https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 08:13:40 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

He's done a number of those analysis that shows just how modern music
gets modified all the time. Either pitch correction or compression of
the audio happens all the time.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-04-11 4:13 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

Just as pitch-correction alters the pitch of notes to make them
"perfect", quantization alters the placement of notes to make them
rhythmically "perfect". For instance, if the drummer's high hat hits are
a little bit off the beat, quantization can shift them to be exactly on
the beat. This too makes the playing sound mechanical. I've heard
several musicians bemoan the (over)use of quantization just as "Fil"
bemoans the use of pitch-correction in this video.

This video is a brief explanation of quantization without much of the philosophizing about whether it is good or bad. I'm sure there are other
videos that examine the issue more thoroughly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LtY2aATl0 [7 minutes]

Note: He makes several uses of the term "DAW" (spelled out as individual letters) without explaining it. DAW stands for Digital Audio
Workstation, essentially the software you use to do the recording, pitch-correction, quantization etc.

For what it's worth, I've often heard analysts note that bands like The Beatles, the Doors, and Led Zeppelin definitely speed up and slow down perceptably in some of their well-known recordings, even though they had
fine drummers. If quantization had existed and been used when those
recordings were made, we might well have found those songs somehow less impressive....

This short by Rick Beato gives an example of a quantized Led Zeppelin
groove versus the original:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/a7dTRgc0Mn4

The short is an excerpt from this longer video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT4fFolyZYU [10 minutes]

When Beato says that the original tempo is 170 BPM, he means 170 beats
per minute.

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-04-11 5:05 AM, shawn wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 08:13:40 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

He's done a number of those analysis that shows just how modern music
gets modified all the time. Either pitch correction or compression of
the audio happens all the time.

Electric guitarists are particularly famous/notorious for all the
gadgets they use to alter their sound. Nowadays, it's a rare guitarist
(or bassist for that matter) who doesn't have an extensive pedal board
with effects like distortion, delay, compression, phase, flange, echo, overdrive, etc. etc. etc. You really don't hear clean electric guitar
(or bass) very often any more.

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 11, 2025 at 2:05:52 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 08:13:40 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

He's done a number of those analysis that shows just how modern music
gets modified all the time. Either pitch correction or compression of
the audio happens all the time.

I've noticed this on recordings going back to the 80s. When I play along with film soundtracks, I often have to push the tuning slide in and make my trumpet almost an inch shorter than it normally is because the recording is so sharp, indicating it's been sped up from how it actually sounded in the studio when
it was recorded.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 11, 2025 at 3:38:33 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-04-11 4:13 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

Just as pitch-correction alters the pitch of notes to make them
"perfect", quantization alters the placement of notes to make them rhythmically "perfect".

Rhythmically perfect is not desirable. It makes the music sound computerized, like Commander Data is playing it.

Humans are not perfect so music that is perfect sounds inhuman. That's why my music software has a feature called "Human Playback", which purposely introduces minor inaccuracies in both rhythm and pitch, making it sound a lot less digital and cold.

For instance, if the drummer's high hat hits are
a little bit off the beat, quantization can shift them to be exactly on
the beat. This too makes the playing sound mechanical. I've heard
several musicians bemoan the (over)use of quantization just as "Fil"
bemoans the use of pitch-correction in this video.

This video is a brief explanation of quantization without much of the philosophizing about whether it is good or bad. I'm sure there are other videos that examine the issue more thoroughly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LtY2aATl0 [7 minutes]

Note: He makes several uses of the term "DAW" (spelled out as individual letters) without explaining it. DAW stands for Digital Audio
Workstation, essentially the software you use to do the recording, pitch-correction, quantization etc.

For what it's worth, I've often heard analysts note that bands like The Beatles, the Doors, and Led Zeppelin definitely speed up and slow down perceptably in some of their well-known recordings, even though they had
fine drummers. If quantization had existed and been used when those recordings were made, we might well have found those songs somehow less impressive....

This short by Rick Beato gives an example of a quantized Led Zeppelin
groove versus the original:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/a7dTRgc0Mn4

The short is an excerpt from this longer video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT4fFolyZYU [10 minutes]

When Beato says that the original tempo is 170 BPM, he means 170 beats
per minute.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-04-11 3:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 11, 2025 at 3:38:33 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-04-11 4:13 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

Just as pitch-correction alters the pitch of notes to make them
"perfect", quantization alters the placement of notes to make them
rhythmically "perfect".

Rhythmically perfect is not desirable. It makes the music sound computerized, like Commander Data is playing it.

