Friday Talking Points -- No YOU'RE The Poopyhead!
The world's richest man and the world's most powerful man got into an online fight yesterday, which began when Elon Musk tweeted out: "Donny Trump is a poopyhead!" -- to which Donald Trump immediately responded: "No YOU'RE the poopyhead Elon!!!"
Well, no. That's not actually how it happened. But it's not that far from the reality, sad to say.
Of course, many have been predicting that these two would eventually have a spectacular falling-out, since they both possess planet-sized egos and are utter narcissists. In fact, it's a wonder they ever got along in the first place, when you think about it. We certainly never thought it would last this long -- we gave the whole thing only a couple months, way back when. But Trump seemed delighted by Musk's antics, even when Musk disagreed with him, and Musk was pretty obviously delighted to take on the role of the puppetmaster pulling Trump's strings, so for whatever weird reason it did last a lot longer than everyone expected. Until this week, that is. The best comment on the inevitability of the breakup came from the New York Times (the whole article is pretty snarkily amusing, we have to admit):
The moment had finally come, and it was every bit as lowdown, vindictive, personal, petty, operatic, childish, consequential, messy and public as many had always expected it would be.
We won't get into the blow-by-blow of what happened, since we have to assume that most of our readers have been gleefully following it all as it has unfolded, but if you've been in a coma until today here are two good timelines of all the insults and vitriol that has been flying back and forth between the two schoolboys.
It all started earlier, as Musk upped his badmouthing of Trump's signature legislative effort, the budget bill that has now made it through the House and is currently being hashed out in the Senate. Musk exhorted his millions of followers to call up their members of Congress and encourage them to "KILL the BILL," and called it a "disgusting abomination" for good measure. At the height of this playground bully showdown, Musk also essentially accused Trump of being a pedophile, we should mention. Allies of Trump rallied to his side, with Steve Bannon calling for Musk to be deported as "an illegal alien" (Musk is actually a naturalized U.S. citizen).
A few Republican senators actually welcomed Musk trashing the bill, since they are holding out for even deeper cuts in the Senate version (more on that in a moment). Then came the Thursday blowup, which many have likened to a messy celebrity divorce (for good reason).
Senator Ted Cruz even reflected this in his own take on the fallout: "I feel like the kids of a bitter divorce, where you're saying: 'I really wish Mommy and Daddy would stop screaming.'"
Now Trump is reportedly looking to sell the Tesla he bought from Elon (when he turned the White House into a Tesla dealership lot and filmed what could only be called a commercial for the car). Trump's not alone -- Tesla continues to face grim fortunes, as their sales continue to slip worldwide and the stock took an enormous hit during yesterday's playground spat. Musk, by one estimate, lost $34 billion in one day because of all the tantrums.
Some Russians openly celebrated their schadenfreude, with taunts. A close ally of Vladimir Putin posted on Musk's social media platform: "Why can't we all just get along?" Former president of Russia Dmitry Medvedev got in on the fun and posted: "We are ready to facilitate the conclusion of a peace deal between D and E for a reasonable fee and to accept Starlink shares as payment. Don't fight, guys!"
And at least one Republican in Congress was also joining in the fun, since he was one of just two House members to vote against the budget bill (because he shares Musk's dislike of all the deficit spending in it). Representative Thomas Massie had this to say yesterday: "I told my colleagues if I get hit on Independence Ave. and they have to deliver my eulogy [to] say: 'He was having his best day ever.'"
Meanwhile, the Senate Republicans haggled over what would make it into their version of the budget bill. They face the same conundrum as the House Republicans did, since some of them want to slash social services even further while others are cautioning that these cuts are going to affect a whole bunch of Republican voters. The Congressional Budget Office weighed in with their estimate of the bill's cost, and it was pretty much in line with everyone else's estimate -- by their calculations, the bill is going to blow a $2.4 trillion hole in the national debt.
So far, the biggest fight has been over Medicaid, as Republicans try to sneakily accomplish what they failed so spectacularly at before: undercutting Obamacare coverage. Their new rallying cry is that the millions and millions of people that they're actively going to throw off of Medicaid "don't deserve it" and are nothing short of "waste, fraud, and abuse."
This was personified this week by Senator Joni Ernst, who gave an answer in a recent town hall that showed precisely how uncaring Republicans are. When an audience member yelled out "People are going to die," Ernst responded with: "Well, we are all going to die." Instead of apologizing for her insensitivity, Ernst doubled down this week by posting a video of herself in a graveyard, ridiculing those who are concerned that Republican budget cuts are going to mean unnecessary deaths. It started out with: "Hello everyone, I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize for a statement that I made yesterday at my town hall," but then quickly went off the rails into abject cruelty: "And I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that yes, we are all going to perish from this Earth. So I apologize. And I'm really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well." She also included a plea for everyone to "embrace my lord and savior Jesus Christ," which only proved that Ernst must have her own copy of the Bible with all of Christ's compassion for the poor and sick edited out. Or something. It's hard to tell.
Not content with just slashing Medicaid funding, some Republicans are even pushing to touch a second "third rail of politics," by going after Medicare funding as well. Because, y'know, there's probably lots of that "waste, fraud, and abuse" there too, right? Nothing like kicking some grandmothers off their health insurance to free up enough money to give Elon Musk an enormous tax break!
As usual, other things were also happening in the political world, as the firehose of incompetence and idiocy gushing from the White House just never seems to stop. So let's just quickly run down some of it in abbreviated form, shall we?
To celebrate Pride Month, the secretary of Defense announced he would be renaming a Navy ship which had been named for Harvey Milk. This continues his streak of petty attacks on anyone who is not straight, White, and male.
Elon Musk's legacy is becoming clearer, as the government is now reduced to massive amounts of inefficiency (taking days and days to accomplish things which used to take only minutes, for instance) and is scrambling to hire back thousands of employees Musk fired because (what a surprise!) it turns out they actually perform critical governmental functions.
The O.E.C.D. predicted a worldwide economic slowdown, as a direct result of Trump's senseless trade war. Wall Street is threatening the bond market is going to go crazy if the budget bill passes as written as well.
Trump's travel ban returned, and it's just as ugly as ever. And it was revealed that the guy Trump placed in charge of the people who are responsible for counterterrorism is a 22-year-old whose previous employment experience can mostly be summed up as "intern." What could possibly go wrong with that, eh?
Trump's poll numbers are tanking among Latino voters, which is not too surprising, now that they see what all his anti-immigrant talk really means.
Trump's war on science continues apace, with funds being slashed left and right, safety boards being dissolved, medical scientists getting more and more outraged over R.F.K. Jr.'s idiocy and conspiracy theories, and scientists quitting their jobs in disgust.
In legal news, judges keep ruling against Trump (over and over and over and over and over and over and over again -- and that's just one week's news, folks...), although the Trump administration did actually bring back two of the deportees that had been illegally removed from the country. And although it wasn't a definitive ruling, the Supreme Court actually (gasp!) left in place an assault weapons ban in Maryland.
We close with some good news on the international front, as Ukraine scored a stunning victory by infiltrating over one hundred military drones into Russia and then using them for a simultaneous remote-controlled attack on Russian airfields. With this one attack, Ukraine destroyed a goodly amount of Russia's fleet of long-range bombers, which is good news indeed. Slava Ukraini!
The Democratic Party had one notable addition this week, and one notable defection.
First, the good news.
Former Republican House member Joe Walsh announced this week that he has formally joined the Democratic Party, because "the stakes are simply too high to NOT become a Democrat." He had more to say on this subject as well: "Let's start with the obvious -- a tyrant sits in the White House. The very thing our Founders feared most is here. Throw in the fact that one of our two major political parties is a real and direct threat to democracy and the rule of law."
Now, before anyone points it out, Walsh made a name for himself by being a bigot. He said all kinds of purely hateful things on a regular basis. Which he fully admitted:
"I went to Congress on a mission to get our debt under control and to shake up the political establishment," [Joe] Walsh wrote. "I was passionate about my cause -- so passionate that I said and did things I regret, so passionate that I became, way more than I'm proud of, a divisive political asshole."
Walsh added that he has since "gained a greater understanding of and appreciation for LGBTQ issues, structural racism, the need for empathetic immigration reform, the dangers of climate change, and the role the government must play to help care for the neediest and most vulnerable among us."
"I'm still a conservative, but I'm not a conservative jerk," he wrote. "For the past seven years, I've been on a mission to help heal the divide in this country -- the divide I helped to create."
