Change.org petition from Fil/Wings of Pegasus for albums & singles to disclose if a singer's voice was pitch-corrected

[highplainsdem]

(Cross-post from the Lounge.)


Fil - Wings of Pegasus - is a British musician with a very popular YouTube channel. And he's absolutely right that pitch-correction should be disclosed.

His video about this is posted below, but first I want to link to the petition and quote some of what he wrote there:

https://www.change.org/p/disclosing-pitch-correction-use-on-a-singer-s-voice

Recently after featuring performances by very well known singers on my YouTube channel ('Wings of Pegasus') I was surprised to learn that the general public didn't realise the singer's voices had been manipulated by pitch correction. This means the voice we're hearing wasn't the recorded voice, but a post edited version that has been tuned to be more accurate to pitch, then released.

A lot of people have asked how this is allowed to happen, as they didn't know that the singer they were a fan of wasn't singing as accurately as is being portrayed. Many have mentioned that if they knew the voice was being pitched digitally, it would affect their decision making in buying new music, as they would rather support a singer who didn't rely on technology to pitch their voice but one who has trained or has the ability to be accurate naturally. In every day life, it is viewed by some as similar to buying a 'fake' product, but being charged the same as the genuine article, as you aren't made aware that it isn't an original.

I think there is certainly something that needs addressing here, as there are so many regulations on 'false advertising' and a customer knowing exactly what they're paying their hard earned money for, but in music all of that is seemingly not considered. There are no indications given to the customer of something that could greatly affect the customers view of the artistic value of what they're purchasing.

-snip-

I would propose that pitch corrected (including autotuned) vocals on releases are signified by a logo or emblem on the single/album cover. This would give the customer the peace of mind to know what they are listening to and potentially buying.

[Ferrets are Cool]

1. Been watching him for years. Very entertaining channel.

[TwilightZone]

2. Not sure I buy the argument that it's false advertising.

It's almost ubiquitous in new music, especially pop, country, etc.

It's also nothing new. It was highly popularized nearly 30 years ago, in the late 90s. It dates to the 1940s when they used tape speed variations. Seems odd that it's suddenly an issue after decades of nearly everyone using it.

Vocals also aren't the only thing processed. Pretty much everything is processed in some form.

[stopdiggin]

3. also a valid point.

the post makes a point of, "because people are not aware" this is going on. But then, if this is a fairly commonplace and regular feature - maybe that is kind of on them? As in - they should have been? Just as you probably ought to be aware that many of the faces you see on screen - are quite augumented by makeup?

[TwilightZone]

5. Agreed.

This seems like an answer to a question no one is really asking, his comments about his viewers notwithstanding.

I don't think people necessarily should have been aware. I think for the vast majority, it wouldn't matter to them either way. Some pitch-correction is obvious. Cher's "Believe" is famous for being auto-tuned.

People have been lip-synching on television shows for decades. Nearly everything on American Bandstand was lip-synched. It could be argued that that's more "fake" than pitch-correcting vocals.

[Silent Type]

4. I have songs from 60s that the overall pitch is adjusted to improve sound, usually to

fit vocalist(s).

Autotune, etc., are vast improvements for what it’s used on. Personally, I’m an acoustic music fan and expect minimum processing including vocals.

Don’t think warning is necessary, but I’d be OK with it.