 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 26/09/2012 01:53, Warp nous fit lire :
> andrel <byt### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>> because she started too late taking singing lessons and was too busy
>> with her career to spend enough time on it.
>
> Madonna made her first hit songs in the early 80's. Autotune was first
> released in 1997. I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about.
>
it was not for her singing talent alone. It was a different time and a
different musical industry.
Madonna was first part of the dancers of Patrick Hernandez (1979).
At least, at that time, songs & shows had some messages in them, even if
faint. And these messages were assumed by the artists.
Nowadays, it's a totally different business.
Best illustrated with the Star Wars movies.
The only original trilogy allows identification with the hero (a young
man discovers the world and love, outside of his nest, bad guys turn out
to be not so bad, and all that with some stunning effects for the time,
and a romance between three too).
The last perpetration is just about cashing money on filming a story.
No reflection, no message, just entertainment.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 25-9-2012 22:18, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> Well, I know quite a few professional singers. And I am not talking
>>>> about pop musicians but trained, talented people. What you describe is
>>>> entirely possible without AutoTune, but not with people like madonna, no
>>>> matter what other qualities she has.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>> because she started too late taking singing lessons and was too busy
>> with her career to spend enough time on it.
>
> Madonna made her first hit songs in the early 80's. Autotune was first
> released in 1997. I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about.
>
If you listen to her earlier balads ("Live to tell", for example), you
can tell that when she's trying to sing "seriously" (as opposed to the
"girly" stuff like "Material girl" or "Like a virgin") she sometimes
misses notes and her voice cracks up.
Compare that to "Frozen", where you won't hear any of those mistakes.
I also think the absence of mistakes is the result of technology rather
than singing lessons.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> I don't think so. I didn't know but apparently the equivalent of 'that
>> looks shopped' is I can see from the pixels' for audio is 'that sounds
>> AutoTuned, I can hear from the spectrum'.
>
> I don't know the exact algorithm for autotuning, but it wouldn't surprise
> me if it didn't leave some characteristic revealing marks or patterns in
> the sound that could be analyzed to see if it has been autotuned. (After
> all, pitch correction while retaining the correct timing requires more
> than just playing the sample faster or slower.)
>
It depends on the amount of autotuning required. If you only correct a
musician that's off by half a tone, it will probably be very difficult
to find, but it really sounds metallic when it's overdone (e.g.: those
"autotune the news" Youtube videos.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> It depends on the amount of autotuning required. If you only correct a
> musician that's off by half a tone, it will probably be very difficult
> to find, but it really sounds metallic when it's overdone (e.g.: those
> "autotune the news" Youtube videos.
But that's exactly what I was thinking about. Even if there's only a little
bit of autotuning, it ought to leave traces of that "metallic" sound that
could be algorithmically analyzed (even if the human ear doesn't discern
them because they are inundated by all the other sounds).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-9-2012 1:53, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 25-9-2012 22:18, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> Well, I know quite a few professional singers. And I am not talking
>>>> about pop musicians but trained, talented people. What you describe is
>>>> entirely possible without AutoTune, but not with people like madonna, no
>>>> matter what other qualities she has.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>> because she started too late taking singing lessons and was too busy
>> with her career to spend enough time on it.
>
> Madonna made her first hit songs in the early 80's. Autotune was first
> released in 1997. I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about.
About her singing skills, without AutoTune. Like a virgin was a catchy
tune and for the time an eye catching video, but I was not impressed by
her vocal skills, to put it mildly.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> About her singing skills, without AutoTune. Like a virgin was a catchy
> tune and for the time an eye catching video, but I was not impressed by
> her vocal skills, to put it mildly.
Not everybody has to be a trained opera singer...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/09/2012 03:09 PM, Warp wrote:
> Not everybody has to be a trained opera singer...
FWIW, I hate opera.
Paradoxically, I really like Gilbert & Sullivan...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 27/09/2012 03:09 PM, Warp wrote:
> > Not everybody has to be a trained opera singer...
> FWIW, I hate opera.
You really shouldn't. There are many exquisite examples of true talent,
excellent singing performances and cool songs in opera. Try some of these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP9SX7V14Z4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPvAQxZsgpQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qHZkkgowdY
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> FWIW, I hate opera.
>
> You really shouldn't. There are many exquisite examples of true talent,
> excellent singing performances and cool songs in opera. Try some of these:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP9SX7V14Z4
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPvAQxZsgpQ
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qHZkkgowdY
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me, this just sounds like bad
singing ruining really good music...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-9-2012 16:09, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> About her singing skills, without AutoTune. Like a virgin was a catchy
>> tune and for the time an eye catching video, but I was not impressed by
>> her vocal skills, to put it mildly.
>
> Not everybody has to be a trained opera singer...
>
That wasn't the point. The question from Andy was if anybody can sing in
tune and my answer was: yes. Which I extended by remarking that in
modern popular music singing well is not a prerequisite.
For many people popular music is the frame of reference for music which
distorts their view of music in more or less the same way that Word does
for typography. Whether you think that is bad or not depends a.o. on
your age. I am a grandfather.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
