• Yerbouti@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I would agree that autotune might have kinda change music (although when used in a deliberately exaggerated way it doesn’t sound much different from a vocoder), but to me Cher’s song is just one of the pop hits that helped popularize the effect. IMO, it’s just a very well-produced pop song, which contributed to the rise of a form of vocal processing that’s very widespread today, which is already quite a lot. But it’s not revolutionary in itself, it’s very much in keeping with all the codes of pop music. For the records, I’m actually a teacher in audio engineering at a college and Univ so I’ve been quite interested in the over-popularity of this type of audio processing in recent decades.

    • can@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The point is that it was the first pop hit to use it in that way. For what that’s worth.

    • Plopp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Exaggerated pitch correction like that sounds very different from a vocoder (at least any vocoder I’ve ever heard). I’m sure there are ways to get close to that sound using a vocoder and other tools if you really try to replicate it, but there’s a reason pretty much everyone thought they used Auto-Tune even though vocoders had been around for a long time and they claimed to have used vocoders. And as it turns out, it was Auto-Tune.

      And I’d argue the reason why she thinks she changed music forever (God I hope it’s not forever) is because of how widespread that kind of use of exaggerated pitch correction has become. Not that it in itself was a completely new and different thing that was completely unlike anything anyone had ever heard ever and music is now played backwards with no notes.