He now says he believes "decency, tolerance, understanding, empathy" are vital traits for politicians and that the Democratic Party is the only party that "values and practices these traits." He renounced his previous support of Donald Trump and pointed out something he personally knows full well:
"Donald Trump is the worst of us, and, sadly, the rest of the Republican Party emulates his cruelty, dishonesty, and authoritarianism," Walsh wrote. "We're better than what we've seen every day these past four months. America is better than this. As a former Republican, I know that cruelty sells."
That is an impressive evolution of political thought, you have to admit. While some may be wary of Walsh (he truly was odious, back when he was in Congress), we think any converts to the cause should be given the benefit of the doubt (at least at first). Therefore, we have to applaud Joe Walsh for his conversion to being a Democrat and award him this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week for his newfound compassion and clear-headed view of where the two parties stand today. We realize we may come to regret this award later, but we have to remain hopeful that we won't. For now, we welcome Joe Walsh to the Democratic Party with open arms.
[Joe Walsh is a private citizen, and it is our blanket policy not to provide contact information for such persons, sorry.]
Which brings us to the Democratic Party's loss this week. Karine Jean-Pierre has apparently written a book. Legacy Lit, the publisher, put out a teaser statement this week for her project, which will be titled: "Independent: A Look Inside A Broken White House, Outside The Party Lines." And to live up to the title (apparently), she announced that she's leaving the Democratic Party and is now an independent:
Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary under Democratic President Joe Biden, now considers herself an independent and has written a book about her experience working in a "broken White House."
. . .
Jean-Pierre, who also served as a senior adviser to Biden, said in a statement that once Biden's term ended -- and President Donald Trump returned to office -- she "determined that the danger we face as a country requires freeing ourselves of boxes."
"We need to be willing to exercise the ability to think creatively and plan strategically," she said in the statement from Legacy Lit. "We need to be clear-eyed and questioning, rather than blindly loyal and obedient as we may have been in the past."
The press release by the publisher said that the book would detail "the three weeks that led to Biden's abandoning his bid for a second term and the betrayal by the Democratic Party that led to his decision." So, obviously, she's got a big axe to grind.
The whole thing seems like either a publicity stunt or (more likely) an attempt to get some cushy pundit job on a major network. Jean-Pierre probably sees herself as following in the footsteps of George Stephanopoulos and Jen Psaki, transitioning into commentary and a nice big fat paycheck. Which is, all things considered, not too unexpected these days.
But to advocate for "freeing ourselves of boxes" at the current political juncture just seems wildly idealistic if not downright naive. Doing so would only weaken the Democratic Party when it is already at a political nadir. And, as mentioned, it seems no more than a big publicity stunt on her part.
So because for at least part of the week she still qualified as a Democrat, we have to hand Karine Jean-Pierre a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award as she heads out the door.
[Karine Jean-Pierre is also a private citizen, so we cannot provide contact information for her either, sorry.]
Volume 799 (6/6/25)
Another mixed bag of a week, starting off (of course) with some mockery over the Musk-Trump dustup. But our second talking point today is one that we fervently wish Democrats would all get behind in a big way right now, because it is rather masterful. It not only points out the callousness of Republicans (by tying them all to the most obnoxious of them), but it leads right in to a discussion of the underlying badness of what the budget bill fight is all about in a beautiful way.
Just for once, we hope Democrats actually surprise us and pick up on a brilliant bit of political framing and start singing from the same songbook. C'mon, guys... you can do this! It ain't rocket science....
Poopyheads
This one's pretty obvious.
"So the president of the United States of America and the richest man in the world are calling each other poopyheads in mean tweets? This is appalling to anyone who still remembers when our presidents actually had some dignity and gravitas and were above getting in playground fights online just because their fragile little egos got bruised. How do you think the rest of the world sees us now? Russia is mocking us, and everyone else is either laughing long and hard or shaking their heads in disgust. Oh well, at least Trump has joined the thousands of other owners of a Tesla in hastily selling his car because he is so disgusted with what the head of the company has become. At least there's that...."
The "Well, We're All Going To Die Act"
Chuck Schumer (of all people) actually came up with a great talking point this week. We strongly encourage every single Democrat with a pulse to start using this phrase incessantly. Seriously, hammer this home in a big way, folks! It's pretty easy -- all you have to do is whenever the Republican budget bill comes up in an interview, stop the question with: "Oh, I'm sorry, are you talking about the 'Well, We're All Going To Die Act'?" Here is how Schumer explained his new term for the bill:
When Joni Ernst said people will die, she summed up the callousness of the whole Republican majority in terms of people's health.... Despite the lies that Republicans have been telling Americans and maybe themselves, there's a cold, harsh reality that this bill is just tax breaks for the ultra wealthy paid for by gutting health care for up to 16 million Americans.
They're coming for Medicare too
It hasn't actually happened yet, but they are reportedly eyeing it, so hit them hard now while the iron is hot.
"Republicans are apparently not satisfied with cutting 800 billion dollars from Medicaid -- which will mean millions upon millions of Americans lose their healthcare -- but now they're looking for more cuts in Medicare too. That's the program America's seniors rely upon for their health. They're doing all this -- yanking health insurance coverage away from millions -- all so they can heap tax cuts on the richest people in the country. Those are their priorities. They call all those millions of people they'll be denying healthcare to 'waste, fraud, and abuse' and callously tell them: 'Well, we're all going to die.' Well you know what? I call them Americans and I don't think this country should shower tax cuts on those who don't need them by denying others the chance to live. Call me old-fashioned, I guess, but I have different values."
Tariffs hurt
Remind people that this is all a self-inflicted wound.
"Trump's tariff war with the rest of the world has consequences, folks. He just upped steel and aluminum tariffs to 50 percent this week, which is going to raise the cost of tons of things Americans buy -- from cars and washing machines down to anything you buy at the supermarket that comes in a can. Trump says he's doing it to save jobs, but history doesn't agree. When George W. Bush hiked steel tariffs, it cost the American economy 200,000 jobs -- far more jobs than exist in the steel industry. When Trump hiked tariffs on steel and aluminum in his first term, he added something like 1,000 jobs in the steel industry -- while losing 75,000 jobs in the wider manufacturing sector. These tariffs are already hurting, as businesses that have been reluctant to raise prices are now forced to. This is going to hurt small businesses and it's going to mean you will be paying more for all kinds of products. Tariffs are nothing more than a tax on the American consumer, and we're just beginning to see the price hikes caused by it all. Remember that at the supermarket checkout: Trump did this to you."
A historic betrayal
Veterans are feeling the effects of Elon Musk in a big way.
"Today thousands of veterans protested on the National Mall and at other sites around the country, because they are angry and afraid of what Donald Trump and Elon Musk are doing to the Veterans Administration they depend on. One of them explained why he was protesting by saying: 'In America, we shouldn't have to defend democracy from the president.' This is one week before Donald Trump wastes tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to hold a giant military parade to celebrate his own birthday, mind you -- complete with tanks rolling through the streets of Washington. Meanwhile, Trump callously stripped protected status from the brave Afghans who risked their own lives to aid America during our war there. We promised them we'd take care of them, and we are now breaking that promise. Senator Lisa Murkowski had a few things to say to the president about this: 'This decision endangers thousands of lives, including Afghans who stood by the United States. This decision represents a historic betrayal of promises made and undermines the values we fought for far more than 20 years in Afghanistan.' Donald Trump doesn't care about promises made to veterans or to those who stood with our military in the middle of a war. All he cares about is having the same sort of military parade that happens regularly in places like Russia and North Korea. Murkowski's right -- this is disgraceful, and it is a history betrayal of what America stands for... or used to, at any rate."
Hurricane season? What's that?
You can see this trainwreck coming a long way off....
"The new head of FEMA -- who has precisely zero experience in disaster management -- told the agency's employees that he had never heard of 'hurricane season' before. Boy, doesn't that just fill you with confidence that he'll do a good job? When this leaked, he tried to explain it away by saying it was 'a joke.' After all Elon Musk's cuts to the agency, which got rid of one-fourth of their staff, that'll certainly be comforting to all the victims of this year's hurricanes, right? Because to them, hurricane season is no laughing matter. So let's see... Trump fired a bunch of people at FEMA, he fired a whole bunch of meteorologists who track hurricanes, and now FEMA's being led by a guy who is obviously completely clueless about what his new job entails. What could possibly go wrong with all of this?"
Yes! We have no bananas!
Representative Madeleine Dean ripped into Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick this week in a committee hearing. She began by telling Lutnick: "Americans, by the way, loooove bananas. We buy billions of them a year. I love bananas. What's the tariff on bananas?" He responded that it would generally be 10 percent -- the new worldwide tariff rate on everything. Dean pointed out that Walmart has raised prices on bananas by eight percent. Lutnick countered by saying: "If you build in America and produce your product in America, there will be no tariff," which is where Dean got in her memorable line:
We cannot build bananas in America.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Gah.
