Monday, July 11, 2011

JLS: surprisingly in favour of Autotune

JLS won't hear a word said against Autotune. Which is understandable, it'd be on a par with a singer criticising their larynx for JLS to attack Autotune:

Singer Aston Merrygold said: "If you get critics come and see the show, we can sing it live, so what's the problem, so it's kind of pointless for them to criticise."
Surely, Aston, if you "can" "sing" "live" (and lets be honest, the jury remains resolutely out on that one), erm... why do you need to use Autotune in a studio?

Surely the obverse would be true - if you were weak singers, you'd need to use the help live, where there's no hope of a second take?

Ortise also has a thought:
"Music has moved forward in such an amazing way, and we are in a new school generation and that generation, stuff like music effects, auto tune and sampling is part of that."
There's a difference, isn't there, between an 'effect' or 'sampling' - which takes something and makes something different, and autotune, which merely covers up the deficiency of a singer?

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with using Autotune, but JLS need to be honest that they're really just dancers.

By the way, it's touching that Ortise believes sampling - which predates The Beatles - is somehow part of the new generation.

But - hey - they're only doing what the people want:
Marvin said: "It's all about people wanting [autotune] in the music, so we will deliver it to them."
I think the most charitable translation of that is 'the audience don't want to hear our actual singing voices, so we'll make sure they don't'.


1 comment:

James said...

Marvin said: "It's all about people wanting [autotune] in the music, so we will deliver it to them."

Really? That does sound a bit like a hot-dog seller saying "Well, I get lots of customers, so the public clearly have a taste for eyelids and bumholes"

Post a Comment

As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.

Post a Comment