Since Taylor Swift has been in the news so much this week, I decided that I should figure out exactly who she is.  I had heard the name, of course, but I think I was probably one of the half dozen or so people in the U.S. who had never actually heard any of her music.  So, I searched YouTube, and made it all the way through You Belong With Me.  Catchy melody.  Sweet story.  Fun video.  But, what's up with the vocal?

Pitch correction strikes again!

Think back to the first time you heard Cher singing Believe.  Remember that weird vocal sound?  At first, a lot of people thought it was a vocoder, a type of synthesizer used to great, funky effect by, among others, the late Roger Troutman and Zapp.

But it was actually a new type of computer software, from Antares Audio Technologies, that allowed a vocal track to be "auto-tuned" or "pitch corrected".  (I believe Melodyne is the software of choice for many audio engineers today.) 

From Wikipedia:  "Auto-Tune was initially created by Andy Hildebrand, an engineer working for Exxon.  Hildebrand developed methods for interpreting seismic data, and subsequently realized that the technology could be used to detect, analyze, and modify pitch." 

Who knew that studying earthquakes could have led to this?

On the Cher track, this technology was used as more of a gimmick than to actually tune Cher's vocals.  (Cher does not need to be tuned.)  It was, basically, "turned up to 11", resulting in a kind of metallic, slightly robotic sound that, for whatever reason, helped to make the song a smash.

Auto-tune has been around for a little over ten years now, and I don't think this particular genie can ever be put back in the bottle.  Before pitch correction was available, there were, of course, studio "tricks" that could help to soften a less than perfect vocal performance, most notably, the judicious use of reverb. 

Back in the old days of tape recording, you could also "punch in" a portion of a vocal track.  For example, if there was one word in a line that was sharp or flat, you could run the tape and have the vocalist sing along, then hit the record button for that one word, and turn off record again after the vocalist sang that word.  You had to be very quick to do this, of course, so it was always a gamble.  From what I have read, you can still do this with digital recording set-ups.

Another technique used to get a great vocal performance was simply to sing it over and over until you had one performance (or several that could be edited together) that was "the one".

Audio recording, especially for rock and pop music, has always used effects to alter the sounds of instruments and vocals.  There is very little put on tape that is actually "natural".  Along with photography and cinema, recorded music alters reality in the service of art.  (Recording is a true art form, as much as photography and cinematography.)  There is a stunning documentary about Tom Dowd that I highly recommend for anyone wanting to learn about multi-track recording from the 1950's on.  (Dowd was the "house engineer" at Atlantic Records in its heyday, and went on to work with everyone from Eric Clapton to Lynyrd Skynyrd.)

But is pitch correction being used in the service of art, or is it merely laziness and vanity?  Are today's auto-tuned vocals better than those "old-fashioned" vocals recorded prior to the late 90's?  Not to my ears.  The fact that this software is also used in live performances is, to me, just another nail in the coffin of rock and pop music.

There are artists who are fighting against the ubiquitious use of pitch correction, though.  Allison Moorer, on her 2002 release Miss Fortune, defiantly proclaimed in a label on each CD, "Absolutely no vocal tuning or pitch-correction was used in the making of this record."  And, from what I've read, Neko Case doesn't use it either, nor do Patty Loveless, Vince Gill, Garth Brooks, Trisha Yearwood or Martina McBride.

Here are two videos that I think illustrate the difference pretty well between a tuned vocal and one that is not.

The first is the aforementioned Taylor Swift's You Belong With Me.  Again, it's a great little pop song.  I would have loved this when I was 14 years old.  But the vocal is just so robotic.  The effect is not egregious, but it's definitely there. 

I find it hard to believe that she needed this much "help".  I think that, underneath all this, she's probably a decent singer but, unfortunatley, she ends up sounding just like everyone else.

I think we've got a generation of music listeners out there who have no idea what a real vocal track sounds like anymore.

And this is Swan Dive.  (Full disclosure:  This is my brother-in-law's band, so I have some built-in bias.)  There is no tuning used on Molly Felder's vocal.  She actually sounds like a unique human being, doesn't she?