Is all I can say. It's overwhelming. Thanks for trying to cook it down to "talking points", etc.
But, Gah.
There are weeks when I just can not. And this is one of them.
John M from Ct. -
Yeah, I hear you buddy... jeez, you wouldn't *believe* how much important stuff I have to say "well, I gotta cut that out for space reasons" every single week...
Wasn't totally happy with the talking points this week, but glad someone liked them...
anyway, thanks for the kind words.
-CW
To all:
Going to go back to Monday and answer stuff. But doing it all at once with links is a pain, so this week I'm just going to go back and do it on each day's columns. Just read Monday's (since I flooded the zone with the previous week's stuff) and saw some interesting ones there! Anyway, you gotta scroll back or reload this week to see my comments... just wanted to point that out...
-CW
OK, just finished the whole week... I will try (no promises!) to check in on all the articles over the weekend, to see your responses.
I dunno 'bout anyone else, but it's like it's a whole different universe here now...
:-)
-CW
Democrats should take a page from 2nd-Amendment fanatics - and profiteers of gun accessories large and small - who have screamed "They're coming for your guns" whenever a Democrat occupies the White House.
"They're coming for your Medicare"
"They're coming for your schools"
"They're coming for your rural hospitals"
"They're coming for your library books"
Chris
4
Yep. I’m really thrilled with the new Weigantia.
@cw,
thank you for all the kind responses this week, it heartens me to know you share my feelings in some ways.
regarding the stirrup, it's a long and strange history, not at all like the suddenness of some other major developments. it was invented in China circa 300, and took hundreds of years before military minds really caught up to its potential. yet without it there's certainly no mongol empire, probably no European feudalism, the list of events is like a spiderweb of everything. on the individual level it is such a minor change, yeah so what, now you can stay on your horse better. yet on a global level it's like the linch pin that holds the whole tapestry together.
JL
I have no idea what Greek fire was made of, other than crude oil and a bunch of other stuff.
[7] nypoet22
Ahem. There are no linchpins in tapestry. You will have to hold your tapestry together with some nice cross wefts to join adjacent elements or maybe increase the thread count in the warp. Other than that, I concur with your comment.
@mv,
yeah, i knew when i tapped it out that the metaphors didn't really make sense together. what does a linchpin actually hold in place?
JL
The new Weigantia seems to have become a bit more pretentious than usual. Considering the nature of US politics at the moment, a more down-to-earth approach may be more productive.
[10] nypoet22
A wheel to an axle.
Now Trump is reportedly looking to sell the Tesla he bought from Elon (when he turned the White House into a Tesla dealership lot and filmed what could only be called a commercial for the car).
Does anybody actually believe Trump bought the dang car from Elon and paid tax, title and license as legally required? I would wager not.
italyrusty [5] -
good point! They have indeed done this successfully in the past, but they need to focus, that's for sure... it's a target-rich environment, as the military says...
-CW
MtnCaddy [6] -
:-)
-CW
nypoet22 [7] -
Yeah, the most profound changes can come from very basic paradigm shifts.
In England, they all believe (whether it is a myth or not, I've heard both sides) that the whole "two fingers" thing (the US version is only one finger, for those wondering...) was all about the battle of Agincourt and how the French (this was in the midst of the 100 yrs war) would cut off the first two fingers of any captured bowman's hand, to prevent him from returning to the battle. The English archers (who had not been captured) waved their first two fingers at the French in a grand "FU" gesture, which is where the whole modern "two finger salute" in Britain came from.
Like I said, dunno how much historical accuracy there is in it, but the longbow was a huge improvement over the short bows of the time, that's for sure!
-CW
Oh wait... it's Sunday night... maybe I can entice LizM back... hang on...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4jteS_2MoQ
:-)
(same album "Bungle In The Jungle" is off of...)
-CW
nypoet22 [8] -
Was probably some sort of proto-napalm. It was said to stick to the skin... but then I have no real idea...
-CW
MyVoice [9] -
Isn't it nice to have a conversation that correctly uses terms like "warp" and "weft" without distractions?
:-)
I mean, just a general comment, there...
-CW
My Voice -
Don't even get me started on the Jacquard loom and its connection to computers...
(learned that one on PBS too... "Connections" if anyone remembers it...)
-CW
nypoet22 [10] -
I'm thinking something nautical, but I'm going to have to look it up...
-CW
LizM [11] -
I maintain there is room here for both down-to-earth and total elitist pretentionism!
but then, hey, I am an optimist...
:-)
(sorry if the military history discussion is boring for others!)
-CW
MyVoice [12] -
Oh, that's much simpler. Yeah, you deal with those when doing brakes and greasing bearings on a car... ok, makes sense... would go back to wooden carts, wouldn't it? The real object perfectly fits the metaphor, though -- one tiny little piece of wire that holds the whole damn thing together...
-CW
[20] Chris Weigant
Har, har. Computer punch cards are descended from the Jacquard cards of the early 1800s. My loom has an option to enable Jacquard weaving, but I didn't choose to go that direction when I purchased it, probably because I got started in computing early enough to have programmed in punch cards as well as running month end closes with them when I was a computer operations manager. Yes, we had a roomful of keypunch operators creating cases of cards for us. Somebody would inevitably dump a case of cards during a close and we'd have to re-order them before we could feed them in. Hair tearing out time.
Elizabeth Miller
11
The new Weigantia seems to have become a bit more pretentious than usual.
Oh, my goodness. It appears this commenter has decided to forego her usual prolific admonishments to other posters imploring them to (quote) "take the time for a little introspection ... especially just before we hit that 'Submit Comment' thingy."
She just must have been too busy to follow her own advice to "self-edit." No bother, though, we'll just let this one slide until the commenter can "take the time" to practice that which she preaches and preaches and preaches. :)
Chris Weigant
16
The English archers (who had not been captured) waved their first two fingers at the French in a grand "FU" gesture, which is where the whole modern "two finger salute" in Britain came from.
Alas, when in Britain (the UK, Australia, etc) if someone holds up what looks like a "V," remember that the palm facing inwards isn't exactly meant to be a peace sign or a victory sign.
Lessons in body language brought to you by George H. W. Bush circa 1992
POTUS giving "the forks" to farmers in Canberra, Australia who were protesting American farm subsidies and instead basically flipped them off; however, he meant well.
Final lesson: Remember when ordering a couple pints across a crowded pub... palm outward is the number two. :)
if we must conceive of ourselves only in the extremes, i'll take pretentious over prudish any day of the week.
"Pretentious over prudish", you say? What an extremely odd choice. But par for the course of these comments sections.
opposite ends of a spectrum. pretense is making oneself out to be more than one is, while prudishness is insisting one be less.
You can't be serious.
don't call me Shirley
prudishness in the moralistic sense of the word, moreso than the sexual
Now, you're hearing ... er, seeing things.
nypoet22
27
if we must conceive of ourselves only in the extremes, i'll take pretentious over prudish any day of the week.
Well, you are definitely correct; we most certainly do not have to conceive of ourselves (or anyone else for that matter) only in the extremes.
Be that as it may, you might also consider the fact that anyone who would prattle on and on about the "demise of authentic vocals" and "digital calibration to A440Hz standard pitch" being "sacrilege" yet deigning to give the author of the blog or anyone else on the forum a lecture regarding being "pretentious" is knee-slapping freaking hysterical. :)
Kick,
I'm surprised ... really surprised that you don't care that they have autotuned Freddie's voice on the re-release of Queen's debut album. I guess they thought his voice wasn't good enough ... or something.
But, then again, I guess I really shouldn't be too surprised...
By the way, keep your dictionary handy. :)
And, just to be clear, that 'pretentious' comment of mine had nothing to do with Chris. Put that in your pipe and try to smoke it. Heh.
Elizabeth Miller
35
I'm surprised ... really surprised that you don't care that they have autotuned Freddie's voice on the re-release of Queen's debut album.
I'm not surprised ... really not surprised that you'd make the jump from me basically stating that you sound just as "pretentious" as anyone else on the forum to conflate it with that ridiculous statement of yours that I quoted directly above. That's a really big assumption akin to putting words in my mouth and simultaneously making yourself look like a really big assumer.
I guess they thought his voice wasn't good enough ... or something.
Go ahead and assume whatever you think they thought; that'd be no different than your assumption above.
But, then again, I guess I really shouldn't be too surprised...
No, you really shouldn't. If you're going to presume to lecture any of the members of the forum for being "a bit more pretentious than usual" and tossing around judgments like that, you might want to first consider that whole "pot-kettle-black" issue and your own "take the time for a little introspection ... especially just before we hit that 'Submit Comment' thingy."
