Judy Garland, have they tweaked even Judy? Pitch control discussed.

[Muse]

Rick Beato: How Autotune destroyed popular music

Here's just the first comment I see:

@lawrencewescott -325 thumbs up​

1 year ago
As a high school music teacher, it's getting harder and harder to impart the joy of organically creating music to my students. Pre-fab loops, AI drummers, auto-tune, etc. all make up for a lack of formal musical education and result in a flood of mediocrity. Most listeners don't care.

 

[WilliamM2]

I think I do understand the specific lyrics of this particular song more than you do. It's very clear why your response is what it is. It's not the merits or substance you are interested in.

I don't think you do. He's talking about bands that change with whatever the style of the day is, and do whatever the record company tells them too. No integrity.
Read it slow:

https://genius.com/Frank-zappa-tinseltown-rebellion-lyrics

It's not just punk, it's the music business in general.

Now, are you going respond in a productive manner or continue to utter irrelevant and fallcoous statements that go nowhere and only serve to annoy?

Aren't all your pretentious posts crafted to annoy? Or do they just read that way?

 

[Muse]

Let's look at this philosophically and psychologically...

 

[Captante]

Basing your opinion of Zappa on one song. Brilliant!

And typical.

 

[nakedfrog]

Apparently, unfortunately, the answer is that some of Judy's work has been "corrected"

In 2017, AVID Easy released a 2-CD collection of four Judy Garland LPs: A Star Is Born (Columbia, 1954), Miss Show Business (Capitol, 1955), Judy (Capitol, 1956), and Alone (Capitol, 1957) for which Nick Dellow was in charge of restoration and remastering. The bonus tracks on this set included Garland’s four sides recorded at Columbia in 1953. The release got glowing reviews. Now in 2019, Dellow is again at the helm of another 2-CD Garland set for AVID devoted to four other Garland LPs: Judy in Love (Capitol, 1958), Judy Garland at the Grove (Capitol, 1959), That’s Entertainment! (Capitol, 1960), and The Garland Touch (Capitol, 1962). The bonus tracks on this one include “It’s Lovely To Be Back in London” (Capitol, 1957) based on the ultra-rare Capitol 78 rpm released only in England, the mono “Zing! Went The Strings Of My Heart” (Capitol, 1958), and sides from the animated feature, Gay Purr-ee (Warner Bros. Records, 1962). Dellow has taken great pains in restoring these more than a half-century old tracks, including giving most of them the right pitch for the first time. Dellow lives outside of London, near Watford.

Interview with Nick Dellow – Audio Engineer

In 2017, AVID Easy released a 2-CD collection of four Judy Garland LPs: A Star Is Born (Columbia, 1954), Miss Show Business (Capitol, 1955), Judy (Capitol, 1956), and Alone (Capitol, 1957) for whic…

judygarlandnews.com

You're taking this too simply/directly. It wasn't "corrected" in the sense of altering her specific vocal performance to alter the notes, but returning the recording to the original key the music and singing would have been performed in, prior to being mastered at a higher speed for release. Reading what the guy has to say about Judy Garland I certainly don't get the idea he'd be keen on "correcting" her vocals.

 

[Torn Mind]

I don't think you do. He's talking about bands that change with whatever the style of the day is, and do whatever the record company tells them too. No integrity.
Read it slow:

https://genius.com/Frank-zappa-tinseltown-rebellion-lyrics

It's not just punk, it's the music business in general.

A proper appreciation of a songwriter is understanding as accurately as possible what he saw and was referring to. Not some childish "gatekeeper" taking personal shots against a neutral third party approaching the lyrics because things might become "scandalous" for said fanboy's psyche. You general course of conduct essentially boils down to a order and imperative: "interpret Zappa this particular way". An attempt to assert dominance, nothing more.

Literally, Zappa writes out three locations where punk and new wave performances were held at start of the song. Yes, it could apply to bands in general, but he it's clear he want to say something about punk. He certainly didn't make it ignorantly. In fact, I would say was quite well-versed and researched in punk and new wave. Yes, some bands did get a commercial contract. Time and Newsweek did write positively about one such band(not based in L.A though).