Exactly. Beato illustrates that in the cited videos.

Humans are not perfect so music that is perfect sounds inhuman. That's why my music software has a feature called "Human Playback", which purposely introduces minor inaccuracies in both rhythm and pitch, making it sound a lot less digital and cold.

Good on the developers for adding that ability. I wonder if the bits
which are "de-quantized" are chosen at random or if some other method is employed?

For instance, if the drummer's high hat hits are
a little bit off the beat, quantization can shift them to be exactly on
the beat. This too makes the playing sound mechanical. I've heard
several musicians bemoan the (over)use of quantization just as "Fil"
bemoans the use of pitch-correction in this video.

This video is a brief explanation of quantization without much of the
philosophizing about whether it is good or bad. I'm sure there are other
videos that examine the issue more thoroughly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LtY2aATl0 [7 minutes]

Note: He makes several uses of the term "DAW" (spelled out as individual
letters) without explaining it. DAW stands for Digital Audio
Workstation, essentially the software you use to do the recording,
pitch-correction, quantization etc.

For what it's worth, I've often heard analysts note that bands like The
Beatles, the Doors, and Led Zeppelin definitely speed up and slow down
perceptably in some of their well-known recordings, even though they had
fine drummers. If quantization had existed and been used when those
recordings were made, we might well have found those songs somehow less
impressive....

This short by Rick Beato gives an example of a quantized Led Zeppelin
groove versus the original:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/a7dTRgc0Mn4

The short is an excerpt from this longer video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT4fFolyZYU [10 minutes]

When Beato says that the original tempo is 170 BPM, he means 170 beats
per minute.

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 22:14:10 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-04-11 3:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 11, 2025 at 3:38:33 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >> wrote:

On 2025-04-11 4:13 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

Just as pitch-correction alters the pitch of notes to make them
"perfect", quantization alters the placement of notes to make them
rhythmically "perfect".

Rhythmically perfect is not desirable. It makes the music sound computerized,
like Commander Data is playing it.

Exactly. Beato illustrates that in the cited videos.

Humans are not perfect so music that is perfect sounds inhuman. That's why my
music software has a feature called "Human Playback", which purposely
introduces minor inaccuracies in both rhythm and pitch, making it sound a lot
less digital and cold.

Good on the developers for adding that ability. I wonder if the bits
which are "de-quantized" are chosen at random or if some other method is >employed?

They appear to be chosen at random but it's not enough to duplicate
humans. It just makes the sound less mechanical until you look at it
with sound analysis as you can see in some of the other analysis
videos that the Wings of Pegasus singer did. He showed how the vocals
are still being forced to fit a perfect note with just a little
variation added in which isn't what a human vocal sounds like.

For instance, if the drummer's high hat hits are
a little bit off the beat, quantization can shift them to be exactly on
the beat. This too makes the playing sound mechanical. I've heard
several musicians bemoan the (over)use of quantization just as "Fil"
bemoans the use of pitch-correction in this video.

This video is a brief explanation of quantization without much of the
philosophizing about whether it is good or bad. I'm sure there are other >>> videos that examine the issue more thoroughly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LtY2aATl0 [7 minutes]

Note: He makes several uses of the term "DAW" (spelled out as individual >>> letters) without explaining it. DAW stands for Digital Audio
Workstation, essentially the software you use to do the recording,
pitch-correction, quantization etc.

For what it's worth, I've often heard analysts note that bands like The
Beatles, the Doors, and Led Zeppelin definitely speed up and slow down
perceptably in some of their well-known recordings, even though they had >>> fine drummers. If quantization had existed and been used when those
recordings were made, we might well have found those songs somehow less
impressive....

This short by Rick Beato gives an example of a quantized Led Zeppelin
groove versus the original:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/a7dTRgc0Mn4

The short is an excerpt from this longer video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT4fFolyZYU [10 minutes]

When Beato says that the original tempo is 170 BPM, he means 170 beats
per minute.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 08:13:40 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

Here is another perfect example of the mechanical sound of pitch
corrected vocals. In this case they have a trio singing but apparently
they were recorded separately, then pitch corrected and then put
together to sound like they were singing together. It sounded off to
me from the very start and then Fil starts pointing out the mistakes.