Guess I hit a nerve ... again. :)
Elizabeth Miller
37
And, just to be clear, that 'pretentious' comment of mine had nothing to do with Chris. Put that in your pipe and try to smoke it. Heh.
I don't like smoke and feel that smoking is filthy and disgusting, and I obviously fully understood that your "pot-kettle-black" moment of hurling accusatory insults was meant for commenters in yet another one of your "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" and "fail-to-practice-that-which-I-preach-preach-preach" moments. I'm fairly certain that nypoet22 understood it also.
By the way, keep your mirror handy. :)
Elizabeth Miller
39
Guess I hit a nerve ... again. :)
And I feel like your back-to-back-to-back comment boxes to me is self-explanatory... pot-kettle-black. :)
Heh.
I can't listen to the comment at [42] as it is obvious to my precious ears that somebody has digitally calibrated it to A440Hz standard pitch equal temperament, and by the heavens above I cannot live with such sacrilege in the comments section. How I do long grievously for those bygone days of pure unadulterated comments and curse repeatedly the demise of authenticity in the blog industry... back in the decades of my blissful ignorance before some pretentious prat of a Brit ruined commenting for me forever and ever, amen.
I'm calling Fil a "pretentious prat of a Brit," just to be clear. I figured you knew that but definitely wanted to make sure.
My wish for you is that you wouldn't let Fil ruin music for you. He definitely ain't worth it:
Letting this pretentious prat ruin music for you? Is soooo not worth it!
:)
@kick,
I'll see your randy travis and raise you a ben folds.
general apathy and major boredom singin' whatever and ever, amen
nypoet22
45
I like it! :)
EDIT
erase "go" -----> insert "got"
Kick[44],
Are you trying to channel Ken Tamplin by linking to that video of Fil on the X Factor? Heh. I wouldn't try to do that if I were you - if you know what I mean and I'm not sure that you do.
Anyway, Fil is not the one who is ruining music. He is the one who is trying to increase awareness as to what is happening in the music industry as a whole and why it is broken.
You seem to have Fil Henley confused with the producers and sound engineers and other music industry professionals who have been working over the course of the last 25+ years to ensure that digital pitch correction/auto-tune is the music industry standard that is now applied to virtually all singers, regardless of how naturally pitch-accurate they are.
In the case of great singers, the application of digital pitch correction to their great voices is a destructive force in that it removes some or all of what makes their voice unique and suppresses some or all of the expression and emotional storytelling capacity inherent in their natural voice. Which makes no musical sense. And, just to be clear, by 'natural voice' I mean unedited by digital pitch correction or auto-tune.
I'm sorry that this sad state of affairs continues to escape your consciousness because you would be a great asset in the fight to save real singing from oblivion.
Elizabeth Miller
48
Are you trying to channel Ken Tamplin by linking to that video of Fil on the X Factor?
Nope.
Heh. I wouldn't try to do that if I were you - if you know what I mean and I'm not sure that you do.
Never heard of him and never heard of Fil until your pretentious posts about the total prat.
Anyway, Fil is not the one who is ruining music.
Fil is definitely ruining music for people but only those who allow him.
He is the one who is trying to increase awareness as to what is happening in the music industry as a whole and why it is broken.
Bullshit. Fil is another music critic (in a long line of them) making a living criticizing other musical artists who run serious circles around him. All one need do is follow that link I provided above and listen to Fil sing to understand why no one should listen to Fil about anything. Fil could definitely use some filtering.
You seem to have Fil Henley confused with the producers and sound engineers and other music industry professionals who have been working over the course of the last 25+ years to ensure that digital pitch correction/auto-tune is the music industry standard that is now applied to virtually all singers, regardless of how naturally pitch-accurate they are.
You seem to have that pretentious prat confused with somebody doing people a favor; however, rest assured that we are so gosh darn down-to-earth here that we simply won't allow Fil (or anyone else) to ruin music for us. No offense, but I don't find Fil particularly talented as either an artist himself or a critic of any of the others.
I'm sorry that this sad state of affairs continues to escape your consciousness because you would be a great asset in the fight to save real singing from oblivion.
Oh, the drama. This bullshit has not escaped my "consciousness," I'm just not going to allow some underachieving pretentious prat to ruin music for me, and I'll be damned before I would deign to ruin it for anyone else with demonstrations over the Internet by pricks like Fil via the dang computer overanalyzation critical garbage.
Here's some free advice, Kick ... one should never comment about things one knows nothing about. Unless you wish to look like a fool.
I'm actually quite surprised (probably shouldn't be but, you know me) that you would have formed such a negative opinion of a guy who is an independent, multi-instrumentalist artist who owns all of his publishing rights to his own original music (every time that video you linked to is used, Simon Cowel has to pay royalties to Fil), has also released a slew of great covers (in which he does everything himself - all instruments, backing and lead vocals) and who is an accomplished guitarist (playing for 30+ years since he was 11-years-old and who has spent years teaching guitar), and who has independently released an album on CD (Persistence) featuring his unedited by digital pitch correction voice (he taught himself to sing from scratch when his band, Wings of Pegasus, lost their lead singer and couldn't find a suitable replacement, by the way) and who has spent the last many years as a content provider on YouTube aimed at informing viewers of all things music-related with an emphasis lately on the music industry standard use of digital pitch correction and autotune, including the recently launched project, Authentic Vocal, to highlight artists who provide fully live performances using fully live lead vocals.
You are free to call that sort of fellow pretentious and an underachiever (or worse, as you will) but you will do so at the distinct risk of detracting from your own integrity and credibility.
And, furthermore, Kick ...
No offense, but I don't find Fil particularly talented as either an artist himself or a critic of any of the others.
Oh, none taken. :)
Fil Henley of Wings of Pegasus is most decidedly NOT a critic of other artists. You would understand this if you knew the first thing about him.
Fil's analysis videos on YouTube are all about showing people what is happening and providing objective data and incontrovertible proof of what he is saying.
If he is a critic of anything, then his criticism is directed toward the music industry as a whole and its lack of transparency/honesty/integrity in selling and marketing a product that is most decidedly NOT as advertised.
And, one more thing, just to be clear...
Music has not been "ruined" for me. Not by anyone and certainly not by Fil. I have my own modest music collection that I listen to all the time and that I add to when I can. And I support artists, local and otherwise, who provide a product as advertised. Okay, so that now means I won't be attending anymore Eagles gigs. Heh. Not that they'll be "performing live" for much longer, anyways.
I will remain passionate, however, about the trajectory that the current music industry is on and how we (music lovers everywhere and generations of music lovers yet unborn) are in real danger of losing real, raw and visceral vocals to oblivion.
Any producer or sound engineer worth his or her own salt will tell you that digital pitch correction and Auto-tune have sucked the life out of modern recordings and, to quote a now infamous vocal coach, the proof is in the singing!"
Speaking of Randy Travis...
Randy Travis's NEW Release, harnessing the power of AI
Enjoy this heartwarming and uplifting look at how Randy Travis is putting AI to excellent use!
Hey Chris,
Way to entice me back ... with an amazing sounding Jethro Tull track! :-)
I do miss Sunday nights around here. Maybe there is a way to bring them back...
Elizabeth Miller
50
Here's some free advice, Kick ... one should never comment about things one knows nothing about. Unless you wish to look like a fool.
Oh, my goodness me. I believe you must have simply forgotten that we've already established that you don't play music and have admitted to knowing absolutely nothing about musical chords... whereas a lot of us on this forum actually do and have been doing so for decades. Additionally, you voluntarily have already told everyone on the forum the following (among other things, of course):
*
Oh, the drama of the "as yet unborn real music lovers." So then, I regret to inform you and "the real music lovers" (born and as yet unborn) that aren't actually musicians (or even alive yet) that any of you who've "stumbled upon" Fil's channel "a few years ago" have not suddenly magically been bestowed with a modicum of expertise regarding music artistry.
And once again we find ourselves on the receiving end of advice from Elizabeth Miller that she has failed to apply to herself; there does seem to be a pattern with that one. Do you read music? Do you write music? Do you play music? We've already established (as archived) via your voluntary admissions that you do none of those things. On the other hand, many of us on this forum actually do all of those things and for far longer than your new little "friend" Fil who cannot carry a tune, in my opinion.
