In this specific case with Randy Travis it’s a touching moment because of his long established success as a singer and the relatively recent tragedy of him losing his voice. It feels on the surface like something was given back to him, but even that is questionable. In general, though, this removes the humanity from the performance which is important if the goal is to have art created by a human. Imagine a different scenario, if you had a famous painter who became paralyzed and then a computer-controlled prosthetic was created to move their arms/hands and try to mimic their style. The authenticity of the art gets lost in the process when it’s no longer the artist but a programmer mimicking the artist. It may be a very passable counterfeit, but still a counterfeit.
What if I told you this voice was computer generated…
https://music.apple.com/us/album/where-that-came-from/1743174523?i=1743174712
#tunestr
Discussion
Yeah there are many emotions tied up in this given the context. However, he isn’t producing the sound with his own physical energy. The proof of work isn’t there, if you will.
How will this change the landscape of music and art moving forward? Milli Vanilli fell from grace because it came out that the people on stage were different from the people on the recordings. This is effectively the same thing.
Exactly. And some singers get a lot of criticism even just over use of autotune in live performances. Part of the appeal of an artist is that they can do something you find beautiful in a way that others can’t. I think artists who can adapt and utilize the technology to further express themselves will make the best use of it. There will no doubt be grifters/imposters/posers who just try to make a quick buck but ultimately the proof of work speaks for itself, no pun intended.