Hoobastank

[PCboy]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
the thing that i really hate about hoobastank's reason is you can clearly hear the Antares Auto-Tune they put on the vocals in a pitiful attempt to make the singer sound on-key. hoobastank are a product of production, and talent > production.

is paulson using the auto-tune as well? or is he talented?

 

[wiredspider]

Before this song I tought Hoobastank was just some girls. That commerical confused me... And yea this song is pretty good, the rest of the album is ok...

 

[UNCjigga]

Never seen the video...such a tragedy, I now have access to 6 music video channels BESIDES mtv on cable and I never see videos.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: GigaCluster

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
you know that vocal sound they use in electronica sometimes where it makes them sound kinda computerized? this is the same thing, only slightly less obvious. basically it corrects pitch in singers who can't sing on pitch. if a singer is pretty much accurate, you can't hear it working, and it just helps to fix a note or two where they got a little off. but when a singer is really bad, Auto-Tune has to work overtime, and you can hear it clearly. probably 90% of the vocals in modern mainstream music gets run through Auto-Tune these days, which is ok, but when it gets obtrusive, it's distracting and takes away from the music.

but hey, if you don't mind listening to a computer program desperately trying to fix no-talent hacks, be my guest.

I've decided to listen to the song again, and I absolutely cannot tell when Auto-Tune was used. Their voice sounds natural throughout the whole song. Can you perhaps point to certain positions (in time) when the coverup is relatively obvious?

No, he read someone elses opinion on it and he went from there. Maybe the one who said it can help you but thomsbrag won't tell you who it was, he will tell you it was him and give you some more phony info he googled up.

i didn't need google or anyone else's opinion. (but now that you mention it, maybe i'll do a little google just to see if i'm the only one with this "opinion"). as someone with experience in a studio, both recording and performing, i know a little about how the studio game works. auto-tune has a very characteristic sound, and once you've heard it in action on a singer who needs a lot of help, it's not hard to pick out. saying it's my opinion that his vocals were artifically pitch-corrected is like saying it's my opinion that the song has guitars in it. it's OBVIOUS. like drum mentioned, musicians and engineers/producers listen to music differently than other people. we pick these things out because we live them every day, just like a carpenter can make judgements about the quality of your house by looking at how it was built.

personally i think auto-tune is a great tool, when used for its purpose: to save an otherwise wonderful performance marred by a few slip-ups. like i said, probably most singers are run through it at one point or another, and in most cases it improves the music. but when it's used to fix every line, the end result is fake, processed sounding vocals that lack realism and emotion. my opinion as a musician and engineer (one shared by most respected engineers and producers) is that you are better off going back and redoing a part until you get it right than fixing a bad take. if that means singing the song one line at a time, over and over until you nail it, you're probably still better off.

so you see, it's not my opinion they used pitch-correction. i know they used it. it's my opinion that his vocals sound like crap.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: GigaCluster

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
you know that vocal sound they use in electronica sometimes where it makes them sound kinda computerized? this is the same thing, only slightly less obvious. basically it corrects pitch in singers who can't sing on pitch. if a singer is pretty much accurate, you can't hear it working, and it just helps to fix a note or two where they got a little off. but when a singer is really bad, Auto-Tune has to work overtime, and you can hear it clearly. probably 90% of the vocals in modern mainstream music gets run through Auto-Tune these days, which is ok, but when it gets obtrusive, it's distracting and takes away from the music.

but hey, if you don't mind listening to a computer program desperately trying to fix no-talent hacks, be my guest.

I've decided to listen to the song again, and I absolutely cannot tell when Auto-Tune was used. Their voice sounds natural throughout the whole song. Can you perhaps point to certain positions (in time) when the coverup is relatively obvious?

sure thing i'll try to find words, and put stuff that was probably not processed in paranthesis. sometimes you only process a certain syllable. of course this is all guess-work. it's possible to sing a word or two in such a way that it accidentally sounded processed and vise-versa.

1st line: "per(fect)... person."
2nd line: "there's... do"
3rd line: "but i continue learning"
4: "i... you"
5,6: the entire thing

but really it's pretty clear in the chorus. it's pretty high and he must have been straining to sing it. also notice how the harmonies are all oh-so-perfect. that's cause he didn't sing them. they were created using a harmonizer and a slight delay. it's probably most clear in the bridge, where he goes way high, singing "and the reason is yoooooooou." that's why there's no vibrato, no pitch change of any kind whatsoever once he reaches his notes. the note is "hit" and it's held dead-on until he starts to let off and the engineer kills the correction.

ok, i take it back. 2:54 is the most obvious. "to know." the little arpeggio in his voice, with each note oh-so-perfectly spot-on. sounds just like cher.

i think the last line of the first chorus was probably natural, where he gets soft again. you can hear the pitch wavering on "you" and for the first and maybe only time in the song he sounds like a human being.

to compare, i suggest listening to AFI's "girl's not grey" (chosen at random, i'm not much of an AFI fan or anything). it's a song from a similar genre where the singer isn't amazingly talented yet the performance is much more engaging and life-like. the vocals are comparitively natural, or at least natural-sounding. when he makes quick notes changes in a word, notice how the notes are never perfect, but you still follow what he's singing and it sounds good. notice how when he holds a note, the pitch moves around slightly. we call this: "singing." or listen to muse's "stockholm syndrome." same deal there, with a stronger singer. another one: system of a down.

i'm really only making a big deal out of it because this is the most blatent use of auto-tune i've ever heard in a hit rock song. i'm used to it in pop, but rock has been pretty much free of it until recently. even a new found glory are more tasteful than hoobastank. i feel really bad for the singer. he knows better than anyone what he can and can't do, and some producer probably forced him to "sing" stuff he can't recreate on his own. now every time he plays live he's gonna be reminded that he's incapable of giving the performance everyone is expecting from him. that's a burden i'd rather not bear.

 

[krunchykrome]

Originally posted by: ohtwell
I love this song, and the video is pretty good.


: ) Amanda

It's old and pathetic.

 

[ohtwell]

Originally posted by: krunchykrome

Originally posted by: ohtwell
I love this song, and the video is pretty good.


: ) Amanda

It's old and pathetic.

Well, it has gotten a bit old since I posted this a month ago, but I still like the song.


: ) Amanda