Two topics have cropped up in the news today, two topics I could argue for hours on, but instead I'm going to argue it in this blog. That's good enough, right?
Anyway, yeah, so first of all, The X Factor has proven its contribution to music yet again...sorry, proven its contribution to THE DOWNFALL of pop music, got my lines wrong (even though this is written), by apparently using autotune in the auditions of the show. Why? I don't know. At the end of the day, I thought auditions were about seeing whether or not someone was capable of singing. If you're going to tweak everyone's voices so they're all singing "in key", then surely what's the point? Now, OK, they didn't use autotune live on the night, but the fact they've used it for the TV audience is still baffling. The reasons for it are especially great.
"There were too many microphones in the studio and we were just cleaning up the audio for broadcast" (seriously, what?)
"Everyone expects autotune these days, no one wants to hear a bum note"
"We were delivering the most entertaining experience possible"
These are paraphrased, but close enough to what I read. First of, too many microphones? No, just no. I've done a media degree, part of which involved working with microphones and I can safely say MICROPHONES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. In fact, if you've got lots of recordings of a single show, then that's even less of an excuse to use autotune, since if the audio messes up on one recording, you can simply edit in the audio from a better recording. SIMPLE! Secondly, no one NOTICES bum notes here and there. Sure, if someone's singing wildly off-key throughout the song, then everyone will notice, but the average member of public won't pick up a single flat note in an otherwise flawless line delivery. However, EVERYONE will notice if the singer suddenly sounds like a robot for no apparent reason. And as for delivering the most entertaining experience possible, how about not dragging the inflated Blackpool Pier "talent" show over 5 bloody months and actually make it about proper music not just Simon Cowell's half-arsed shiny balladery? But no, Cowell needs another house in the Algarve, we can't possibly do that.
My issue with all of this isn't shock at what X Factor did because, well, I've been a staunch opponent of the show since its inception (Cowell's comments about "giving these talented young people a chance to live their dream" ring hollow when you realise Joe Pasquale or whatever his name was hasn't released a single thing since his ill-fated Xmas single got beaten to no. 1 by Rage Against The Machine), my issue is the fact that autotune is an abomination.
No really, autotune is what's caused modern day pop music to sound hollow and lifeless (well, that and the fact that anybody can apparently get a record deal these days, talent or no talent). Autotune, as an effect, can sound good, but only when it's used an effect. As my title alludes to, Cher used it years ago for her song Believe. However, she had every intention of making her voice sound robotic and inhuman as an effect. Other examples of this, such as Ellen McLain having her voice tweaked in the end song for Portal (because she was playing an AI) or any synthpop band in the past ten years (because, well, if all the instruments are electronic, why not do the same to the voices and say we're all robots?). In those uses, autotune becomes no more offensive an effect than echo or reverb or phasing.
But when it's used incessantly on every single pop record, to the point where everyone sounds like an android, it becomes less of a fun effect and more a sinister ploy of the media to homogenous everyone and everything, also notable in the fact than many of these singers look identical too, with the makeup and the hair and the exact same designer label clothing. Hell, sometimes it makes me wonder if all of this is autotune at all and is in fact a secret invasion of some super advanced android race, slowly assimilating everyone into its cult of personality. Either way, it's terrifying, and we should all be prepared for some kind of uprising. I'm prepared, why aren't you?
But seriously, my main issue with the use of autotune is the fact that raw, untweaked vocal performances sound BETTER, imperfections and all. I'd rather hear a singer occasionally slip on the odd note and glide from word to word than hear a jarring set of twisting electronic noises vaguely resembling a human voice. If I wanted that, I'd listen to Daft Punk (and usually do). An untweaked voice sounds human, it has soul and emotion, it's warmer. And remember, this is coming from someone who loves electronic music in addition to non-electronic music. I also like the two combined, but tweaking someone's voice so it sounds "perfect" just seems...wrong...
Is it just me who feels this way? I hope not, because I'd hate to be the only sane man left on earth!
Also, I said there were two points. What's the other? Medal Of Honour. Our government is now urging a ban on the game because it's "anti-British" and "a disgrace". Why?