Has Fil perchance informed his listeners that back in the bygone days of classic rock (for which you seem to longingly believe that music was magical and somehow untouched by machines) and even farther back than that, all one needed to do in order to alter pitch was simply increase or decrease the speed of the original recording? Not exactly rocket science, that. I mean, there is honestly no way for Fil to know whether or not what he believes to be "raw" or "unaltered" audio actually meets that definition. For instance, there is no way for Fil to know whether or not a track from the 80s that he's (over) analyzing has or has not been sent to digital -- say an AMS DMX 15-80S or similar -- and then back to tape... none. Fil is simply assuming that a track he's analyzing wasn't already altered in much the manner someone from the year 2075 might take a track from 2025 and tell you how it's been altered since it was last (if ever) altered. Fil could literally be whining about further altered but definitely/probably already altered audio (in some form or fashion of multiple means) and simply have no way of knowing it unless he was directly in studio doing the thing.
This altering of music to create art isn't a new phenomenon and has been going on for multiple decades now. In point of fact, the first release of Farrokh Bulsara a.k.a. name legally changed to Frederick Mercury but definitely performed under the name "Freddie Mercury" was indeed released at an altered speed and therefore an altered pitch, although absolutely not released under any of those names but rather the name "Larry Lurex"... an obvious play on the Brit glam rock singer of that time "Gary Glitter" (also a stage name).
"Larry Lurex" a.k.a. Freddie Mercury obviously wasn't the first singer to have his vocals sped up or slowed down, and indeed when his original recording speed (and thus pitch) was altered, it naturally (or unnaturally, however you want to look at it) obviously altered the vocals of his background singers on the B side of the 45, two aspiring young musical lads named Brian May and Roger Taylor. Not to worry, though, the two songs of these wannabe rockers can easily be found on YouTube in the original pitch in which they were recorded in 1972 (provided below) and at the altered speed in which they were released in multiple countries to the public in 1973 (complete with loads of snaps, crackles and pops and likely said speed up achieved via a second tape machine from the 70s that had varispeed control) in order to achieve the pitch of the so-called "Wall of Sound" the creator wished to emulate... Phil Spector circa 1960s.
Larry Lurex a.k.a. Freddie Mercury original pitch, recorded summer 1972
On a completely unrelated subject: Do you color your hair? Do you wear makeup? Do you run around in your birthday suit in pure unadulterated nakedness? Not that I care for the answers to these obvious rhetorical questions, but unless people wear a sign around their neck informing the public in all the ways they have enhanced their natural beauty (or lack thereof), they're obviously an artificially unnatural fraud that has been voluntarily hoisted upon the unknowing public, but I would wager Fil would just love them to bits (not bloody likely). /sarcasm
Does Fil use an amp? Of course. Does that amp alter the sound of Fil's instrument? Duh. What about frets, EQ pedals, delays, echo, reverb? Artists have forever used tricks to achieve the sound they wanted. What about backing tracks, punch ins and (especially) audio compression? What about freaking overdubs?
Forget about what you see in the music video (which Queen helped pioneer because they knew they couldn't recreate the sound live), at the beginning of "Bohemian Rhapsody" are numerous a cappella vocal overdubbed tracks of Freddie Mercury layered to create the full, operatic effect he imagined in his head; those harmonies are Freddie layered on Freddie layered on Freddie... you get the idea, circa 1975. Freddie sings lead and harmonies at the same time, and his masterpiece, in point of fact, has 160+ overdubs because that's the sound he heard in his head which took weeks to recreate on tape using every trick known to man 50 years ago. It is brilliant because it does use vocal and instrumental tricks and would not/could not have otherwise come into existence.
I believe that many of us on this forum were around when you found Fil (as archived herein), and no offense, but as far as musicians go, Fil is a prattling pretentious neophyte overanalyzing prick... in my opinion, of course, for which I am entitled.
I reiterate that life is too short for that shit, and you shouldn't allow Fil (or anyone else) to ruin music for you (or for anyone else). I promise you that you will not one day find yourself at the end of your life (or the end of the lives of the great artists themselves, some already obviously deceased) wishing that you had spent more time on YouTube overanalyzing computer tracks of those seriously great musicians who ran multitudes of circles around the likes of Little Ol' Fil... who, by the way, isn't the arbiter (not by a really long shot) of what does or does not constitute great art, which is what music is and shall remain ever thus.
Anyway, back to our original subject of you referring to any of the other commenters on this forum as "pretentious," I'm seriously not looking to hit a nerve, but I cannot say the same thing about some bumping brain cells. I believe I have made my point, and now is the part where I move on without looking back and hope that you (and anyone else like Fil wishing to regulate the living crap out of musical artistry) come to your senses and relearn how to enjoy all the art in the form of music that you can while you still can.
Good talk. :)
Elizabeth Miller
51
We get it Elizabeth, you obviously love Fil, whereas Fil is underwhelming to my ears. Art is subjective.
It appears to me that Fil is an underachiever criticizing a multitude of other phenomenal artists in order to get clicks to his YouTube channel. I would wager Fil can wipe his ass without toilet paper too, but why would anyone wish to brag about it or attempt to regulate toilet paper just because Fil wants it? His attempts to regulate art are about as effing hysterical to me as that wiping his ass scenario. Fil is obviously not the arbiter of musical art... far from it.
You are free to call that sort of fellow pretentious and an underachiever (or worse, as you will) but you will do so at the distinct risk of detracting from your own integrity and credibility.
Bullshit. *laughs* Art is obviously subjective, and I (and anyone else) are certainly free to judge Fil in the same way it appears Fil attempts to regulate the music industry via his profuse criticism of it in order to drive clicks to his YouTube channel.
Elizabeth Miller
52
Fil Henley of Wings of Pegasus is most decidedly NOT a critic of other artists.
Incorrect.
You would understand this if you knew the first thing about him.
Like I said, we get it, Elizabeth; you love Fil. I don't. Agree to disagree, but this claiming that others don't understand something if they don't agree with your opinion of it is definitely another pattern of yours.
We understand. We disagree. Case closed.
If he is a critic of anything, then his criticism is directed toward the music industry as a whole and its lack of transparency/honesty/integrity in selling and marketing a product that is most decidedly NOT as advertised.
He's criticized multiple phenomenal artists, which I shall not name here, but you've definitely named one them yourself above. Not rocket science.
Elizabeth Miller
53
And, one more thing, just to be clear...
Music has not been "ruined" for me.
This blog is archived; I feel no need to expound on this point any further than your multiple posts regarding this issue.
Okay, so that now means I won't be attending anymore Eagles gigs. Heh. Not that they'll be "performing live" for much longer, anyways..
And with that nugget, I rest my case. The blog containing your love for the Eagles is obviously archived going way, way back.
I definitely understand Fil's angle, though, even if it appears to me that others do not. :)
Elizabeth Miller
54
Speaking of Randy Travis...
And if you think I played Randy Travis by mere happenstance, you would be sorely mistaken.
Randy Travis's NEW Release, harnessing the power of AI
And you give me not Randy Travis but freaking Fil! Who is extolling the virtues of what AI can do, but to be perfectly clear only when he's not criticizing the shit out of it. Oh, FFS.
Enjoy this heartwarming and uplifting look at how Randy Travis is putting AI to excellent use!
It's Fil, Elizabeth, telling us all how wonderful music enhancement can be, and I rest my case (again). *laughs*
Wow. Just wow. I'm trying to understand how someone who knows music can say that using vocal effects and even the speeding up of tape, compression and overdubbing are even remotely comparable to using Melodyne.
I bet you know some producers and sound engineers who are just as, ah, enlightened. Ahem.
He's criticized multiple phenomenal artists, which I shall not name here, but you've definitely named one them yourself above. Not rocket science.
Incorrect. Perhaps, rocket science. Heh.
Suffice to say that when you're in a hole, Kick, just stop digging! I thought you knew that.
And with that nugget, I rest my case. The blog containing your love for the Eagles is obviously archived going way, way back.
Yeah, well, I still love them and listen to them often as they make up a good part of my CD collection.
However, I learned relatively recently that not only are they lip-syncing to pre-recorded vocals at their 'live performances' these days but those pre-recorded vocals have been pitch corrected. Not what I'd like to pay a lot of money to see, again. But that's just me. :)
Finally, Kick...
Does Fil use an amp? Of course. Does that amp alter the sound of Fil's instrument? Duh. What about frets, EQ pedals, delays, echo, reverb? Artists have forever used tricks to achieve the sound they wanted. What about backing tracks, punch ins and (especially) audio compression? What about freaking overdubs?
This is a non-exhaustive list of vocal effects and tricks used to enhance the sound of a recording and none of them change the human-generated vocal into a digitally calibrated, computer-generated, finely tuned ... piano.
What Queen did in 1975 is most decidedly NOT what was done to Freddie's voice in 2024.
I'm posting this one JUST FOR YOU, Kick - enjoy!
