I don't think it's always the case that you -can- tell. I think it falls nearly into 'Rumsfeld classification':

Known Knowns - done for the clear effect, which is audible by everyone (as popularised, but not invented by Cher, T-Pain, etc).

Known Unknowns - ones where most people wouldn't notice, but if you've listened to autotune a lot you'd swear it's been done (sustained notes with vibrato added seem to be clear contenders here to me, such as one in 'Angels' by Robbie Williams

Unknown Unknowns - There are lots of recordings I've worked on for people (mixing, mostly) where the vocal sounds perfect, and it's actually been autotuned/processed. Subtly, but still processed. I only know this because the person who's done it has confirmed it. In the context of a mix there's little evidence, if any at all. And if you listen to backing vocals of the last decade versus BVs from say 30 years ago, you really hear the difference - not because modern ones necessarily sound like they've been worked on, but because the old ones sound just a little bit out of tune in comparison.

I've done work on singers' recordings where I've fixed the pitch and they haven't even noticed it on their own voice, in isolation (which really is the sound everyone knows best). If done well (and appropriately), it doesn't turn it into awful processed rubbish, it can tweak an otherwise brilliant performance and make it near-perfect. I say this as a recording engineer who loves the sound of a band playing together, and would always sacrifice separation / absolute recording quality for the communication and feel that you get with a live band playing together how they normally do - I wouldn't sacrifice personality for pitch, but I think you can improve on nearly everyone's performance in some places.

Having said that, the flip side of this is that people think 'they can fix that in the mix' when they've not given a great performance... and that's never the case!

> it can tweak an otherwise brilliant performance and make it near-perfect

That's what I'm getting at - "perfect" is something that the human voice does so infrequently on its own so when we hear the "perfect" performance, we know it's been doctored.

As a point of reference, I look back at something like the Boswell sisters. Some of their early stuff was recorded in mono direct to wax disc but they were so skilled, well rehearsed and sung as a unit so closely bonded that the resulting sound is fantastic despite the primitive technology. The three individual voices aren't even recorded to seperate tracks since multitracking wasn't invented then.

Granted you can't really draw a direct comparison between that and Robbie Williams, Cher or T-Pain, but I know which I'd rather listen to any day. There are a lot of singers I've seen live and talked to over the years who wouldn't be caught dead touching up their stuff, or letting an engineer/producer do it behind their back - even if it meant missing out on a commercial recording contract.

I do appreciate where you're coming from though. I'm a little old fashioned I guess in that sometimes the mistakes that made it through improve the performance in my mind. It reminds you that the performers are human.

Vocal perfection is about attitude and projection, not pitch.

Autotune is orthogonal to creating that perfection. If someone has it Autotune won't take it away, no matter how obviously it's used.

If someone doesn't have it, Autotune won't give it to them.

I agree with all your points. I think the obsession with completely perfect vocal performance has gone too far for my personal taste. Modern mainstream pop records have a combination of too many takes spliced together for one "perfect" take, together with minor correction of the odd note here and there and the end-to-end result is "too perfect" for my old ears. There's no mistakes or personality in many of these records and it sounds boring to me. That's all. I'm not claiming to have the only valid opinion on the matter, or that all modern music is like that, and I also know I'm also not alone in my thinking and taste.

As someone who likes to write and produce songs but can't sing, I'd say that auto-tune and pitch correction are a Godsend. It means I can try out new ideas without having to rely on a vocalist.

Modern production tools have mostly eliminated the need to work with a band. I can create music that I want to create with complete artistic freedom. Auto-tune is just another step in that direction.

I think you make a good point. I can't sing well either and I love to track multiple instruments in my home studio, and I couldn't do that nearly as well without modern technology.

I guess I'd rather listen back to my crappy vocals and think hard about what I didn't like about them though, and work on improving that rather than try to make it something it's not with pitch correction. But everyone has a different way of working that works for them I suppose, which is why I ended my original comment with "each to their own".

Except you have no idea how any of those "fantastic vocal performances" were processed. Vocal effects go back a good 50 years.

Indeed, in terms of digital effects. And obviously there was experimentation with analog processing earlier than that, John Lennon's use of ADT on his vocals with the Beatles comes to mind and of course other analog effects like reverb go back to the 1940's. But I gave an example going back to the 1930's in my other comment above. The Boswells were one the biggest recording act in the world in the early 1930's and they didn't need any of that stuff.

Of course musicians have been able to splice their parts together since multitrack came into wide usage, eg. the guitar solo in Stairway to Heaven. But I kind of feel like use of digital correction is a bit overdone right now.

I appreciate I'm stepping into mostly subjective territory here though. It's like if somebody said to Hendrix, "hey Jimi, tune your guitar man". Or told Knopfler to stop playing dead notes, or Slash to stop missing notes altogether while not jumping off a drum riser. They could do those things but then to me it wouldn't feel like them.

I don't think I'm the only person who feels this way, but it's definitely personal & subjective.

Oh I agree. I think it's possible to dislike or even hate all the over-processed and over-produced commercial music that's been coming out for the last 2-3 decades while at the same time accepting that there are others out there who might genuinely like that kind of music.

I definitely understand your point about Hendrix, Knopfler and Slash. There's something beautiful about virtuoso playing that still sounds "raw", you know what I mean? I grew up obsessed with shred guitar, and there was a lot of that in the 80s/90s. There are younger guitar players on youtube these days who are miles ahead in terms of technical proficiency and production/effects but some of that authenticity is lost.

I recently saw a video of Ritchie Blackmore talking about Satriani's playing and how it's almost too technically perfect and loses some of the soul. I tend to agree. I have great respect for both of them though.

I've always felt that way about Satriani and Vai to a lesser degree too. It's funny how specific we can be about what we like and don't like. Here I am extolling the virtues of sloppy or "more natural" singing and playing, but I can't listen to 90% of punk music for more than a few minutes.

I feel the same about Vai also! Now imagine a Bob Dylan with a technically-brilliant voice that's able to sing in tune. Would people feel differently about him? :)

Recording is not the problem. Cutting and splicing the best bits of all those recordings is very labor intensive.

.. and depending on the singer, can be nigh on impossible. Some are incredibly consistent in terms of timing and phrasing (making editing easy), while with others each one is unique, and only large sections can be used with each other.