Curious about the music industry? Find out stuff.

[Anarchemitis]

On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being Michael Jackson dying, how scandalous would it be if an Opera singer was discovered to have been using Autotune?

It's a bit of a redundant question because opera singers would never use Auto-tune simply because opera singing technique includes a bit of natural pitch variance or vibrato, that Auto-tune would destroy. In other words, opera singers are trained to deliberately sing a little bit out of tune, and so any Auto-tune would ruin the point of singing in an operatic style in the first place. As soon as you turn that plug-in on you're basically not singing opera anymore.

It's also a bit of a murky question - because are you talking about using "soft" Auto-tune to fix bum notes so nobody notices (i.e a session singer fluffed a note so you patch it up) or are you talking about using Auto-tune in a "hard" way as a deliberately stylised vocal effect (i.e the way Ke$ha, Lady Gaga, Kanye West, T-Pain, Brokencyde etc use it)? The first one doesn't apply to opera because the smoothing over would also kill the operatic vibrato, thus destroying the point, and the second one also doesn't apply to opera because it's just not part of the genre. Even in modern stage and screen stuff like "Repo: The Genetic Opera" there's still no Auto-tune and the singers (including Paris Hilton!) are using their natural voices. It's just not part of the style.

Opera singers have been caught miming though. I remember a huge controversy a few years back when Pavarotti was busted miming a gig, and yes that did cause a 10-scale controversy! I guess what I'm trying to say is that people making a fuss about using Auto-tune to hide people's inadequate real voices is bullshit, because there are far more effective ways to do this. Auto-tune is actually the worst way you can do this, because as soon as you switch it on, people think you're hiding something, therefore the only people who tend to use Auto-tune a lot are those who feel that they have nothing to hide anyway. It's being used these days so much because the sound is trendy, not because it glosses over bad notes (although it does that too, but that's incidental). If people really cared so badly about bad notes they could have used vocoders all this time, which essentially have an identical function, they're just triggered manually.

I find everyone's voice being all doctored up as annoying as the persistent photoshop effect in every magazine at supermarket shelves. It's the justification behind my interests in Classical music, because it's highly challenging to do anything to that stuff in terms of post-effect "repair".
Give me Pipe organs over some kid's broken pipes any day.

 

[BonsaiK]

On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being Michael Jackson dying, how scandalous would it be if an Opera singer was discovered to have been using Autotune?

It's a bit of a redundant question because opera singers would never use Auto-tune simply because opera singing technique includes a bit of natural pitch variance or vibrato, that Auto-tune would destroy. In other words, opera singers are trained to deliberately sing a little bit out of tune, and so any Auto-tune would ruin the point of singing in an operatic style in the first place. As soon as you turn that plug-in on you're basically not singing opera anymore.

It's also a bit of a murky question - because are you talking about using "soft" Auto-tune to fix bum notes so nobody notices (i.e a session singer fluffed a note so you patch it up) or are you talking about using Auto-tune in a "hard" way as a deliberately stylised vocal effect (i.e the way Ke$ha, Lady Gaga, Kanye West, T-Pain, Brokencyde etc use it)? The first one doesn't apply to opera because the smoothing over would also kill the operatic vibrato, thus destroying the point, and the second one also doesn't apply to opera because it's just not part of the genre. Even in modern stage and screen stuff like "Repo: The Genetic Opera" there's still no Auto-tune and the singers (including Paris Hilton!) are using their natural voices. It's just not part of the style.

Opera singers have been caught miming though. I remember a huge controversy a few years back when Pavarotti was busted miming a gig, and yes that did cause a 10-scale controversy! I guess what I'm trying to say is that people making a fuss about using Auto-tune to hide people's inadequate real voices is bullshit, because there are far more effective ways to do this. Auto-tune is actually the worst way you can do this, because as soon as you switch it on, people think you're hiding something, therefore the only people who tend to use Auto-tune a lot are those who feel that they have nothing to hide anyway. It's being used these days so much because the sound is trendy, not because it glosses over bad notes (although it does that too, but that's incidental). If people really cared so badly about bad notes they could have used vocoders all this time, which essentially have an identical function, they're just triggered manually.

I find everyone's voice being all doctored up as annoying as the persistent photoshop effect in every magazine at supermarket shelves. It's the justification behind my interests in Classical music, because it's highly challenging to do anything to that stuff in terms of post-effect "repair".
Give me Pipe organs over some kid's broken pipes any day.

