For my final blog, I tried to think of something we hadn't really discussed in class, although it seems that we have covered so many different topics dealing with technology. I finally decided on the technology of auto tuning. There have been multiple new singers over the years, but how many of them can truly sing? Many of the new singers were originally actors that wanted to try the singer fame. But how much has auto-tuning actually helped them? When a song first comes out by a new artist, everyone is talking about it. There are YouTube videos of the new song or the song is played on the radio so as to get as many people as possible to listen to it and hopefully enjoy it.
I am not trying to say all music artists aren't true singers, but this is just another way that technology has helped people out in the music industry. "Auto tune is a digital fix that lets lousy singers skip over the whole learning-to-carry-a-tune thing and cut straight to pop stardom's V.I.P. room" said Alex Pappademas, writer for the New York Times. (1) This isn't uncommon among artists, and with the help of auto tune, more and more artists are popping up. Some people think allowing artists to use auto tuning is comparable to people getting plastic surgery or athletes using steroids. Is this right? Should anyone stop stop it? Think about it. Although I myself cannot prove this since I haven't been to many concerts, those of you who have should think about their experience. We are all so used to hearing the artists songs, singing along to them on our iPods, but when we hear them live, sometimes they sound different. These artists sound 'out of tune' and almost like they can't sing. At least this is what I have heard from friends who have been shocked when hearing their favorite artist live. I am not saying that all artists are this way, some of them can actually sing without auto tuning. But should we keep allowing this to happen. If enough people can get ahold of auto-tuning what is stopping others becoming famous artists? This is somewhat happening, they are many singers popping up with the help of Youtube. One may hear, listen to this Youtube sensation! I personally don't know what to think of this. I think that in a sense, people who we idolize as singers should be able to sing without having an auto tune for help, yet we have accepted this in our society, so it doesn't seem wrong.
On the other hand if we have so many artists that are being auto tuned, why do we have so many television shows looking for new singers? I don't know any statistics on these shows, but it seems that the people that audition can actually sing. Why don't they get contracts and have the chance of becoming stars? So I leave it up to whomever wants to comment or read my blog and let them decide for themselves what's right.
(1) http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/love-letter-to-auto-tune-final-installment/
I think that the label of an "artist" is getting thrown around too much. Some people can have absolutely no musical talent, yet make millions by autotuning their voices. The term is used too loosely. I think that true talent is being overlooked because industries have the ability to create the perfect voice, so all they need is a marketable person. I agree with you that it is bizarre to have shows looking for great singers when they are being underutilized.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I feel that it is rather discouraging to see the raw singing and musical talent being overshadowed by digital enhancements. However, contrasting Cat's sentiments above, I feel as though in this day and age, 'artist' is the proper term. It is just that. Art. It may not fit general stereotypes of "what is music?", but to me, it is art to the ear. If the 'artists' called themselves 'singers' however, I would be singing a different tune.
ReplyDeleteI really like your post. In answering your last question, why do we have so many television shows looking for new singers?, I feel the reason is because it is somewhat rare to hear someone who is musically talented perform live.
ReplyDelete