Properly understanding the context of the song requires mental labor; research to discover information. What are those places like Madame Wong. Which bands in punk did go get a record contract(searching google with the term "commercially successful punk and new wave bands"). Unlike your way of battling, I've actually bother to put in the time to bother searching for the likes of Madame Wong, Starwood, "Whisky a go go". The researching is edifying, as some informative articles do exist to help figure things out, such as:

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-chinatown-punk-wars/

How 11 Punk Bands Took a Leap of Faith, Sold Out, and Shaped Music History

They arrived with their business cards and with their checkbooks. They descended on dingy rock clubs and dimly lit bars. They talked a smooth game and their shirts were tucked into their jeans. The…

lithub.com

Knowing you, you'd simply label this a pretentiousness. Nothing but mere annoyance to ignore. It's pretentious to research context and present facts about a subject matter, according to raging WilliamM2. It's pure exaggeration and annoying to read about Madam Wong's or the Starwood being actual places punks fans congregated at to listen to punk bands or new wave bands.

I get he has a "general message". What don't agree with is you essentially ordering me to accept ONLY THAT and infer NOTHING ELSE from the song. That I will not comply with.

It's punk bands, new wave, and any other relevant band that played at Madame Wong's etc. Maybe some bands from that era decided to "sell out". Not sure which, but proper research would involve listening to practically every act on the scene and read their history to find out what exactly Zappa was referring to.

Aren't all your pretentious posts crafted to annoy? Or do they just read that way?

Can you cite where in this particular thread where exactly is the pretentiousness? Arguing Zappa is referring to punk and/or new wave or alleging that he actually listened to punk songs when forming the satire cannot be deemed "pretentiousness".

Taking a counterpoint in itself is not pretentiousness nor ispresenting mundane facts in support of a point is not that. If you think, you're extemely sensitive to opposition and also a poor debator. Ad hominems galore, and baldly asserted. You don't try to support the ad hominem with any sort of syllogism.

When it comes to music acts, I take an extremely open approach to processing any act that comes my way. There' only one who is in the basement cellar of disrespect, and that is Brahms. I can't stand Billie Eilish and I believe her messaging is calculated for an impressionable audience, but I will not attack her or her brother's ability to compose after seeing their short documentary on how they compose.

I know about "detail wars" in music. Single elements can result in battles and "schools" of thought. Tempo, can create battle lines amongst pros and fans. Examples include "historically informed performance" in classical circles and their counter-sentiments. Tempo, along with instrumentation, is also part of the change in the Go-Gos music style from before and after they went "commercial"; the skill of the players didn't change but just those changes can turn someone from "punk" to "sellout" in an instant. Faster tempos can result in differing moods compared to slower ones.

 

[Torn Mind]

Rick Beato: How Autotune destroyed popular music

Here's just the first comment I see:

@lawrencewescott -325 thumbs up​

1 year ago
As a high school music teacher, it's getting harder and harder to impart the joy of organically creating music to my students. Pre-fab loops, AI drummers, auto-tune, etc. all make up for a lack of formal musical education and result in a flood of mediocrity. Most listeners don't care.

I disagree that formal music education makes for good composition. In fact, if we want to consider the most "educated" bunch of musicians, which are those who come out of classical conservatories, they are the worst at composition and improvisation.

I wonder what high school actually teaches composition. Most have instrumental performance classical. If you want to make music, it's the same as ever, the performers are somewhat on their own.

 

[WilliamM2]

Can you cite where in this particular thread where exactly is the pretentiousness? Arguing Zappa is referring to punk and/or new wave or alleging that he actually listened to punk songs when forming the satire cannot be deemed "pretentiousness".

It's not just this thread, as I said, it's ALL your comments.
You write everything as if you were some type of expert, or scholar on EVERY topic.

It's beyond annoying.

 

[Torn Mind]

Pitch correction is analogous to air brushing. How surprising is it that Madonna, who (they tell me) was pitch corrected, looks a freak for the plastic surgeries she's had?

I prefer my art unadulterated.

You probably prefer your novels filtered by AI. There's a Brave New World out there, one tailored for you. Take a 100 question multiple choice survey, provide them the art you'd like processed just for you and spend your twilight years sinking into very own Valhalla.

Or, you could choose the cheaper route. One size fits all, that crafted by the artist but later tweaked by an engineer who's somehow entrusted to render it more appropriate for the average customer.

The pitch correction software discussed by Wings of Pegasus did not come into existence until the late 90s. Even though Madonna employed non-musical attractions, she had to make due without said software at the beginning of her career. If you targeting her lack of skill, her technical cheats would have employed more primitive methods like overdubbing. So, if you're taking issue with the methods supposedly used by Madonna, reject all of the contemporaries that were employing whatever she was employing to get by. If she's your cutoff, then 1984 was the end of music for you. Not that I have listened to enough Madonna to rate abilities her at all, having heard only Like a Virgin and "Hollywood".