A better justification behind your interest in classical music would be that you just happen to like the way that music sounds.

"Traditional" styles of music are just as easy to doctor as modern ones. Ever since Auto-tune was popularised every second armchair nerd thinks they're suddenly an expert on what is or isn't a "legitimate musical performance". How little they really know.


The difference between Auto-tune and other doctoring methods is that hard Auto-tune doesn't fool anybody (soft Auto-tune does, but that's not what you're discussing). It's not supposed to. Hard Auto-tune is meant to sound robotic and artificial, that's the point of applying it. It's the vocalist's equivalent of a guitarist stepping on a flanger pedal - we all know that Brian May's guitar doesn't really make that sound, but we dig it because it sounds fucking cool (or doesn't, depending on your personal preference). On the other hand, resampling, miming, ghost vocals, tape-pitch correction and other methods have been used for decades to fool the shit out of nearly everybody. That's why your magazine Photoshop analogy doesn't work. Your magazine editor probably does want to fool people into thinking that the models really do look like that. On the other hand, Ke$ha is not trying to convince you that she is a brilliant singer, she just wants to sounds robotic because she (or her producer, or both) happen to like her songs sounding that way.

Further reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/apr/07/classicalmusicandopera.italy - not only was Pavarotti miming, but so was the entire orchestra behind him! Anyone who thinks classical music has a monopoly on authenticity is simply deluded.

 

[Anarchemitis]

Further reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/apr/07/classicalmusicandopera.italy - not only was Pavarotti miming, but so was the entire orchestra behind him! Anyone who thinks classical music has a monopoly on authenticity is simply deluded.

Well what kind of generalization is terming an entire genre? Of course there are always exceptions.

 

[BonsaiK]

Further reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/apr/07/classicalmusicandopera.italy - not only was Pavarotti miming, but so was the entire orchestra behind him! Anyone who thinks classical music has a monopoly on authenticity is simply deluded.

Well what kind of generalization is terming an entire genre? Of course there are always exceptions.

I'm not saying all classical music is like that, just like all pop music isn't like that. Miming is the exception rather than the rule in every genre. All I'm saying is that anyone who thinks classical music is somehow more "elevated" or "real" or "special" and that they don't occasionally stoop to exactly the same things that the popular music industry occasionally stoops to, is provably wrong.

 

[Ham_authority95]

Have you ever had a problem with over-scheduling? I ask this because I'm looking for another band to play in, but I'm already in two bands(one meets every weekend, the other meets whenever but usually spends 9-10 hours on working when we do) plus the school concert and pep bands(which take 1-2 nights out of my week to play in the latter) and I worry that I'll become inundated.

 

[BonsaiK]

Have you ever had a problem with over-scheduling? I ask this because I'm looking for another band to play in, but I'm already in two bands(one meets every weekend, the other meets whenever but usually spends 9-10 hours on working when we do) plus the school concert and pep bands(which take 1-2 nights out of my week to play in the latter) and I worry that I'll become inundated.

Yes, all the time. I keep a pocket diary. Not one of those flashy electronic iThings, a pen and paper one. Everything goes in it, therefore no conflicts.

 

[MisterGobbles]

Ok, I don't know if you would know anything about this, and I kind of hate to bring up something as blatantly commercial as the Grammies (although this is the music INDUSTRY we're talking about), but this has been bugging me: why in the HELL are most of the artists and albums at the Grammies from two years prior? It seems as if they just pick and choose things with little to no regard to the year they were released. This is contrary to other award shows like the Oscars where everything that is nominated is generally released in the previous year only.

Is there something that causes this delay at the Grammies, or do they just do this for no particular reason?

 

[BonsaiK]

Ok, I don't know if you would know anything about this, and I kind of hate to bring up something as blatantly commercial as the Grammies (although this is the music INDUSTRY we're talking about), but this has been bugging me: why in the HELL are most of the artists and albums at the Grammies from two years prior? It seems as if they just pick and choose things with little to no regard to the year they were released. This is contrary to other award shows like the Oscars where everything that is nominated is generally released in the previous year only.

Is there something that causes this delay at the Grammies, or do they just do this for no particular reason?

