Artistic “correction”: The ethics of audio engineering

The context

The onset of computers in modern society has impacted arguably every single industry in the developed world. Everyone has cell phones and some amount of social media. Corporate employees use software such as the Microsoft office suite and scheduling applications which significantly streamline their responsibilities. Business owners use websites designed by them or a third party as a critical marketing tool. As for the music industry? The increasing sophistication of audio editing software- along with the demand for people who are versed in said software, has resulted in the creation of entire college programs dedicated to learning this stuff. For better or for worse, the days of analog recording, acquiring and maintaining cumbersome amounts of outboard gear, and painstakingly recording mix after mix to tape are well behind us. The discipline of audio engineering has expanded widely, and thanks to computers we are able to edit audio in ways never before, such as detailed pitch/time correction when necessary.

The Dillema

Specifically with pitch and time correction, a pressing question plagues engineers and record labels alike: to what extent is using this type of software ethical? Sure, engineers will typically add a variety of plugins like EQ, Compression, Reverb, and other effects to most recorded tracks, but at what point in this process does the engineering go beyond simply enhancing songs, and enters the realm of completely altering the artist’s vision? Who’s decision is that to make? The artist themselves, or the label who contractually owns the masters of the song? If a vocalist explicitly states that they do not want to be tuned, but the label (who is signing the check to the engineer) states the opposite, who should the engineer listen to? What if there is conflict within the music group regarding using time/pitch correction on tracks? Unfortunately it is not as simple as “yes” or “no” to using these plugins and software. Whenever there is an ethical dilemma I find it important to understand the different perspectives that could either justify or condemn the use of corrective software.

The Perspectives

The Artist

The Engineer

The Label

I’ve been in this position before. I was playing bass on a song from WANYEH’s newest album FLORA 2. He asked me to follow his flow and melody, which resulted in needing to play an intricate bar of 16th notes with all of 3 minutes to practice. After loop-recording this take about 15 times trying to get it as perfect as possible, the engineer eventually opened Logic’s Flex Time function and perfectly lined up my intonation with that of the artist. I originally felt weird about it. At the time I was not experienced with using time correction software, and I’d be lying if I said my ego didn’t take a hit watching this engineer fix my time. However, after thinking about it, I realized that I could’ve spent hours trying to get it perfect, or he could take 20 seconds using this software and make it exactly what it needed to be. In the grand scheme of things, the quality of the album matters more than my own pride. In a way it was relieving, because it took away the daunting responsibility of playing the lick perfectly with no practice.

Of course my perspective as a musician is not the only one. Not all musicians or artists are capable of removing themselves from their own ego. They may take personal offense to the use of it, which is especially a problem if they are the one paying the engineer. It also depends heavily on the vision of the piece. A heavy EDM song designed to be played at clubs is very different from a laid-back soft rock song, and both must be treated as so in the studio. The engineer’s job is always to enhance- never to diminish.

Music becomes so interesting when you take a business perspective towards it. The label cares most about the end product that they are selling. If the label thinks adding pitch correction to a vocal track will make the end product better (therefore make more money for the company), then they will most likely instruct the engineer to do so. If the label owns the song, and the label pays the engineer, then the label gets what they want.

This is ultimately the toughest position to be in regarding this type of ethical dilemma. Regardless of what anyone else wants, the engineer ultimately makes the decision of yes-or-no to corrective software. When making this decision the engineer must consider many things: What is the context behind a person’s request for/against this software? Who is signing the check- and what do they think? Is there a reason why the engineer may refuse a request either way? What are the personal values of the engineer and how strongly do said values correlate with their trade?

"The engineer's job is always to enhance- never to diminish." -Josephine Hutira

There are many things to consider regarding the ethics of corrective software. For the sake of this post, I’m putting myself in the position of the engineer regarding the dilemma.

Audio engineering is my trade. Above all else, it is what I do to pay my bills. I did not enter this industry to highlight ethical problems or change what has already been established. I am in this industry to help artists achieve their vision of a musical creation while satisfying the labels who provide the capital/resources needed to achieve said vision. So if I were in a situation where I was receiving different directions regarding the use of corrective software, I would ask the person who signs my check. If I feel strongly enough about one way or the other, then I will voice my opinion. But again, I do this to make money, so the opinion that matters to me most is he/she who is giving me money.

Reflection: Personal Opinion