That was an interesting article.

To put this in perspective, its worth pointing out that thousands of new products are introduced every year, and most of them don't catch on. When something catches on, its because it satisfies an unmet yearning or need. When it catches on BIG, it's because it meets multiple needs on multiple levels.. and I think that's what drives the overuse of Autotune.

I think the summary statement on the article was "It saves a ton of time"

The studio owner needs to wrap up the project and move on to the next paying job. He embraces it because he can fix more in 30 minutes with Auto tune than his clients could fix in two more weeks of session time.

The studio owner also needs to satisfy his clients. If the song sucks, they won't blame themselves, they'll blame the studio and undermine its reputation in order to justify their dog recording

The musicians embrace it because "everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die". Everybody wants the reward without the work.

The audience accepts it because nobody really wants to hear out of tune singing.

The record companies embrace it because it's easier for them to find beautiful wannabes who can't sing than it is to find beautiful people with talent. And these days, unless you're beautiful, you don't stand a chance in pop music.

In the final analysis it has turned into an audio Ponzi scheme that nobody can afford to stop for fear it will cave in on everybody.

Bottom line, it's a trend, and all trends come and go. Talent will never completely lose out to marketing, though it certainly looks that way in the short run. The pendulum eventually goes as far as it can in one direction, then reverses.

My 2 cents.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ey71h8ep047758h/AAC12jNM0Hz9Q8zsh5iDeqNHa?dl=0