bols can you really use them??? Not in this lifetime....

Similarly, one needs to know and appreciate the music and sing within reason and then give these performance enhancers their fair share.

You SHOULD NOT use these pitch correction techniques to recite back what you have learnt to your guru. That would be cheating yourself. That would be a mockery adn disrespect to your guru.

I see Bhaktaji's avatar holding a Sarangi. It would be nice if you could share an MP3 or an audio file of a short recital.