The video is supposedly of three people singing together in a
bathroom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMslQam1jRA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 11, 2025 at 1:13:40 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

On Sunday, Chris Siddall demo'd a new AI system called Cantai that can read lyrics in a score and sing them during playback. The realism was stunning. Up till now, you'd enter the lyrics in the score and just have to accept that while the software can mimic a human voice with reasonable accuracy, it couldn't actually read and sing the lyrics, so all you'd get would be an "ah" or "oh" on each note rather than the actual word. Now it can sing the actual words and do it with not only an amazing degree of accuracy but with actual musicality. Doesn't sound at all like a computer. Sounds like an actual person singing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-mTezdPLGI&t=2408s

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Apr 11, 2025 at 1:13:40 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

On Sunday, Chris Siddall demo'd a new AI system called Cantai that can read >lyrics in a score and sing them during playback. The realism was stunning. Up >till now, you'd enter the lyrics in the score and just have to accept that >while the software can mimic a human voice with reasonable accuracy, it >couldn't actually read and sing the lyrics, so all you'd get would be an "ah" >or "oh" on each note rather than the actual word. Now it can sing the actual >words and do it with not only an amazing degree of accuracy but with actual >musicality. Doesn't sound at all like a computer. Sounds like an actual person >singing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-mTezdPLGI&t=2408s

Great! Swifties can experience a live concert and Taylor Swift won't
have to get out of bed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/14/2025 3:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 11, 2025 at 1:13:40 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

On Sunday, Chris Siddall demo'd a new AI system called Cantai that can read lyrics in a score and sing them during playback. The realism was stunning. Up till now, you'd enter the lyrics in the score and just have to accept that while the software can mimic a human voice with reasonable accuracy, it couldn't actually read and sing the lyrics, so all you'd get would be an "ah" or "oh" on each note rather than the actual word. Now it can sing the actual words and do it with not only an amazing degree of accuracy but with actual musicality. Doesn't sound at all like a computer. Sounds like an actual person
singing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-mTezdPLGI&t=2408s

Here's a short story from '53. Fairly quick read...

https://elateachers.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/0/1/27012625/virtuoso.pdf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 4/14/2025 3:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 11, 2025 at 1:13:40 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

On Sunday, Chris Siddall demo'd a new AI system called Cantai that can read >> lyrics in a score and sing them during playback. The realism was stunning. Up
till now, you'd enter the lyrics in the score and just have to accept that >> while the software can mimic a human voice with reasonable accuracy, it
couldn't actually read and sing the lyrics, so all you'd get would be an "ah"
or "oh" on each note rather than the actual word. Now it can sing the actual >> words and do it with not only an amazing degree of accuracy but with actual >> musicality. Doesn't sound at all like a computer. Sounds like an actual person
singing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-mTezdPLGI&t=2408s

Here's a short story from '53. Fairly quick read...

https://elateachers.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/0/1/27012625/virtuoso.pdf

Sounds like Eartha Kitt.

With a head cold.



--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 08:13:40 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

Here is another perfect example of the mechanical sound of pitch
corrected vocals. In this case they have a trio singing but apparently
they were recorded separately, then pitch corrected and then put
together to sound like they were singing together. It sounded off to
me from the very start and then Fil starts pointing out the mistakes.

The video is supposedly of three people singing together in a
bathroom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMslQam1jRA

They sound like they are singing:
“the real deal with Bill McNeil!“

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/11/2025 12:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 11, 2025 at 2:05:52 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 08:13:40 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

He's done a number of those analysis that shows just how modern music
gets modified all the time. Either pitch correction or compression of
the audio happens all the time.

I've noticed this on recordings going back to the 80s. When I play along with film soundtracks, I often have to push the tuning slide in and make my trumpet
almost an inch shorter than it normally is because the recording is so sharp, indicating it's been sped up from how it actually sounded in the studio when it was recorded.

I grew up watching, a 1982 musical called "The Pirate Movie" starring
Kristy McNichol. I think I saw an interview with her once where she
commented she couldn't sing and it was all done with computers. I never noticed it at the time, but now I can kind of tell there's some auto
tune happening. But until I heard her say that, it never crossed my
mind they had auto-tune in the 80s.

Another favorite musical is "Josie and the Pussycats." I love the movie
and I love the soundtrack. I very recently got to meet Rachael Leigh
Cook at a convention, and I asked her about her singing in the movie.
She said she can't sing at all, and it was all done with computers.
That one sort of surprised me, since I never noticed the auto tune in
her voice.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/11/25 9:13 PM, shawn wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 22:14:10 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-04-11 3:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 11, 2025 at 3:38:33 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:

On 2025-04-11 4:13 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

Just as pitch-correction alters the pitch of notes to make them
"perfect", quantization alters the placement of notes to make them
rhythmically "perfect".

Rhythmically perfect is not desirable. It makes the music sound computerized,
like Commander Data is playing it.

