How "Off Pitch" Is "Off Pitch"?

gridgital · Post by **gridgital** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:18 pm

what a great topic, and heres a few of my theories on the subject. A 440 is the only perfect pitch. 440 cycles per second, other notes vibrate with an infinite decimal point after.. if that makes sense.
rather than use a chorus pedal I like to track a couple out of tune guitars to fatten the sound by playing the same part exactly. Brass and string ensembles have the same principle. acoustic instruments don't always transmit certain freq in tune also.
B flat is not the same pitch as C#.
I like to double track vocals for the correlation between the 2 tracks sound more in tune to my ears.
50 cents is not a perfect quarter tone. there has to be a division between cycles per sec between the notes you are trying to find the 1/4 tone of. I'm sure there is a formula for this or maybe just simple division, but it really doesn't matter, if it doesn't have magic it just doesn't have magic. and even a bad singer can't ruin a good song. think johnny cash. sometimes it's just the way it's delivered that makes it good.

FMiguelez · Post by **FMiguelez** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:28 pm

gridgital wrote:but it really doesn't matter, if it doesn't have magic it just doesn't have magic. and even a bad singer can't ruin a good song. think johnny cash. sometimes it's just the way it's delivered that makes it good.

It must've been the way it was delivered....

However, I must respectfully disagree with you. A bad singer can definitely RUIN an otherwise great song. I just find it terribly difficult to get past bad performances. At best, I can recognize a good song despite the bad performance, and the better the song the worst it gets hurt by an ugly interpretation. It makes you want to strangle the singer.

I could send you a couple of people I know to prove my point...

Siryne · Post by **Siryne** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:39 pm

the fact that a bad or out of tune or un professional singer-Can and Does often ruin an otherwise great song-is how I came to start this thread.

Thanks all for the great thread-I am learning a great deal!
Peace!

zaster · Post by **zaster** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:39 am

interesting overall, but since this is mostly a production forum, i feel i should point out-
i'd probably rather hear someone sing a moderate amount off-pitch than hear that horrible auto-tune thing on a track. I think obsession with having vocals be perfectly in tune is like a common recording-engineer's addiction-disease, an on-the-job hazzard, if you will. If you listen to skip james or blind willie johnson or any older blues- the third especially is up for grabs. it can be practiclly anything and still fly. i know we're not just talking about blues here, but my point is this- not many engineers i've met would have been content to leave those tracks alone, were they recorded today.

stephentayler · Post by **stephentayler** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:56 am

I agree about the perfectly auto tuned comment. When it is used heavily it actually sets my teeth on edge, more than a slightly approximate tuning ( unless it is being used specifically for effect, of course )

I have been listening to a lot of Lisa Gerrard's music recently. There is often a lot of tension built into her pitch that just sends shivers down my spine, especially when there is the glorious resolution to a perfectly tuned note. (Check out 'Sacrifice')

Stephen

richard · Post by **richard** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 3:24 am

gridgital wrote:what a great topic, and heres a few of my theories on the subject. A 440 is the only perfect pitch.

A 440 isn't necessarily standard... especially outside of the US.

B flat is not the same pitch as C#.

Do you mean B# and C as not being the same pitch? (Bb and C# are for sure different pitches). But on my piano, B# and C are the same pitch.... and while you might not play them equal-tempered in say an orchestral environment, if B# is the third in a G# major triad and if you compare it to a C being the third in an Ab major chord, they just might be the same pitch. If you compared two Cs in the same placement in the same chord but in different parts of an orchestral piece, they might be different. So B# and C might be the same pitch where C and C might be two different pitches.

50 cents is not a perfect quarter tone. there has to be a division between cycles per sec between the notes you are trying to find the 1/4 tone of.

50 cents is a quarter tone.

Richard

gridgital · Post by **gridgital** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:27 am

richard wrote:
gridgital wrote:what a great topic, and heres a few of my theories on the subject. A 440 is the only perfect pitch.

A 440 isn't necessarily standard... especially outside of the US.
I wasn't aware of it being a standard, what are the standards

B flat is not the same pitch as C#.
I don't know what I was thinking there

But on my piano, B# and C are the same pitch.... and while you might not play them equal-tempered in say an orchestral environment, if B# is the third in a G# major triad and if you compare it to a C being the third in an Ab major chord, they just might be the same pitch. If you compared two Cs in the same placement in the same chord but in different parts of an orchestral piece, they might be different. So B# and C might be the same pitch where C and C might be two different pitches.
well that makes sense, but in theory they're not the same note, how sharp does sharp have to be to be considered a sharp?, if you play a chromatic slide how many notes are you playing?

50 cents is not a perfect quarter tone. there has to be a division between cycles per sec between the notes you are trying to find the 1/4 tone of.

50 cents is a quarter tone.

well I'll trust your knowledge but is it a perfect 1/4 tone? is there such a thing?

the point I think I was trying to make is pitch is not a perfect science, , pitchy music can be pleasing, thats why most of us get into this stuff so much. overtones on a note are not perfect but they add to the beauty of an orchestra or choir. if i sing the C# and you sing C# it will not be the same cycles per second and will not be the same tone, and pitch just is not perfect, although some will get closer than others when it comes to singing or playing a certain instrument. so all this stuff really goes beyond my scope of theory and physics.