Elizabeth Miller
61
Wow. Just wow. I'm trying to understand how someone who knows music can say that using vocal effects and even the speeding up of tape, compression and overdubbing are even remotely comparable to using Melodyne.
You're putting words in my mouth and definitely not for the first time. Not even a nice try, Elizabeth.
I bet you know some producers and sound engineers who are just as, ah, enlightened. Ahem.
You have no idea. Seriously... no idea. :)
Elizabeth Miller
62|63
Incorrect. Perhaps, rocket science. Heh.
So you seem not to understand the simple definition of what being a music critic who analyzes music actually entails. FYI: If you were to state unequivocally that you analyze music multiple days a week and then give your opinion on its composition, you're a music critic.
If you were to further repeatedly attempt to have unlimited numbers of persons on the Internet sign your petitions to bring about governmental regulation of the music industry writ large wherein labels are mandated by statute to be placed on musical compositions in order to identify how they are produced, that would make you a music critic attempting to place control over the music industry which you criticize although nobody not named "Fil" made you the arbiter of music artistry.
Suffice to say that when you're in a hole, Kick, just stop digging!
I said it before, and I'll reiterate now: You have a pattern of giving advice that you ought to be following yourself.
I thought you knew that.
Everybody's a critic... including (quite recently) yourself and obviously Fil, and I will say that it sure as hell doesn't surprise me (nor should surprise anyone, for that matter) that a person who described themselves as "before I came to know Fil and his analyses, I lived in blissful ignorance" would not long thereafter believe they're an expert based on what they'd learned from Fil's analyses/criticisms of music of the music industry writ large that they stumbled across on Fil's YouTube channel.
There will never be a day when I believe anyone should petition to have more governmental regulations placed on art (musical or otherwise) based on their analyses, criticisms and/or preferences. Never.
Elizabeth Miller
65
This is a non-exhaustive list of vocal effects and tricks used to enhance the sound of a recording and none of them change the human-generated vocal into a digitally calibrated, computer-generated, finely tuned ... piano.
Nothing changes anyone's human voice or recorded vocals into a "finely tuned ... piano," and as I already explained, you and Fil have no way of knowing whether or not a recorded vocal track from the classic rock era (or similar) has or has not been already been sent to digital -- say an AMS DMX 15-80S or similar (link already provided above) -- and then back to tape. There are more machines than computers that can alter a recorded track of music. Fil is simply assuming that a track he's analyzing wasn't already altered in much the manner someone from the year 2075 might take a track from 2025 and tell you how it's been altered since it was last (if ever) altered.
What Queen did in 1975 is most decidedly NOT what was done to Freddie's voice in 2024.
What the studio did to the voice of Larry Lurex a.k.a. Freddie Mercury in 1973 was to digitally alter the pitch and release it to the public, but that didn't alter the original master recordings. Fil is making a lot of assumptions that he has no way of knowing, and all his assumptions along with the whining about autotune while dismissing all the other myriad ways that instrumentals and vocals could be altered in order to produce musical art is an exercise in absolute pointlessness. Fil is all critic-splaining how this alteration is acceptable, this one is acceptable, the Randy Travis digital alteration is awesome as hell, but... oh, no... can't have that one. Freaking hysterical.
I'm posting this one JUST FOR YOU, Kick - enjoy!
Thanks, but no. It's likely Fil, and I'm not planning on finding out. As I said, Fil is assuming information not in evidence wherein there is no way he could ever know how audio had already been altered and petitioning for musicians to be regulated by governmental labels. Just no.
Might as well be a museum critic petitioning the government to ban certain painting techniques or an editor petitioning the government to ban particular writing styles or to ban certain books. Fil is not the arbiter of music artistry and neither is any government. No. Hell no.
Kick, you are digging a hole so big, you'll never get out. Stop, please. This is so unlike you...
FYI: If you were to state unequivocally that you analyze music multiple days a week and then give your opinion on its composition, you're a music critic.
That is the polar opposite of what Fil does. He deals in the objective facts of what is happening in a given - requested, actually - recording/performance, not in opinions and assumptions.
Why can't you, as someone who claims to know music, grasp this? Do you know what pitch monitoring software can tell you about an isolated vocal?
If you were to further repeatedly attempt to have unlimited numbers of persons on the Internet sign your petitions to bring about governmental regulation of the music industry writ large wherein labels are mandated by statute to be placed on musical compositions in order to identify how they are produced, that would make you a music critic attempting to place control over the music industry which you criticize although nobody not named "Fil" made you the arbiter of music artistry.
Oh, I see. Things are becoming a little clearer now about your thinking here. Fil agrees with you on this and he has left his petition behind, quite a while ago ... essentially for the regulatory implications and government involvement you point out.
He has moved on to Authentic Vocal. Which is a service he offers to artists who wish to have their live performances authenticated - by objective data and analysis - as being actual live performances with actual live lead vocals. Personally, I think this effort will be as successful as the petition was. Maybe less so - I thought the petition served a purpose of being a vehicle to increase awareness of how digital pitch correction and Auto-tune are sucking the life out of modern recordings.
Here you are, quoting me out of context and worse, enlarging the context!
Everybody's a critic... including (quite recently) yourself and obviously Fil, and I will say that it sure as hell doesn't surprise me (nor should surprise anyone, for that matter) that a person who described themselves as "before I came to know Fil and his analyses, I lived in blissful ignorance" would not long thereafter believe they're an expert based on what they'd learned from Fil's analyses/criticisms of music of the music industry writ large that they stumbled across on Fil's YouTube channel.
Well, I have never thought of myself as an expert on any part of the topic we are discussing here. In fact, I have often wrote that I am still learning about all of this. And, of course, I didn't mean that I was completely ignorant of music or of the entire music industry. Granted, I don't know as much as you might about this fairly huge topic. But what I was referring to as being in 'blissful ignorance' about was, number one, how the music industry has a whole have made the undisclosed use of pitch correction and autotune an industry standard that is applied to virtually all singers' voices nowadays, regardless of how naturally pitch accurate they are and, number two, how digital pitch correction and autotune change a great singer's voice by taking away some or all of the artistic expression and emotional storytelling capacity of a natural (ie. unedited by digital pitch correction or autotune) voice by calibrating the voice to the lines of an A440Hz standard pitch, equal temperament pitch monitoring graph. Great voices live between these lines, not on them, as we say. Even the most pitch-accurate of voices, like say, Karen Carpenter, would only hit those lines a few times at most in any given song and that would just be the "collateral damage" of having a great voice! :)
So, I hope this will be my final response to your - how do you put it? oh, yes - prattling on about what you think is happening or not happening in the music industry as a whole. I continue to be surprised, though and discouraged by your apparent dismissive attitude toward the destruction of great singer's voices. At the very least, I had thought you would have cared as much as I do about the effort to prevent the retroactive/posthumous use of digital pitch correction and autotuning on the voices of great singers whom we have known and loved for so long.
Because, you of all people, must be able to discern between a beautiful natural singing voice that has not been destroyed by digital pitch correction and a once beautiful voice that has been calibrated to A440Hz standard tuning, equal temperament. Even my untrained ears can hear that difference. :)
Elizabeth Miller
69
Kick, you are digging a hole so big, you'll never get out. Stop, please. This is so unlike you...
Not even a nice try, Elizabeth. In fact, a cheap debate tactic unbecoming anyone attempting any type of debate.
That is the polar opposite of what Fil does.
Incorrect.
He deals in the objective facts of what is happening in a given - requested, actually - recording/performance, not in opinions and assumptions.
Again, incorrect. If you cannot understand that there is no way that another artist could possibly know how a vocal recording he is analyzing via computer software was produced at the outset and already altered via multiple means (that are not necessarily computerized), then we've really nothing else to discuss. Fil gives his analyses regarding the "authenticity" of musical artistry without a single bloody clue regarding how the tracks he's analyzing have been produced at the outset. Opinions regarding musical art that Fil did not produce are not facts.
Why can't you, as someone who claims to know music, grasp this?
I won't ask how someone who claimed "blissful ignorance about the track the music industry has been on and where it may go from here" until you "stumbled" on Fil's YouTube channel now believes anyone else is having trouble grasping anything regarding music, but I dang sure cannot make the promise that I won't laugh my ass off at the hysterical hubris.
Do you know what pitch monitoring software can tell you about an isolated vocal?
Do you know what pitch monitoring software cannot tell you about that same isolated vocal? No, you don't (not personal) because you (royal you) can't and neither can Fil. While Fil's opinion that a track hasn't been altered via so-called "autotune" and therefore "authentic" (his opinion), he freaking cannot know how that same track had already been altered via multiple means. Fil decides that somebody's vocal has been quote/unquote "pitch corrected," but give me a dang break, so-called "autotune" isn't the only way in which a vocal can be freaking "pitch corrected"... and far from it.
