So… someone remind me… why practice?

There are several contextual questions that I think modify that questions. Different genres have different expectations of musical execution. A classical recording with an operatic soprano, there would be a great deal of hue and cry from the listening public if they discovered that pitch correction was used on the vocal. American Idol, not so much.

There is also a different expectation between live and recording. Same technology, pitch correction, might be acceptable on a Billy Joel recording, but being found out using it live, people have a sense of betrayal. How many people watch that clip and thing, “I wonder if he was using pitch correction when I saw him?”

In all of these, the basis for deception vs. enhancement is the audience expectation. Which brings into the play the interesting idea of increasing sophistication among audience members. Arrrgh. I have to go. More later.

And at the same time, there are very few “big” records you could say the artist was capable of delivering the musical performance being credited them. Very few use one single take all the way through without some punches or fixes (even if we’re not talking about tuning).

Where along the line of “real” to “completely not real” does the ethical red flag pop up?

In both cases, the person being presented as “The Artist” was absolutely incapable of delivering the musical performance being credited to them.

:)

(I know you’re not saying this… just going to the extreme to make my point.)

I’d be curious to understand what it looks like to make a “real” and “linear” record? What does that entail?

Only if you make it that way. Only one man’s opinion here, but that’s a methodology not every recording artist has to embrace. “Real” and “Linear” are wonderful aspects of a record, if they’re embraced properly.

I like real. I like linear. Especially in the current, “Crank-The-F*cking-Compressor-To-Eleven” climate – I think real and linear are more important than ever.

And yes, I will produce the 3rd Dailies record for free.

PS – What the hell happened to the “Covers” project, AKA, “An Excuse to Drink Expensive Scotch at Eldorado Studios”? I have a nearly-complete song list for that project, and the longer we wait, the more ridiculous the list becomes. (See: Ska-versions of Bob Seger tunes)

It’s still fake, and I believe — I have to believe — that the audience is hungry for real, honest expression. It’s why they reach out to reality programming (which is also pretty fake). To standup comedy, which can’t be faked whatsoever (if it’s not funny, the audience cannot laugh, except in the case of Dane Cook).

I think of Steely Dan and how the ultra-perfected studio musicians contrast against Fagen’s very imprecise vocals. I bet Fagen would have autotuned if he had the opportunity. And if he did, how incredibly shitty Steely Dan would have been.

I’m so glad that you included the Billy Joel performance. As I sat and watched it, I realized he was being corrected and I could think of nothing else. I know that there is a special problem with singing in an outdoor arena, where you hear yourself echoed back a hundred times, but I expect this can be corrected for with in-ear monitoring.

They are creating a character, one that has appeal to a certain audience, and the music functions in support of the character. In theater, the audience enters the environment with a willing suspension of their skepticism, for the purpose of heightening their enjoyment. When Michael Bay creates huge CGI robot explosions, I don’t accuse him of fraud because the robots and the fire aren’t real. I suspend my disbelief, so that I can enjoy the movie.

When an industry-created pop diva comes out on stage, perhaps there is the same kind of suspension of disbelief, and the tools used to create the character, the music, the experience are not tools of fraud, but tools of theater. I don’t expect the experience to be an authentic representation of the person’s musical ability, I expect it to be an emotionally satisfying 90-minute musical experience.

As long as both audience and artist share the same understanding of what’s being presented, is any deception, or fraud, happening?

Since this is a MUSIC and ethics class, I guess I have a hard time with the first video being called MUSIC. It’s like soft core porn with some notes attached. Eye candy at the least. (And as a heterosexual chick, I’m kind of grossed out when she eats the pizza. Cory, can I borrow your brain scrubber?)

A photographer using a soft-focus lens is one thing, using photoshop to altar features is another. At some point people ceases to resemble themselves. The producer in the first clip could be guilty of FRAUD.

None of them are doing anything illegal, and I’m sure the male audience doesn’t mind the enhancements. I’m imagining June’s disappointment when a cheezy pop artist becomes successful while the deserving ones are unheard of, and that is how I feel about clip #1.

It’s not music, it’s just silliness.