I usually only post Stones-related topics, but this one's been bothering me and I wonder if anybody else has heard about this. All over the internet (especially Amazon.com) people are saying that Paul is guilty of extensive overuse of Auto-tune to pitch correct his vocals on his new live album "Good Evening New York". Now, I got the album 2 weeks ago and one thing certainly stood out from the get-go: it was how PERFECTLY on key every vocal he sang was. I remember one thing people said about his Back in the US live album (recorded a full seven years ago) was that, while he and his band sounded great, his voice obviously wasn't what it used to be. It was a little shakier, and he struggled a little more with some of the high notes. Well, here he is 7 years later, with the same band, doing many of the same songs, and a hell of a lot closer to 70 than 60, and this record has him nailing every last note. It's a little suspicious to me.

That said, what many people claim (a lot of them saying they work as audio engineers, musicians, etc) is that you can actually HEAR the processing in his vocals, that he sounds like a robot, etc. Now, I consider myself to have a great set of ears, and I can't say as I really hear that. But I maintain that he sounds a little too perfect on this, and if he and his producers indeed are using pitch-correcting software, it's too bad. His voice may not be perfect anymore, but the man is 67 years old for crying out loud. At least a few missed notes is honest.

Does anybody else have this album, and if so do you hear any software correction on the vocals?

I have not heard it yet. So I am not sure. I was at the first show, and yeah, his voice was great! Though he did struggle a bit on My Love, but all in all he amazed me by how good his voice was/is.

Quote
whitem8
I have not heard it yet. So I am not sure. I was at the first show, and yeah, his voice was great! Though he did struggle a bit on My Love, but all in all he amazed me by how good his voice was/is.

Oh wow you were there? Then your perspective would definitely be welcome if you get to hear this. I was just comparing this album with Back in the US and, once again, seems suspicious. Every song on that album was cherry-picked to get the best take from a tour that was probably 40-50 shows long, and there are still a couple of tracks where he sounds a tad flat and struggles a little to hit the higher notes. He still sounded great though. Once again, we have this Good evening New York, where he only had 3 shows to choose from, and his voice sounds perfect on nearly every track (note how long and flawlessly he's able to sustain those notes on 'Paperback Writer' - though I have to at least say that his band really cooks on that one).

Well also keep in mind he had only played in Halifax prior to those shows, so his voice was probably in top shape, and now worn out. I thought he sounded fantastic at the shows, but you know when you are there and the adrenaline and crowed can sometimes color your perceptions. I only remember My Love was a bit hard for him, but also he seemed a bit choked up on that one, he dedicated it to Linda.

That's a good point. This wasn't a full tour after all, so it would make sense if his voice were to be stronger on a more consistent basis. Incidentally, the Halifax show is widely available as a broadcast quality bootleg. I may have to get a hold of it and compare it to this if I get bored.

To me, Autotune is the Viagra or fake boobs of singing...I'd rather it be real and a little less than "perfect"

hmmm....have you seen/heard the DVD of the show? parts of it are posted on youtube -- here's Live and Let Die. How does his voice compare here his voice on what you bought?





- swiss

Quote
swiss
To me, Autotune is the Viagra or fake boobs of singing...I'd rather it be real and a little less than "perfect"

hmmm....have you seen/heard the DVD of the show? parts of it are posted on youtube -- here's Live and Let Die. How does his voice compare here his voice on what you bought?





- swiss

I totally agree Swiss. I haven't seen the dvd - the cd's I have are copies my dad made me. I'll have to borrow his dvd. Incidentally, if he is guilty of this, it's one thing the Stones are not. Say what you will about current-day Stones, but you can't say Mick is pitch-correcting his vocals, you can just watch "Shine a Light" to be able to tell that.

Hmmm....I was expecting a Kanye-esque robot trill. If Macca is using autotune so be it. Still beats the current crop of lip synching drones that constitute popular music.

That's a great point -- i.e., for complainers about the Stones in the 2000s (like me, I admit), at least Mick does not use auto-tune! I hope he never does.

As for comparisons to lip-synching, artists like the Stones and Paul McCartney have so much more basic integrity and talent than performers who are lip-synching it's not even fair to mention them in the same sentence.

btw...stanbooth, are you actually Stanley Booth, or a fan using his name? If the former, hi, and I admire and appreciate your work. If the latter hi also of course, but I don't know your work so can't say anything about it he he

- swiss

Autotune is to sound what photoshop is to pictures. They make things appear larger than life, but somewhat fake as well. But isn't all depicting art like that?

Autotune is more common than people might think, but sometimes, its nasty bleeping artifacts are left inside of songs. This is also being done for comical effect by some hip hoppers, but when it's applied in other styles, artifacts can happen as well, they are just more subtle.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-10 16:48 by billwebster.

How do you know Mick hasn't used auto tune?

Ya ya's features features vast amounts of vocal overdubs(the auto tune of it's day), thus I would not be at all surprised to find out that Mick uses it where he and/or the producer see's fit.

It's very common now, whether singers care to admit it or not. In the right hands it's just another tool for making good recordings/vocal tracks or as an effect in itself.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-10 19:57 by His Majesty.

