Amazon.com Widgets

Has auto-tune lead to a talentless generation of false musicians?

Asked by: Purpster
  • It Partially Did

    Fame generally requires talent and connections. Since the Internet has made it impossibly easy to connect with talent scouts, all someone needs is talent.
    Even DJs require at least basic knowledge of music theory, but autotune is laughably simple. Fortunately it sounds impossibly fake, so the public can tell laziness from talent.
    Honestly, if one has connections, one can buy off producers and critics, so talent doesn't actually matter. If we want good music, we should just ignore bad music (not even watch it for the cringe, just completely ignore it).

  • Yes it has

    Now with auto tune almost any person could become a singer. The most popular artists are no longer the ones with the most talent, most motivation, and most creativity in their music and voices. The most popular artists are ones with the catchiest songs and most fans. People also can now get credit for talent they do not have and did not work for because the voice you like is not always generated by that artist alone, and yet they get all the credit. This also leaves artists who have talent under appreciated and unrecognized, even if they are the ones that worked the hardest.

  • Yes. Yes it did.

    Way back in the good old days, people actually needed talent to be a successful musician. They needed to be able to sing or play acoustics well, because there wasn't anyway to change how it sounded, other then using speakers to make it louder. Personally, I believe that the best musical artists are from, or before, the 80's. For example: KISS, Jimmy Hendrix, CCR, and Queen. Obviously, there ARE a few modern exceptions, like Metallica, Guns n' Roses, and AC-DC. The bad "artists" are mostly death metal and 'Pop" like J. Beaver or lady gaga because they can't carry a single note. They all depend on modern tech to make them sound better then they are.

  • It definitely did

    Just watch Katy Perry or Taylor Swift live they both don't sound that great. Then take a look at older singers like Gwen Stefani, Rihanna, and Britney Spears. They all have good voices when you watch them life. Not saying all new artists have bad voices but auto tone definitely changed things.

  • Yes, however, some 'real' artists still exist.

    I agree with Purpster. All people need is a good figure, and you have yourself music. Auto-tune makes things so easy for anyone to make money. It might come to the point where auto-tune is frowned upon, and I would love that, but now, that's not the case. Some people with very talented music minds such as rappers creating their own lyrics, or those who, frankly, don't use autotune and use their own talents.

  • It has taken the spotlight off of real artists.

    The invention of auto-tune has lead to a generation of talentless artists flooding the charts, due to the role of a musician no longer requiring any particular talent. Anyone from models to movie stars to lucky members of the public can now produce music sounding as perfectly in - key as even the most gifted of singers, meaning that record companies no longer have to scout out and invest in acts with real talent in order to bring in money. Instead they can simply hunt for people with big breasts, rock-solid muscles or an hourglass figure, who will look good half naked in a music video, and due to auto-tune will still sound fine too. These "stars" never actually have any real musical talent, in fact, most of the actual music production is done by other people. They just pose for the pictures and spit out the lyrics on stage, thus leading to unprecedented difficulty for any artist with any actual talent to get their name heard and the mainstream music scene itself looking worse than it ever has done before.

  • Not entirely, but maybe more so than past generations.

    I definitely think now there is a high focus on looks and personality rather than talent due to the usage of auto-tune. However saying this has lead to "a talentless generation of false musicians" is definitely a stretch. I have been to some great, very underproduced concerts that are amazing, and you should watch some live room performances where you can see talented musicians who can sing live just as well recorded and play instruments with skill. However there is still a fair share of artists lacking in talent, but there always has been. I think the difference is more due to auto tune they can still be famous and are more of these artists in the charts.

  • No, it has not.

    There are too many talent deprived celebrities out there that don't use auto-tune, so there must be a different issue. Celebrities tend to curb to the demands of the populous. If the general population doesn't have high standards for music and the arts, why should the celebrities? There is an abundance of talent behind the curtains, but we never get to see them because fans scream for the glimmer, the glamour, the lavish, the rebels, so that's what they get!

  • In love wit deh coco

    KANYE IZ TEH BEST RAPPER. YEEZUS BE MI HOMEBOI AND AINT NONE SKRUBZ LIKE QUEEN OR HIS BAND TAKE HIS SPOT. ONLY COMPETITION IS NIKKEH MINAJE. HER MUSIC SPEEKS TO MY HART AND HAZ LOTS OF SWEG. STOOPID ILLITERATE PEEPLE CREATE A FALS DIKOTOMY AND AUDICITATE TEH MOOSIC INDUSTREH. Peereeod.

  • It was rap.

    Seeing that it predates auto-tune and requires no musical talent. Rap lead the way to those with no musical talent to at least claim to be musician.
    Think about it. Do you need to be able to sing or play an instrument to make a rap album? Nope, all you have to be able to do is speak poetry to a beat. They had something like that in the 50's and 60's. It was called beatnik poetry were the performer would spout his poem to a beat. If anything, beatnik poetry was closer to music because at least someone had to play an instrument instead of just hit play on a drum machine.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.