There's always a little bit of a delay in the Grammies, it doesn't line up by calendar year. Check out the dates in the eligibility requirements here:

https://www2.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/Voting/FAQs/

I don't know why it's done, but if I had to guess I'd say it's because they don't want to split things up by calendar year when the end/start of the year is peak time for sales, they'd rather tick it over during a quiet time so that way all the really big releases (that are often synchronised to come out during the Christmas period, or just before/after) get dealt with in the same bracket. Otherwise you'd have a situation where two really big artists were competing for chart attention but only one was Grammy-eligible. Of course this still happens sometimes, but the way things are set up with the dates these days I guess it's rarer than it would otherwise be.

 

[Ham_authority95]

Ok, I don't know if you would know anything about this, and I kind of hate to bring up something as blatantly commercial as the Grammies (although this is the music INDUSTRY we're talking about), but this has been bugging me: why in the HELL are most of the artists and albums at the Grammies from two years prior? It seems as if they just pick and choose things with little to no regard to the year they were released. This is contrary to other award shows like the Oscars where everything that is nominated is generally released in the previous year only.

Is there something that causes this delay at the Grammies, or do they just do this for no particular reason?

There's always a little bit of a delay in the Grammies, it doesn't line up by calendar year. Check out the dates in the eligibility requirements here:

https://www2.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/Voting/FAQs/

I don't know why it's done, but if I had to guess I'd say it's because they don't want to split things up by calendar year when the end/start of the year is peak time for sales, they'd rather tick it over during a quiet time so that way all the really big releases (that are often synchronised to come out during the Christmas period, or just before/after) get dealt with in the same bracket. Otherwise you'd have a situation where two really big artists were competing for chart attention but only one was Grammy-eligible. Of course this still happens sometimes, but the way things are set up with the dates these days I guess it's rarer than it would otherwise be.

Another thing about it is slots like "New Artist" include artists that have been active for years...

But being the "hooray! We're popular now!" festival that it is, they probably catagorise it by "Who just got well-known".

 

[BonsaiK]

Ok, I don't know if you would know anything about this, and I kind of hate to bring up something as blatantly commercial as the Grammies (although this is the music INDUSTRY we're talking about), but this has been bugging me: why in the HELL are most of the artists and albums at the Grammies from two years prior? It seems as if they just pick and choose things with little to no regard to the year they were released. This is contrary to other award shows like the Oscars where everything that is nominated is generally released in the previous year only.

Is there something that causes this delay at the Grammies, or do they just do this for no particular reason?

There's always a little bit of a delay in the Grammies, it doesn't line up by calendar year. Check out the dates in the eligibility requirements here:

https://www2.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/Voting/FAQs/

I don't know why it's done, but if I had to guess I'd say it's because they don't want to split things up by calendar year when the end/start of the year is peak time for sales, they'd rather tick it over during a quiet time so that way all the really big releases (that are often synchronised to come out during the Christmas period, or just before/after) get dealt with in the same bracket. Otherwise you'd have a situation where two really big artists were competing for chart attention but only one was Grammy-eligible. Of course this still happens sometimes, but the way things are set up with the dates these days I guess it's rarer than it would otherwise be.

Another thing about it is slots like "New Artist" include artists that have been active for years...

But being the "hooray! We're popular now!" festival that it is, they probably catagorise it by "Who just got well-known".

Yes, I'd agree with that. "New" is a very subjective term - "new" to who? Very very few "new" artists are really new, most of them have been performing their craft for years first. What The Grammys mean by "new", I guess, is "new to the higher end of the industry", or in other words "big enough for us to notice you for the first time".

 

[MisterGobbles]

That does make sense for the most part, I still would think that they would keep it a little more current to stay relevant but I don't suppose you get too many people complaining about it.

 

[BonsaiK]

That does make sense for the most part, I still would think that they would keep it a little more current to stay relevant but I don't suppose you get too many people complaining about it.

"Relevance" is not a quality I'd personally associate with the Grammys, now or in the past.

 

[Ham_authority95]

That does make sense for the most part, I still would think that they would keep it a little more current to stay relevant but I don't suppose you get too many people complaining about it.

Yeah, douchebags like us who complain about the badness of popular music awards usually don't make up the target audience of that format to begin with.

 

[Dr. Win]

Hi, just two questions...

1. With working in the music industry, how important is it to learn music, in terms of notes, chords, how they go together etc, when working in a part of the industry that doesn't write or play music?

2. I'm 14, and have been teaching myself percussion on and off for about one and a half years now, and have been teaching myself guitar for about 6 months. I am thinking about learning other musical instruments as well, such as piano and bass guitar. Would this be kind of over-stretching it too much? I have all the instruments needed, I would just like to know from someone with experience if it's a bit too ambitious.

