There was (and still somewhat is) a big uproar about auto tune usage in music. But guess what? You haven’t heard a song NOT using it since at least 1998. Unless youre friends with every sound engineer out there and can ask them specifically if an artist did or did not use it (unrealistic).
The same will happen with ai. People wont notice, and it will go on to be the norm, with a very small pocket of purists.
ITT: People are really butthurt that their favorite artist uses autotune/pitch correction, and they have no idea how mixing and production work. These will be the same people listening to ai music in 5 years with no knowledge of it. So my prediction is correct.
I have a very hard time believing that, unless of course sound engineers have been doing “manual-tune” for ages and ages (see below). Regardless, loads of singers who perform in front of others clearly have the ability to sing a song in a variety of ways depending on mood, venue, audience, occasion, etc. In short-- good singers REALLY ARE that talented, generally with excellent pitch, and don’t need assistance in something as basic as singing notes close enough to pitch-perfect without the need to be absolutely perfect.
Just look at how improv singers can do so well, or people performing in front of judges, or opera and opera-style singers performing in concert halls, like Charlotte Church.
I would guess the one argument of yours that holds some water is with flawed singers who are otherwise good, but have chronic problems hitting close-enough pitch, or really good singers trying to perform songs slightly outside of their range. Stuff like that…
Even pros use it, read literally any article on mixing/recording.
Because its so commonplace and its expected to be perfect. Im drawing the parallel between that technology and ai, because it WILL be identical.
Imagine scenario. Song comes out. Its a good song. You have no idea at all that everything was ai generated because it sounds exactly like a normal song. Maybe all the instrumentation was ai generated and the voice is real, to throw you off. Still my point stands. You will be consuming ai generated “music” and you wont have a clue, just like you apparently dont know that the large majority of singers (pro and non pro) are using autotune/pitch correction.
Easy example off top of my head. David Draiman was using real time autotune on the live performance of sound of silence. Note i dont care for this group or their cover, but its an easy one.
You’ve made no real case that it’s used in any significant way upon any significant music I know of.
Used on modern pop? Of course it is. All over the place. Which is like saying that fast food and cold cuts contain a bunch of artificial stuff that enhances shelf life, flavor. We all know that, and most people know that fast food and cold cuts are the very bottom tier of food, despite the brief rush.
You can bet your bippy that Simon & Garfunkel never needed no auto-tune gimmicks to perform “The Sound of Silence.” Altho extra orchestration indeed helped.
Obviously S&G had nothing of the sort, it didnt exist at the time.
Im not going to ask for a list of artists and look up every mixing engineer to see if they are against autotune or not. I guarantee there’s music you listen to that has it being used (unless obviously, its instrumental music etc) because everyone uses it to sound pro. Just like they will use ai to “sound pro”.
Of course it did. Just as I referred to as “manual-tune” in my original comment. George Martin was FAMOUS for that stuff, but I tend to think he wasn’t the first.
Me, I like people who can make brave, interesting points in life, but I also don’t value much people who have no idea WTF they’re talking about, literally without a shred of evidence to back up their nonsense.