Fil's opinion of whether or not another artist is being "honest" and/or "authentic" based on his analyses of vocal tracks he did not produce is therefore nothing but an opinion based on knowledge he does not and indeed cannot know... unless he produced the entire track. I'm not picking on Fil here; anyone's opinion regarding whether or not another artist is being "honest" can never be a fact.
Oh, I see. Things are becoming a little clearer now about your thinking here. Fil agrees with you on this and he has left his petition behind, quite a while ago ... essentially for the regulatory implications and government involvement you point out.
If you believe 2024 is "quite awhile ago," that's another opinion of yours that I will just agree to disagree with.
He has moved on to Authentic Vocal. Which is a service he offers to artists who wish to have their live performances authenticated - by objective data and analysis - as being actual live performances with actual live lead vocals.
Well, that I can agree is awesome; if a musical artist wants that analytical opinion, more power to Fil. Common ground! We've found some.
Personally, I think this effort will be as successful as the petition was. Maybe less so - I thought the petition served a purpose of being a vehicle to increase awareness of how digital pitch correction and Auto-tune are sucking the life out of modern recordings.
And it appeared to me that the multiple petitions were an attempt to drive clicks to his website and promote himself and his band... because what kind of so-called musical artist would attempt to have labels slapped on musical artistry!? Nuts... in my opinion.
What I've been trying to explain here is that so-called "digital pitch correction" was easily done in the "precious" era of classical rock via other multiple means; that the same effects are now being done by software is no great revelation to me. The idea that Fil could opine on whether an artist is quote/unquote "honest" based on his software analysis is laughable when Fil doesn't know the myriad of ways a vocal track was already (literally) produced.
Here you are, quoting me out of context and worse, enlarging the context!
Agree to disagree. I quoted you verbatim regarding the subject matter we're discussing versus the use of any de facto placement of words into your mouth, a shovel into your hand, or the repetitive claims that you're not even trying to understand an issue -- in the manner you hysterically attempt to do to myself and multiple others on the forum -- but I'll leave all those rock-bottom repetitive tactics and debating in bad faith for others.
Well, I have never thought of myself as an expert on any part of the topic we are discussing here. In fact, I have often wrote that I am still learning about all of this.
Yes, I obviously know that, and those facts are precisely what makes your argumentative tactics as outlined above repeatedly laughable.
But what I was referring to as being in 'blissful ignorance' about was, number one, how the music industry has a whole have made the undisclosed use of pitch correction and autotune an industry standard that is applied to virtually all singers' voices nowadays, regardless of how naturally pitch accurate they are and, number two, how digital pitch correction and autotune change a great singer's voice by taking away some or all of the artistic expression and emotional storytelling capacity of a natural (ie. unedited by digital pitch correction or autotune) voice by calibrating the voice to the lines of an A440Hz standard pitch, equal temperament pitch monitoring graph.
Well, I probably sound like a broken record (pun intended), but what I'm trying to explain to you is that you nor Fil can possibly know the myriad ways that any vocal track has already been altered, and so-called "autotune" is but a single one of the the myriad ways to alter a music track. This recording was not "autotuned" and is therefore deemed as the artist being "honest" by Fil (or anyone else who didn't produce the original track) is simply pointlessness when there's a freaking plethora of other ways to alter a musical track containing a vocalist's recorded voice.
Great voices live between these lines, not on them, as we say.
That's the opinion of a music critic like Fil and not one I haven't come across before:
I believe it was you who said Fil wasn't a music critic, and as I explained to you before, that is incorrect.
Fil is obviously entitled to his opinion, but he definitely cannot know what the "writer of the song had meant or had wanted it to" mean and therefore the analysis is possibly incorrect. None of us knows except the multitude of songwriters. Fil is definitely incorrect about the "raspiness in his voice" being "all natural" because Elvis smoked these nasty little Tiparillo cigars, and boy could I prattle on and on about that subject, but I won't. Fil's opinion there is based on what he doesn't know about Elvis and also based on his analysis of a music track wherein he could not possibly know the myriad of ways in which it was produced and altered via multiple means.
Anything else?
So, I hope this will be my final response to your - how do you put it? oh, yes - prattling on about what you think is happening or not happening in the music industry as a whole.
I have no control over your "final response" to any of my posts in the same way Fil has no control of the production of a vocal musical track he's analyzing and can only give his opinion based on what limited knowledge he possesses. He obviously did not know Elvis smoked those freaking nasty little cigars, and I would wager no one in Memphis (or anywhere else, for that matter) would correct the record on that incorrect assumption of Fil's.
I continue to be surprised, though and discouraged by your apparent dismissive attitude toward the destruction of great singer's voices.
No one could cause the destruction of Elvis' voice -- except him while living -- and obviously no one can now that he's definitely deceased, and this obviously applies to Freddie Mercury and any other similarly deceased musical artists. Additionally, there are so many millions of records out there and all over the Internet that the original recordings are easily obtained and are likely to remain ever thus. You'll just have to learn how to search for them if those are the recordings you prefer versus the remasters that are also easily found.
At the very least, I had thought you would have cared as much as I do about the effort to prevent the retroactive/posthumous use of digital pitch correction and autotuning on the voices of great singers whom we have known and loved for so long.
That's the hysterical part, Elizabeth, because these days anyone with an Internet connection, a desktop and a keyboard (or a laptop, for that matter) and the appropriate software can alter a digital recording (that has likely been altered in myriads of ways already). So-called "autotuning" is only one way in a plethora of ways to alter a vocal, and nothing can change the original tracks, you just have to learn how to locate them... which isn't difficult at all.
Kick,
My only response to your last non-brief comment is to say that digital pitch correction and autotune are NOT vocal effects. They actually change the (pitch of the) voice into something that didn't exist before. And, with regard to great singers' voices, they detract from the greatness of the singer's voice, not enhance it.
And, to reiterate, when I write 'natural voice' I do not mean a voice that has not been produced and engineered using a plethora of vocal effects and enhancements and even tricks to change the overall pitch like speeding up and slowing down tape, overdubbing and multi-takes etc. I mean simply that it hasn't been digitally pitch corrected, note by note, or autotuned.
And, there is a big difference between mastering and mixing as there is between remastering and remixing. When an older album - say, Queen's debut album - is re-released, it matters greatly if it has been remastered or remixed or both, in terms of whether digital pitch correction or autotune could be used to alter the voice of a great singer and, essentially, take away that which made it great in the first place.
As for your claim that Fil or anyone else analyzing a pitch monitoring graph not being able to prove that a vocal has been digitally pitch corrected ... I don't know what to say to that except that such a claim is just wholly misguided and completely false.
The funny thing is that if what you have been saying throughout our little discussion here is true, then Fil's analysis videos and conclusions based on objective fact would have been taken down. In the case of the Eagles analysis videos, they would have been taken down immediately! They have not. At least Don Henley knows when he's been found out to be miming to pre-recorded vocals that have been digitally pitch corrected.
I think it would be helpful if you consulted with a producer or sound engineer about the differences in how pitch was altered pre-1998 and what is being done today since the advent of digital pitch correction and software like Melodyne. Any one of them will explain how the current music industry standard use of digital pitch correction and autotune have literally sucked the very life out of modern recordings.
Kick [70]
THIS is why I love you as much as I do! Beautifully stated. The type of post that makes a person stand up by the time they come to the end. Brava!
R
And, Kick, you keep saying that Fil is a music critic and entitled to his opinions.
I am saying that Fil's analysis videos on YouTube are most decidedly NOT subjective opinions. They are objective, fact-based analyses of various recordings and performances that answer the simple question of what is happening and what is not happening.
Is Fil allowed to give his opinion - for example, when Graceland calls and asks for it? Absolutely!
All I ask is that you try not to conflate subjective opinion with objective fact.
Kick,
That's the hysterical part, Elizabeth, because these days anyone with an Internet connection, a desktop and a keyboard (or a laptop, for that matter) and the appropriate software can alter a digital recording (that has likely been altered in myriads of ways already). So-called "autotuning" is only one way in a plethora of ways to alter a vocal, and nothing can change the original tracks, you just have to learn how to locate them... which isn't difficult at all.
That's true but not what I'm talking about with regard to the retroactive/posthumous use of digital pitch correction or autotune on the great voices of the singers we have known and loved for decades.
I am referring to the undisclosed use of digital pitch correction and autotune on OFFICIAL re-releases of albums and when songs are officially uploaded anew to digital platforms and streaming services.
Can we at lease agree that these classics from great singers should not be digitally pitch "corrected" or autotuned on official re-releases and re-uploads - remastered AND remixed - without disclosing the fact that the great singers' voices have been changed in this way?