P.S, Your threads are awesome, it's nice to see fellow Australians doing awesome things

 

[Ham_authority95]

2. I'm 14, and have been teaching myself percussion on and off for about one and a half years now, and have been teaching myself guitar for about 6 months. I am thinking about learning other musical instruments as well, such as piano and bass guitar. Would this be kind of over-stretching it too much? I have all the instruments needed, I would just like to know from someone with experience if it's a bit too ambitious.

If BonsaiK doesn't mind, I'd like to contribute.

I think that if you're ambitious enough and have enough time on your hands, go for it. Unless you're trying to play really technical music, getting the jist of playing them won't overwhelm you too much.

You've already probably learned many of the notes on the guitar, so doing Bass won't take that much trouble.

Join a band to play one or more of those instruments in if you haven't already. Playing with others can give you more experience than a thousand lessons...

That's my view on it, anyway. You'll probably get a better answer from BonsaiK.

 

[Ham_authority95]

And another question: Can you give any tips for interviews, interacting with the media, etc?

 

[BonsaiK]

Hi, just two questions...

1. With working in the music industry, how important is it to learn music, in terms of notes, chords, how they go together etc, when working in a part of the industry that doesn't write or play music?

2. I'm 14, and have been teaching myself percussion on and off for about one and a half years now, and have been teaching myself guitar for about 6 months. I am thinking about learning other musical instruments as well, such as piano and bass guitar. Would this be kind of over-stretching it too much? I have all the instruments needed, I would just like to know from someone with experience if it's a bit too ambitious.

P.S, Your threads are awesome, it's nice to see fellow Australians doing awesome things

1. Well, I guess you don't need to know that stuff if your aim is to get in a field that doesn't need that stuff, but in this industry it pays to be as employable as possible which means being as multi-skilled as you can be. If I got into music from an industry perspective initially I would want to find out how it worked technically just out of curiosity and so I could understand on a technical level the difference between "good" and "bad" music or whatever. Because I got into it from a musician's point of view first and the industry side later, I had to do the opposite, I already knew what made music work, but I had to teach myself about things like book-keeping, networking, telephone technique, etc. You could always skimp on learning certain things but someone who wants to stay employable is learning all the time, it's a process that never stops, especially these days with constantly changing computer software.

2. Go for it, and the younger you start, the better. I'd pick piano if I were you, bass guitar is too easy, any monkey can play it (except that slap-pop stuff which nobody wants to hear except other bass players anyway) and there's a good chance that if your guitar skills are reasonable you'll be able to pick up a bass and play it straight off the bat. Piano is a bit of a prick to learn to play well and you'll probably never get to concert pianist level unless you're willing to forego friends and a life for the next ten years, but it's so incredibly useful to have even mediocre piano keyboarding skills that I can't recommend it enough. Piano teachers are also sticklers for making you read music and learn music theory so there's two more really good skills to have to add to your collection. The time to do this stuff is now, while you're young enough for parents to be willing to pay for your lessons and you've still got enough time every week to commit to a reasonable amount of practice (you'll only get less time as you get older, trust me on that). On top of that I do agree with what Ham_authority95 is saying, especially about the band thing, that will definitely make you a better musician no matter what instrument(s) you are playing.

Oh and thanks. I can never get enough compliments.

 

[BonsaiK]

And another question: Can you give any tips for interviews, interacting with the media, etc?

That's very broad. Also I'm not sure what you mean by the question. As far as interviews go, do you mean giving interviews or being interviewed? Being interviewed isn't that hard but giving them is a real artform. Interacting with the media, as who, a musician, or someone at a label, or someone else? And which media, for what purpose? To answer your question in its current form would take me about 25 pages just to cover all the potential bases, you might have to narrow this one down a bit for me.

 

[Dr. Win]

Thanks for the advice guys, really appreciate it
Working on getting a band together, so far I've got two other people interested, a bassist and a guitarist, and I'm either going to be on guitar 2 or drums (two guitars isn't necessary but I think it sounds a lot better personally.

 

[Keepitclean]

I was wondering what kind of legal hoops would a cover band have to jump through to be allowed to play copyrighted material in a situation that would get them payed for playing the material. As in if a band is getting payed to play at a pub and they only play other people's music what would they have to do to be legally safe?