I've come across enough declaration of "absolutes" in music to reject them all as incomplete and insufficient. Statements "stealing ideas don't work and is uncreative" has to fail when Mozart's Magic Flute Overture is a "borrowed" theme without permission of the original creator, Muzio Clementi.

You focus on autotune. I think modern music wouldn't be tolerable to your ears by virtue of the stylistic differences alone regardless of processing. the most notable effect of pitch correction is timbre, or sounding like a robot.

As for you insulting second paragraph, I can rest assured that I do have a collection of sacred compositions that you wouldn't grasp.
Eminence Front
Mozart's 19th Piano Concerto
The Allegretto section of Mozart's Fantasy in D minor, K. 397

The presence of pitch correction degrades sold records to a smaller extent. It basically turns a recording into something like sheet music or midi recordings; some of the nuances are lost. Not everything is necessarily lost, however. Meaning, someone can craft a decent song but the execution is simply not as compelling. Train's "Drive By" would fit such a mediocre end result. I like it for the chords and tune in general, but Pat Monahan is not good at hitting notes live and I can hear the autotune. But there is no way "Drive By" could be confused with anything like Old Town Road or whatever Billie Eilish pumps out these days. That is where your assertion that "everything is the same" must fail. Instrumentation and other factors still contribute to musical "style" and sounding like a garbled robot doesn't change that.

 

[Torn Mind]

It's not just this thread, as I said, it's ALL your comments.
You write everything as if you were some type of expert, or scholar on EVERY topic.

It's beyond annoying.

So you continue with mere bald assertions but cannot utter a single proper example. In fact, you don't even understand the definition.

You're just an anti-intellectual. I just happen to one, take things seriously, and too, take interest in a wide variety of subjects. You think that I mention spark, air, and fuel is necessary to start an engine is "pretentiousness". No, I literally FIXED those mowers up by replacing a carburetor or cleaning a fuel tank. Mundane things. And it was simply to save money or at the time, resell the mowers(which I didn't get around to doing).

an exaggerated sense of one's importance that shows itself in the making of excessive or unjustified claimseveryone took her ingrained pretentiousness into account when considering her statements

So, you don't want to hear anything about Madame Wong's, the Starwood, etc. You already everything. I'll continue researching not to debate you, but because it is a legitimate interest I have, those articles are self-edifying regardless of your existence.

You want me to undo all the time I spent listening to 86 CDs of Beethoven just because I wanted, and some of the insights obtained(arrangements are not easy or mere exercises, a composer's popular works in his times are not what posterity might hear at all. The Septet and the Andante favori were the actual go-tos of his fanbase of his time. The Septet could be considered "pop" since it was popular and it was "simple").
The many hours listening to Eminence Front, the original, and the 11 minute version, which likely a "brainstorm" version before it got edited for the record. Then the multiple live versions over decades. All to get a grasp of "varied repeats" and composition.

Or the years of high school piano I took.

Or the interest I had logic back in college and now. I write in syllogisms. So there are premises and a conclusion. You only post conclusions and fallacies. I still do not have notice of what exactly irks you and you are evasive in pointing out the particular sentences. Well guess what, I like particulars and specificity, not some the vain outcries of a crybaby who wants to assert dominance over another.

I'm not going discard my laborious education just to make you feel happy. You like personal attacks. That's all you have to make yourself feel good. So keep attacking, I've ignored plenty of your past posts because it wasn't worth time and you are not worth wasting my life on.

 

[WilliamM2]

So you continue with mere bald assertions but cannot utter a single proper example. In fact, you don't even understand the definition.

I gave plenty of examples: All your posts.

Britannica Dictionary definition of PRETENTIOUS
: having or showing the unpleasant quality of people who want to be regarded as more impressive, successful, or important than they really are

Pretentious Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

PRETENTIOUS meaning: having or showing the unpleasant quality of people who want to be regarded as more impressive, successful, or important than they really are

www.britannica.com

I'll ignore the rest of your rambling strawman.

 

[Muse]

The pitch correction software discussed by Wings of Pegasus did not come into existence until the late 90s.

What I saw researching is that pitch correction on recordings started in the 1970's.

Though widely popularized beginning in 1997, the process of pitch correction has been around since the 1970's, starting with the Eventide H910 Harmonizer.