It past my mind when I was watching the DVD. Songs like Helter Skelter just look tough to sing especially nearing 70...so no doubt some enhancement was added. In fact, at times when he tries to hit the high notes, they push the audio down a bit because it seems his voice reaches a very rough and empty "growl" when he reaches a certian register. His vocal was pretty impeccable throughout the set--I'm sure most of it is him but I wouldn't be surprised if he got "a little help from his (auto-tune) friends"........

Quote
His Majesty
How do you know Mick hasn't used auto tune?

Ya ya's features features vast amounts of vocal overdubs(the auto tune of it's day), thus I would not be at all surprised to find out that Mick uses it where he and/or the producer see's fit.

It's very common now, whether singers care to admit it or not. In the right hands it's just another tool for making good recordings/vocal tracks or as an effect in itself.

Just listen to his pitch waver on "As Tears Go By" from Shine a Light. Definitely not auto-tuned.

I saw him in D.C and enjoyed the show very much. I didn't really notice anything strange about his voice. Sounded good to me. If you really want to kow someone who is a fraud check out Robert Plant. That dude sounds nothing like he did on the albums Zep put out. I saw them twice and thought he sucked live. Plus just as an aside from what I have read on here the Almost all of the Stones live albums have numerous ovedubs on them. So no one gets out scott free on this one. So all I can say if you liked the show then just sit back and enjoy

A Stones sideman told me recently that Mick does not use any voice enhancers...

That's what I was saying - you can tell because all of his imperfections are audible (the way it should be). I don't know that Macca uses them live, in fact I doubt he does, but it sounds as if he does in post-production.

He defininelty did not use it live. I was at the show and you could really hear his voice well, warts and all, and it sounded great!

Quote
inopeng
A Stones sideman told me recently that Mick does not use any voice enhancers...

are eq´s, compressors, delays, reverbs not enhancers? even the choice of a certain microphone and preamp alters the sound, enhances it.

on most of the stones live cd´s the vocals are overdubbed, this is as good as autotuning.

and also i would bet anything that they use autotune on mick in the studio on some words and phrases on studio releases. done correctly you can not hear it.

i saw paul in berlin for 2.40 hours playing over 30 songs, without a break and most importantly always singing and playing.
he sounded fantastic. his voice, many different instruments, no mistakes.
no prerecorded tracks and no autotuning as far as i can say.
and also very good new songs on various instruments. he is still a songwriting genius and able to really play and sing.

the stones are not nearly that good these days. especially the guitar players who can´t even remember half of 18 songs while they don´t have to sing and remember words. leave alone write good new songs.

Whatever. He still puts on a great show.....

Does anyone know if there a good Beatles message forum? Would like to know what it is. Thanks.

Agreed that auto tune was not in use in DC. Paul's (and his band's) vocals are famously tight, but you could still hear natural flaws occasionally. That said, Paul's vocals in Washington were incredible. He was definitely 'on' that evening.

yes, pauls band is soo very good. plays and sings like a record.
i am sure mick is green with envy that this concept didn´t work out for him in the 80´s.

I wonder if he will use it when he sings on the X-factor, seems appropiate

"are eq´s, compressors, delays, reverbs not enhancers? even the choice of a certain microphone and preamp alters the sound, enhances it."

They all enhance, for a lack of better term, the SIGNAL to tape (or to...digital - not really sure what one would call that). They also capture and change it without truly changing the original signal. An expensive good microphone will record a better signal overall than a cheap bad microphone. Compressors let someone who is really loud and has very hot peaks not distort the signal recording ratio, etc...

So no, those aren't the equivalent of Auto Tune. The PhotoShop comparison is a great one - wrinkles, lint, fat belly, background can be altered, changed, made more prominent, removed, etc...

Auto tune? Paul ain't got no auto tune. Paul don't need no auto tune. Paul doesn't have to use ANY STINKING AUTO TUNE!

Check out the Beatles at the Hollywood Bowl. They had no onstage monitors. Even if they HAD had them, they wouldn't have been able to hear them above the screaming. They literally could not hear themselves singing. And they sang great.

AND when are they releasing Hollywood Bowl!? Great release, Things We Said Today is fantastic!

Quote
whitem8
AND when are they releasing Hollywood Bowl!? Great release, Things We Said Today is fantastic!

Clocks in at 29 minutes, including the between-song chatter. Would like to see an expanded CD containing both concerts in their entirety. The complete '64 show was the first bootleg I ever bought. Basically an official release that never got released. And still the best available recording of a complete, unedited Beatles concert.

I think people don't understand what Autotune is. It does not produce a natural sound of your voice. It produces a robotic sound. Listen to Beleive by Cher or there is another one by Faith Hill. YouTube Auto Tune and you'll see what i mean.

I just listened to the Citi Park cd, and no way does it use autotune! NO WAY! His voice is not perfect on it, but it sounds great. You can here the limits in his range, and he does what any mature singer does, he compensates. I really could not hear any robotic effects!

Tatters, I have the 64 show as well and very good quality. Also the 64 show, with the Butcher Cover out take pic. Very nice, both shows.

I'll dig up the link later, but there was a mastering forum a few weeks ago that got into contact with the guy who mixed the thing who confirmed that there's no autotune used, but that there are a fair few overdubs (and fair play to them, they had three shows to get every note in its right place, I'm quite sure I couldn't do it).