David Polich · Post by **David Polich** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:48 am

"And, what got me even angrier is that his demo sounded great!!! I guess I didn't listen to it close enough to notice the heavy auto-tune processing he must've had going, or maybe the melodyne?"

Ooh - awesome point. It's easy to forget that a singer's demo can feature tracks that were pitch-corrected.

That's why I always "try out" someone at the microphone before hiring them.

Phil O · Post by **Phil O** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:33 am

Siryne wrote:the fact that a bad or out of tune or un professional singer-Can and Does often ruin an otherwise great song-is how I came to start this thread.

So I'm curious. Have you decided what to do next? Will you live with what you have? Fire her? Use pitch correction?

Sing it yourself?

Phil

bongo_x · Post by **bongo_x** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:59 am

johnny cash is a great example. he didn't have very good pitch or timing, has been described as monotone, but is one of my favorite singers ever. and it's not just a case of "a bad singer can't ruin a good song". his version of "hurt" is amazing and I would say definitive, he owns that song now. I'm told that the first time trent reznor heard it he was completely blown away.

my point (which is often hard to spot in the wild), is that I would rather tune a johnny cash than have a generic singer who can hit all the notes. of course if I was doing a commercial jingle then I just want the guy that's going to get me out of there and home the quickest.

the great irony of this discussion is that I'm doing a demo of a song I wrote for some friends and I decided to sing it. I've never done this, I rarely even sing in the car. all the minutes I've spent singing in my life wouldn't add up to a week. it is truly humbling. I've sang a few back up parts before and it was no big deal, but carrying the song is different. my pitch is actually not too bad and I double myself fairly well for someone who doesn't sing, but it's just not good. I'm surprised at how not good it is. it really drives the point home.

I checked out jane monheit on emusic. it seems like there is some interesting pitch going on there. I looked and I didn't realize I already have 3 of her albums, so I'll have to check it out deeper. I am a very new fan to jazz, but I do like susannah mccorkle, she sounded authentic to me. so many of the newer singers seem to just be missing something that the older singers had. what is it?

I listen to the standards station on sirius and you can immediately tell when a newer singer comes on, not by the recording, but by the singing style. it's just blander. but that applies to rock and lot of new music, doesn't it? why is everything getting blander? I'm going to say it's the end result of capitalism, because that's what I blame everything on right now.

bb

bongo_x · Post by **bongo_x** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:18 am

about the auto tune thing, I've said it a million times and here's a million and one;

"I can always hear the tuning" is like "I can always spot a boob job". bullsh••. you can sometimes spot it if it's obvious, so you've decided that you always can. there are thousands of women walking around with great boob jobs and you never notice but the few who are over cooked. quit watching so much porn. blame the doctor, and/or the patient, not the implant maker.

listening to the red hot chili peppers and saying tuning is bad is like listening to jerry falwell and saying christianity is bad. and besides, do you really want to hear that guy without the tuning? I thought not.

some of the things I've done the least tuning on are things people guess have a lot of work and the opposite is true. again it often comes down to the character of the voice. some people's voices can be tuned radically and sound fine, others can hardly be moved before they sound artificial. in that case I just leave it because the last thing I want is to hear the tuning, even if it's out.

bb

zaster · Post by **zaster** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:32 am

bongo_x wrote:about the auto tune thing, I've said it a million times and here's a million and one;

"I can always hear the tuning" is like "I can always spot a boob job". bullsh••. you can sometimes spot it if it's obvious, so you've decided that you always can. there are thousands of women walking around with great boob jobs and you never notice but the few who are over cooked.

I think most women can spot a boob job, even your "high class" ones.
And maybe most singers can spot most of your best autotune jobs.

And maybe someone who doesn't play the violin will mistake VSL for the real thing but someone who plays the violin will think the VSL violin sounds like a synth patch more than a violin.

What's that saying? "You can fool some of the people..."

Shooshie · Post by **Shooshie** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:39 am

Sooo... let me see if I got this right. Women who sound out of tune can sound more like Suzannah McCorckle if they get a boob job?

A stick, a stone, it's the end of the road, it's the weight of your boobs, it's the size of your load...

Are we getting close now?

Shooshie

bongo_x · Post by **bongo_x** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:52 am

Shooshie wrote:Sooo... let me see if I got this right. Women who sound out of tune can sound more like Suzannah McCorckle if they get a boob job?

A stick, a stone, it's the end of the road, it's the weight of your boobs, it's the size of your load...

Are we getting close now?

Shooshie

at least someone understands.

bb

MIDI Life Crisis · Post by **MIDI Life Crisis** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:58 am

Shooshie wrote:Sooo... let me see if I got this right. Women who sound out of tune can sound more like Suzannah McCorckle if they get a boob job?

A stick, a stone, it's the end of the road, it's the weight of your boobs, it's the size of your load...

Are we getting close now?

Shooshie

It is a little known fact that women with naturally big boobs sing flat, those with naturally small boobs sing sharp (one of natures little practical jokes) and women with boob jobs... well, who cares how the hell they sing, they usually get the job anyway!

My theory is: big boobs pull on the vocal chords, stretching them; small boobs give the chords room to breath; and as far as boob jobs, ... well men are shallow.