The Ashford Zone Blog

Autotuning is quite simple.  It can also be used to turn regular speech into music (with Cher-like effects if desired), like the guys who routine autotune the news of the day:

But more controversially, autotune involves the ability, through software, to correct one's singing pitch in real time.  With a software program which runs only a couple hundred dollars, a performer's voice is automatically and in real time tweaked to the correct pitch if it happens to be a little sharp or flat.  Without effects.  It can even add/remove vibrato – live, in real time – according to whatever parameters you preset.

And it's used.  In theaters (I'm looking at you, Jersey Boys).  In concerts (Beyonce, etc.)

Now, God knows I could certainly use it when performing.  But what about the professionals?  A cheat?

One side of the argument is that it's not much different than Milli Vanilli.  What you're hearing isn't real.

The other side of the argument is that you still are hearing the tone of the voice (Harvey Fierstein will still sound like Harvey Fierstein), and the singer can still sing, but you're hearing it at its best, since nobody can sing 7 shows a week with heavy chorerography.

What do you think?

That's one someone thinks.  From the Community Arts Network:

A Proposed Job Swap To Save American Capitalism

By Liz Lerman

Do Wall Street executives deserve big bonuses during hard times? Does increased arts funding have a place in an economic stimulus package? I’ll leave it to others to debate these controversies. Meanwhile I’d like to make a modest proposal to solve some of our economic problems: Let’s do a job swap. We’ll put the corporate executives to work as artists while the artists run Wall Street.

Since their first task will be getting economic markets back on solid footing, I’m convinced that artists have the perfect resumès for their new jobs. Here’s why:

1. Artists work ridiculous hours for no pay. And most of the artists I know will keep working until they get the job done right.
2. Artists do not need fancy offices. In fact, they usually work in the worst part of town … until that part of town becomes fancy because the artists are there. Then they have to move because they haven’t paid themselves enough to afford the new rent.
3. Artists throw everything they earn back into the store – which is why they haven’t paid themselves enough. (I will admit that there was one time I didn’t do this. When I was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship back in 2002, I decided to open my first retirement account. I put the money in “very safe” stock market investments. I would have been better off putting it into my next dance.)
4. Artists do not need financial incentives. Artists do the work they do because they love it. Or because they believe in it. Or because they think it is a social necessity for our communities. Or because they know when people make poems or pictures or dances, our best human spirits emerge.
5. Artists do not expect to get anything if they do a bad job. Except maybe a bad review.
6. No artist gets a bonus because there is never enough money at the end of a project.
7. Artists keep very tight budgets. They know how to spend the same penny over and over (not by cooking the books, but by pinching, recycling, borrowing, bartering and plowing their economy-airline frequent-flyer miles back into the next project.)
8. Artists have a rightful reputation for fresh ideas combined with a capacity for self-evaluation that borders on recrimination.
9. Artists play well with others, having evolved highly efficient collaborative techniques in the service of their visions. But they are also very independent, delivering great things even when they work alone.

Meanwhile, in their new capacities as painters, poets, cellists and choreographers, our Wall Street executives might be experiencing a combination of culture shock therapy and ethical boot camp. Artistic practice may force them to discover what they really believe in, because the combination of introspection, discipline and craft that fuels an artist’s work (oh, and it is work) puts people in a very demanding state of truth. Doing what artists do every day, some might find themselves in overcrowded classrooms, excited to share their practices to help young people discover that they actually can learn. Others might be sparked to help communities solve problems by bridging differences through the unique power of their art forms. Those who have been lucky enough to get funded for their work will likely be staying up nights, filling out multiple forms to prove the exact use of the money they have been granted. All will find their moral compasses tested as they balance the demanding loyalties of pursuing personal vision and creating value for an audience.

The job swap I propose might have a final payoff: With artists in charge of Wall Street, you might even see people donate to the cause because artists know how to inspire others to participate together, to work for something that matters, to build on the intangibles of the human experience, to make a difference.

Imagine that kind of Wall Street.

Obviously not a serious idea.  If artists ran Wall Street, they would suck at it — mainly because artists do what they do (at poor wages and work conditions) for love.  And most artists I suspect would not cozy up to balance sheets, audit reviews, and mid-range multivariable stategic planning oversight budget committee workshop… uh… things.

Also, it was innovation which got us into this mess.  Financial innovation.  Someone came up with the brilliant idea of creating these credit default swaps, which was a fancy way to make money off of bad mortgages.  "Creative" accounting, too, tends to get us in trouble (see Enron).

That said, it would make a good idea for a buddy-switch movie.  Nathan Lane and Harrison Ford are brothers; he's a flamboyant limpwristed stage director and he's a tightass Wall street exec.  And after both touching some rare Africant artifact, they switch bodies…. you know the rest.  Working title: Give my Regards To Wall Street