@BlinkRape @alyx it definitely can ruin stuff, but if it's used sparingly then it won't, at least not in any super meaningful or even discernible way. the more accurate the vocalist's original performance is, the better the autotune is going to sound as well, which isn't to say that inaccurate vocalists are necessarily bad, but it's just the nature of autotune and how far it can actually be stretched.
that simon and garfunkel example is pretty fucking bad compared to the one note you can only barely tell michael buble has autotuned. it sounds gross and robotic and the audio engineer who did that did horribly.
imo you shouldn't use autotune unless you really have to just to clean some small bits up. which is more "pitch correction" than it is "autotune." again though i don't really care too much as long as it sounds good to listen to and the artist is still good live.
@BlinkRape @alyx just got to the point in the video where he's talking about software helping singers hit notes more precisely (before any pitch correction is even applied). that's kinda' what i'm getting at, if the singer is more precise then the autotune won't sound bad or even noticeable. if you're going for a super clean and precise sound and you can get that, then why not?
that may be part of the reason why i like my live vocals better, though. when i try to record stuff it can sound a little too sterilized for me because i've got the music and the click track going right into my ears and repeating it over and over instead of feeling the natural reverb and everything. i probably wouldn't do as well with an in-ear monitor. although i know when the recorded vocals come out the other end they sound good to pretty much everyone but me and that's probably how it'll always be anyway xD it might even come down to the fact that i play live waaaay more often than i record stuff, so it's not only what i'm used to playing but also what i'm used to hearing and i've just grown a natural preference for it.