A few years ago, a Simpsons episode told the story of how Bart, Milhouse, Nelson, and Martin (I think) turned into a boy band that produced recruitment material for the Navy. (Oh, how I love The Simpsons) Even though none of the four can sing at all, they had the right “look” for a boy band, and the music producers made up for the quartet’s utter lack of talent with a mysterious dial labeled Studio Magic.

Although Studio Magic is exaggerated for laughs, it’s based on a real technology called Auto-Tune. Using sophisticated computer processing, Auto-Tune can bend a singer’s voice to match the exact pitch he/she should be singing. Sometimes a singer only needs minor corrections that an average listener’s ear could hardly detect. Sometimes a singer needs significant help. Auto-Tune can make a voice sound normal or intentionally distorted, as in the weirdly electronic vocals of Cher’s “Believe” or Jamie Foxx’s “Blame It”. It can even correct a live performance so that a singer at American Airlines Center sounds in-tune even during an off night.

The majority of singers in popular music now use Auto-Tune for studio work, and many use it in concert as well. Ever notice how some singers sound much worse live compared to their CD recordings? Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, and the Black-Eyed Peas come to mind. I suspect they are not strong singers in term of pitch accuracy, so they use Auto-Tune for studio recordings but inexplicably opt-out for concerts. Kelly Clarkson, on the other hand, produces consistent, in-tune vocals whether on CD or live. Since Kelly earned a spot in the Texas All-State Choir, I assume she has a very accurate voice that needs little pitch correction.

Some purists hate Auto-Tune. They argue that it cheapens the art and craft of singing, produces fake-sounding music, and hides the “character” that makes music interesting. Others love it because it produces a cleaner sound, saves work and time in the studio, and gives fans a better experience when it’s used in concert. What do you guys think?