Elizabeth Miller
71
My only response to your last non-brief comment is to say that digital pitch correction and autotune are NOT vocal effects.
Incorrect.
They actually change the (pitch of the) voice into something that didn't exist before.
So you're now describing exactly what a vocal effect is.
And, with regard to great singers' voices, they detract from the greatness of the singer's voice, not enhance it.
You know what they say about opinions being like a-holes.
And, to reiterate, when I write 'natural voice' I do not mean a voice that has not been produced and engineered using a plethora of vocal effects and enhancements and even tricks to change the overall pitch like speeding up and slowing down tape, overdubbing and multi-takes etc. I mean simply that it hasn't been digitally pitch corrected, note by note, or autotuned.
You keep contradicting yourself, and I don't know how many times I have to explain that you cannot know whether or not something you believe hasn't been digitally altered might actually have already been most certainly digitally altered. The "note by note" crap is how Fil displays his analyses to you, but if you think "Auto-Tune" actually works on a "note by note" basis, what do you think the "Auto" part of "Auto-Tune" is? Rhetorical question.
And, there is a big difference between mastering and mixing as there is between remastering and remixing.
You think there is a "big" difference between producing a master and producing a remaster? That's a matter of opinion. You actually cannot know what the differences are; that is my entire point. You don't know and neither does Fil.
When an older album - say, Queen's debut album - is re-released, it matters greatly if it has been remastered or remixed or both, in terms of whether digital pitch correction or autotune could be used to alter the voice of a great singer and, essentially, take away that which made it great in the first place.
That's your opinion and also Fil's, and I won't be a dick and repeat that phrase regarding opinions.
As for your claim that Fil or anyone else analyzing a pitch monitoring graph not being able to prove that a vocal has been digitally pitch corrected ... I don't know what to say to that except that such a claim is just wholly misguided and completely false.
That's not what I said. I said Fil nor anyone else can know how it was already altered unless they produced the track themselves. Fil deciding a track is "honest" based on his "note by note" computer analyses does not know the myriad of other ways in which the pitch may have already been altered already.
The funny thing is that if what you have been saying throughout our little discussion here is true, then Fil's analysis videos and conclusions based on objective fact would have been taken down.
Incorrect. Phil is entitled to his opinions just like millions of others posting on the Internet.
In the case of the Eagles analysis videos, they would have been taken down immediately! They have not.
See above.
At least Don Henley knows when he's been found out to be miming to pre-recorded vocals that have been digitally pitch corrected.
You cannot possibly know what Don Henley knows, but you are definitely entitled to your opinion of what you think Don Henley knows... just like Fil is entitled to his opinion of Don Henley's music.
Anything else?
I think it would be helpful if you consulted with a producer or sound engineer about the differences in how pitch was altered pre-1998 and what is being done today since the advent of digital pitch correction and software like Melodyne.
*laughs* I think you're funny.
Any one of them will explain how the current music industry standard use of digital pitch correction and autotune have literally sucked the very life out of modern recordings.
I can form my own opinions about musical artistry without consulting any music producers or any music critics like Fil. No one can "suck the very life" out of a vocal recording because it is a dang recording and not a freaking human. FFS!
ListenWhenYouHear
72
THIS is why I love you as much as I do! Beautifully stated. The type of post that makes a person stand up by the time they come to the end. Brava!
Say more! Just kidding.
I definitely do wish you would post more in general.
You know I love you. :)
Elizabeth Miller
73
And, Kick, you keep saying that Fil is a music critic and entitled to his opinions.
Because that's the factual part of the discussion.
I am saying that Fil's analysis videos on YouTube are most decidedly NOT subjective opinions. They are objective, fact-based analyses of various recordings and performances that answer the simple question of what is happening and what is not happening.
Nope... still nope. That critical analysis I posted above came directly from Fil's YouTube channel. It is loaded with Fil's opinions based on what Fil believes he knows and includes false information because Fil is wrong about Elvis having an "all natural" raspy voice. Those nasty freaking cigars contributed to his not natural altered voice, and don't even get me started on how the use of drugs and the weight gain obviously altered that voice.
Is Fil allowed to give his opinion - for example, when Graceland calls and asks for it? Absolutely!
Obviously, and Fil is entitled to be wrong, and that's why it's silly for you to keep claiming Fil's analyses are "most decidedly NOT subjective opinions" because incorrect information definitely aren't facts so they obviously fall under the category of opinions.
All I ask is that you try not to conflate subjective opinion with objective fact.
Tell that bullshit to Little Ol' Fil. I'm not the idiot who has a YouTube channel wherein I most definitely made the false statement that Elvis had an "all natural" raspy voice; that would be Fil. :)
Get ready for some singing basics 101!
First off, great singers sing accurately on pitch.
Mediocre to bad singers cannot sing accurately on pitch. No matter how many vocal effects are applied to the off-pitch vocal, it will still be at the same inaccurate pitch and won't sound in-tune.
Great singers work hard at hitting pitch accurately and that is what makes them great singers. The most important aspect of singing is being able to hit pitch accurately. Applying vocal effects to a vocal that is not accurate pitch-wise does not change the pitch that a singer hits. Only changing the pitch can, well, change the pitch. Changing the pitch is not akin to applying a vocal effect to the pitch that was hit by the singer.
Are you with me so far?
Now, you are correct to say that it is my OPINION that heavy-handed pitch correction and using Auto-tune live detracts from a GREAT singer's voice by taking away some or all of what makes that singer's voice unique, including the artistic expression of microtones and sharps and flats and the emotional storytelling capacity of a human-generated voice.
Others may have an opinion that the use of pitch correction and autotune change a human voice into something that sounds beautiful and not robotic or bland. Taste in music is subjective, after all.
There really isn't much point in continuing our little discussion if the basics of human singing and digital pitch correction aren't understood.
And, as for Don Henley, if he thought Fil's objective and fact-based analysis of the Eagles live performance was faulty in any way, you can be sure that Fil's analysis video would be no more. Don is kind of funny that way. :)
Elizabeth Miller
74
That's true but not what I'm talking about with regard to the retroactive/posthumous use of digital pitch correction or autotune on the great voices of the singers we have known and loved for decades.
Of course it's what you're talking about. The guys who remaster vocal tracks pretty much do it for all practical purposes the basic same way everyone else does in the modern age of computing; although they most probably have bigger and better ways of doing it and much more experience than your average human. They own the music, and they're legally entitled to do whatever they want with it.
I am referring to the undisclosed use of digital pitch correction and autotune on OFFICIAL re-releases of albums and when songs are officially uploaded anew to digital platforms and streaming services.
So you're back to the whining about the "undisclosed" use of vocal effects... again... as if a person who owns a piece of music (or any other type) artistry owes you a damn laundry list of how they produced their art. It's just another in a long line of opinions we've discussed that the owner of a vocal track or the artists who produce it should be required to disclose how they create it. You'll just have to get over that.
Can we at lease agree that these classics from great singers should not be digitally pitch "corrected" or autotuned on official re-releases and re-uploads - remastered AND remixed - without disclosing the fact that the great singers' voices have been changed in this way?
No, we can't. Fil is an artist/analyst who's entitled to his opinions of other artists, but he's not entitled to control every other artist to conform to his personal preferences. I don't believe any artist (no matter what their medium) should be forced to divulge how they created their art in the same manner that I don't believe a woman should be forced to create a human. No one decides for me how I control something that's mine; if something is mine, I make the decisions. I will, of course, entertain the suggestions of others because I'm not a complete dick. :)
I agree. You're not a complete dick. Have a lovely evening. :)
Elizabeth Miller
78
Get ready for some singing basics 101!
Seriously!? You think I need singing basics, but you're a big fan of Little Ol' Fil.
I'm skipping the hysterical bit in the middle.
There really isn't much point in continuing our little discussion if the basics of human singing and digital pitch correction aren't understood.
I agree, but I will say that anyone who believes this garbage you've posted above applies to me is full of shit up to their eyeballs.
And, as for Don Henley, if he thought Fil's objective and fact-based analysis of the Eagles live performance was faulty in any way, you can be sure that Fil's analysis video would be no more.
Fil's bullshit is mostly opinions and does not qualify as fact-based but opinions... and many incorrect opinions at that. You can keep repeating that verbiage about Don Henley as if he's your best buddy. Don Henley is obviously not my best buddy either, but I did work with his lawyer years ago and have met Mr. Henley on multiple occasions. Sorry to rain on your parade, Canada, but Don Henley's attorney is fully aware that morons on the Internet are entitled to their opinions about Don's work... even the pretentious prats like Fil. :)