Because apparently, this EVIL game is ABOUT the Taliban and it TEACHES CHILDREN to kill BRITISH soldiers and it says THIS IS OK.
Please note that from what I've been reading in gaming circles, those bits in caps are actually all innaccurate. Well, maybe not the evil bit, it is being published by EA after all :p
First of all, it's not about the Taliban at all. You merely can play as the Taliban in multiplayer. This is not new. Many games with online multiplayer will have players on the "good" side and the "bad" side. That's how it works. I fully agree with the EA spokesperson that when we were kids, we all played games like cops and robbers where someone had to play as the bad guy. In fact, other games in the series allowed you to play as the Nazis during World War II, who, if my historical knowledge has taught me anything, were just as bad as, if not worse than, the Taliban. And yet it's fine to play as one but not the other. Oh, well that makes sense. Oh wait, no it doesn't.
And laughably, the government argument is that many people have died at the hands of the Taliban. Let's not tell them about the many atrocities committed by the US government in regards to Iraq, that might make their minds explode from the logical fallacies they're presenting. Also, again, Nazis in previous games. How many innocent people died in the Holocaust again? Yeah, but that's OK, right?
Secondly, there are apparently no British troops in this game, only American, because, remember, the American are always the Big Damn Heroes coming to save the day. Remember, Team America was a documentary. With puppets. Unless Liam Fox meant it was anti-British because the British aren't in it, but judging by his level of research, I don't think so somehow. Next point.
Oh yes, the "murder simulator" argument again. Let me tell you something. Playing a driving game is considerably less complicated than driving a real car. I own a copy of the original Gran Turismo, yet I learned how to drive with an actual instructor. Because, you know, games aren't simulators. And Microsoft Flight Simulator isn't a game, it's a simulator. There is a line. Please note the dividing line.
Similarly, playing a first person shooter isn't going to instantly make you into a trained killer, because a DualShock/360 controller/Wiimote is nothing like an actual gun. I've played many games with guns in them, yet if you were to hand me an actual gun, I wouldn't know what to do with it. All I know is what I've heard in films, and from what I've read elsewhere, all that information is slightly less than accurate. Hell, I can't even name an actual model of gun, and I get confused over what the actual definition of a "rifle" is. And yet I've been "trained" by video games to fire guns. Apparently.
Here, let MC Lars explain:
"Beating Call Of Duty doesn't mean your aim is good
Beating Wii Golf doesn't make you Tiger Woods
Playing Apples To Apples doesn't make you a farmer
Watching UFC won't make you any harder
Friends on Myspace won't make you a musician
Beating Operation doesn't make you a physician
Watching CSI doesn't make you a detective
Playing Mario Paint doesn't mean you have perspective
Beating Gears Of War doesn't make you Winston Churchill
Quoting 90s sitcoms doesn't make you Steve Urkel
Grand Theft Auto doesn't make you a player
Playing Sim City doesn't make you a mayor
Beating Rock Band doesn't mean you rock
Beating Tony Hawk doesn't make you Tony Hawk
American Idol won't make you a star
Beating Guitar Hero doesn't mean you play guitar"
Get it yet?
By the logic of the "murder simulator" argument, my PS3 collection would mean that I'm a trained assassin, capable of shooting lightning out of my hands, playing guitar, drums and turntables like a pro, manipulating strange mythical creatures to do my bidding in the Netherworld, successfully capturing ghosts, performing parkour, opening portals, running at the speed of sound, taking out a helicopter with a grenade launcher, discovering the Hammer Of Thor and using it to cause great damage to Atlantean gods and leading a great war effort with a ragtag band of anime-esque commandos.
However, can I do any of those things? No. But the instruments would be fun. And maybe the parkour too.
In other words, again, GAMES ARE NOT SIMULATORS. Very few people are going to play as the Taliban in MOH's online multiplayer and immediately start shouting "DEATH TO THE WEST!" and strapping C4 to themselves. And if they do, then they're probably already terror suspects anyway. Also, please note the "children" bit cropping up again. This game will be rated 18, ie. ILLEGAL to sell to minors. Figure it out.
But never mind. I won't be playing it. I'm too busy trying to get into Stonehenge at night so I can go into the land of faeries as a result of currently playing Folklore on the PS3. See ya!