Exactly. Beato illustrates that in the cited videos.

Humans are not perfect so music that is perfect sounds inhuman.

That's why my

music software has a feature called "Human Playback", which purposely
introduces minor inaccuracies in both rhythm and pitch, making it

sound a lot

less digital and cold.

That is the mentality of post-production: first ruin a
recording by processing, than "fix" that broken recording
with more processing, in the attempt to conceal the bad
work already done.

Good on the developers for adding that ability. I wonder if the bits
which are "de-quantized" are chosen at random or if some other method is
employed?

They appear to be chosen at random but it's not enough to duplicate
humans. It just makes the sound less mechanical until you look at it
with sound analysis as you can see in some of the other analysis
videos that the Wings of Pegasus singer did. He showed how the vocals
are still being forced to fit a perfect note with just a little
variation added in which isn't what a human vocal sounds like.

It seems that autotune / pitch correction turns the voice
into a keyboard, which is not what singing sounds like.

Greta Van Fleet for instance on their first two albums,
which is all I've heard, has some songs with awful keyboard
like vocals, entirely caused by post-production, not by
the pre-production singing which I can only guess sounded
better.

In another song that is impossible to sing with pitch
correction is the Beatles song Yesterday: the first
vocal note does not comply with the sheet music but is
the "same note" as the the succeeding note, but at a
higher pitch so pitch correction would flatten the note
making it wrong by repeating a note with the same pitch.
The sheet music and covers of it falsely sing the first
note a semitone higher, like in the movie Yesterday (2019).

In related routine post-production stuff like dynamic
compression, this is the muffling of the loud notes,
so the song no longer has loud notes, drums, vocals.
Then they proudly say that the result is loud!

In noise reduction, it is the quiet sounds that are
hurt the most, especially with stuff like fade-outs.

So to sum up:

Compression muffles the loud notes,
Noise Reduction muffles the quiet notes,
Beat Detector muffles the rhythm,
Pitch Correction/Autotune muffles the singer.

For instance, if the drummer's high hat hits are
a little bit off the beat, quantization can shift them to be

exactly on

the beat. This too makes the playing sound mechanical. I've heard
several musicians bemoan the (over)use of quantization just as "Fil"
bemoans the use of pitch-correction in this video.

This video is a brief explanation of quantization without much of the
philosophizing about whether it is good or bad. I'm sure there are

other

videos that examine the issue more thoroughly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LtY2aATl0 [7 minutes]

Note: He makes several uses of the term "DAW" (spelled out as

individual

letters) without explaining it. DAW stands for Digital Audio
Workstation, essentially the software you use to do the recording,
pitch-correction, quantization etc.

For what it's worth, I've often heard analysts note that bands

like The

Beatles, the Doors, and Led Zeppelin definitely speed up and slow down
perceptably in some of their well-known recordings, even though

they had

fine drummers. If quantization had existed and been used when those
recordings were made, we might well have found those songs somehow

less

impressive....

This short by Rick Beato gives an example of a quantized Led Zeppelin
groove versus the original:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/a7dTRgc0Mn4

The short is an excerpt from this longer video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT4fFolyZYU [10 minutes]

When Beato says that the original tempo is 170 BPM, he means 170 beats
per minute.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/19/25 7:57 AM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:

On 4/11/2025 12:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 11, 2025 at 2:05:52 AM PDT, "shawn"
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 08:13:40 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJF4lR3_eg

He's done a number of those analysis that shows just how modern music
gets modified all the time. Either pitch correction or compression of
the audio happens all the time.

I've noticed this on recordings going back to the 80s. When I play
along with
film soundtracks, I often have to push the tuning slide in and make my
trumpet
almost an inch shorter than it normally is because the recording is so
sharp,
indicating it's been sped up from how it actually sounded in the
studio when
it was recorded.

I grew up watching, a 1982 musical called "The Pirate Movie" starring
Kristy McNichol.  I think I saw an interview with her once where she commented she couldn't sing and it was all done with computers.  I never noticed it at the time, but now I can kind of tell there's some auto
tune happening.  But until I heard her say that, it never crossed my
mind they had auto-tune in the 80s.

Another favorite musical is "Josie and the Pussycats."  I love the movie
and I love the soundtrack.  I very recently got to meet Rachael Leigh
Cook at a convention, and I asked her about her singing in the movie.
She said she can't sing at all, and it was all done with computers. That
one sort of surprised me, since I never noticed the auto tune in her voice.

That could just mean they didn't sing the song, someone else
sung it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)