The Autotune debate might be analogous to legacy photography vs. digital imaging. In the Olden Times of film, photos were regularly air-brushed to remove flaws. Every magazine and ad agency had an airbrush section in their photography department. Movie posters were airbrushed. Pinups were airbrushed. Ever notice how “soft” some of the female stars looked in old movies in close-ups? That was due to the use of a “soft” portrait lens, which softened hard edges and smoothed out contours. A soft lens, used judiciously with subtle lighting, could make a regular looking person look quite glamorous. You could buy a special soft lens, or you could just smear Vaseline on a standard lens for the same effect.

Enter Photoshop and CGI. With the exception of news photography, there probably aren't any images you see today that have not been manipulated with image editing software. Same with movies.

So, both Autotune and Photoshop/CGI alter the original audio/image. Are they “cheating”, or are they tech that has come to be not only accepted, but expected?

If you are an aspiring artist trying to break into the business, will you choose purity over expedience when your producer says he will be using AT? If you are pitching a song to a producer or artist, will you use AT on the vocal track? Does it give you and unfair advantage to use it, or a disadvantage not to?

Dyslectics Untie!


https://90dbband.bandcamp.com/

https://soundcloud.com/90-db

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm_3mpivKYV7T7XFJmXL-GA