To much digetal editing

There arent very many more bands that r lagit’ anymore. Most of them do an uber amount of editing to their voice. Take system of a down for example.
chop suey after editing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdRd3k4CIAg
chop suey before editing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tQhGC5hUlQ

its just terrible

(and for those of u who dont know the band System of a Down, the lead singers are, in fact, the same people.)

It’s pretty difficult to reproduce the exact sound that the band made in a studio with the latest equipment. They only get one chance live, and they’re trying to have fun too.

Plus Serj was probably wasted. :P

The thing you have to remember is that it’s live. He has to do all of the “You wanted to”s and the “wake up”s and the “hide the scars to fade away the shake up”s and the normal singing at the same time.

And you can’t expect them to play the exact same way they did in the studio version. Voices change, you can’t say “oh, well that recording was crap, let’s try again,” etc. Plus, the other BDO songs aren’t that bad, you just picked a bad song.

And what Poe said about Serj being wasted. :P

VERY true, The majority of today’s singers overload with something called Autotune, the newest technology in pitch correction. Every mainstream rap artist has used it, and many new bands are getting used to making their voices electronic sounding and very odd.

im not just talking about system of a down, peronaly i love the band… when theyre not live(but thats beside the point) like typhlanar said, most of todays singers use it. and i understand that it would be hard to say “u wanted to” while singing but when they actually sing “softly” it just doesnt sound all that good.

It is usually different live than in the studio.

Originally posted by Android457:

…i understand that it would be hard to say “u wanted to” while singing but when they actually sing “softly” it just doesnt sound all that good.

If it doesn’t sound good live then there is little if any chance of it sounding good in the studio without digital editing. The two versions would essentially be the same song.

Besides, digital editing, if used in the right way (distorting the voice (like a vocoder) instead of tuning it to sound as good on human ears as possible), is one of the few ways forward into unseen music territory still out there. The majority of acoustic and electric instruments are coming to the point where there is little else we can honestly do with them, but the synthesiser can widen our knowledge and acceptance of what is music and help us try to get our heads round this art form. If any advancement in music will occur eventually, it will be through computers, although acoustic and electric instruments will obviously still be around.

I’m curious how much of the difference is just from the environment. I mean these are totally different acoustic scenarios here.

im just saying that there arent very many bands that sound just as good live as they do in the studio.

There are plenty. Maybe you should broaden your tastes.

SoaD sound fine live, in my opinion.

Originally posted by HateForest:

There are plenty. Maybe you should broaden your tastes.

i should reword wat i said, i meant the number is slowly decreasing

Mainstream music is nested in protools. Go to more shows and buy more records.

I heard no difference. And wasted 10 minutes listening to a bad song.