Talk:Cher effect

I propose these articles be merged as per WP:MERGE for reasons of duplicate and overlap of information, the article Cher effect is unlikely to be expanded much further and would benefit from being presented in context with pitch correction. The term is also a neologism, see WP:NEO. dissolve^talk 05:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I agree, pitch correction in general is a very wide concept, whereas the Cher effect is a very specific and new use of specific pitch correction technologies. Also the Cher effect is produced with Auto-Tune, if anything it should be merged with the Auto-Tune article. --Epictetus (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with the merge because I think the Cher effect contains too much data for just a section in Pitch correction. —Egriffin (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the neologism thing, I'm not sure how widely accepted is the name Cher effect is, but it is used on this page: [1] Since this is a valid source, perhaps the word 'informal' could be removed from the opening line. —Egriffin (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Wikipedia:Neologism#Articles_on_neologisms. Drop the unsourced songs/other material as, well, unsourced. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Leave alone for now. This article is about using autotuner software as an artistic effect, not for error correction ("airbrushing") that it was intended for. If merged, it's going to overwhelm the other article, per WP:NPOV. Whether the article should be called "cher effect" is a different matter, since it seems the concept goes by several names right now. hateless 04:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This article information is too elaborate and specific to merge (I've expanded it some), and it's kind of a musical/cultural phenomenon on its own distinct from the technology. I'm removing the merge flag, and checking the pitch correction article to make sure it refers here on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.158.194 (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it should be merged. There is very little sourced or useful information here, and it is merely a use of Autotune. People use compression as an effect, a use for which it wasn't designed; that doesn't mean that use deserves its own article. Conical Johnson (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the paragraph that was removed: Yes in the episode of the Simpsons they did pitch correct the children's voices. That fact is mentioned on the Pitch correction article. The paragraph about the Simpsons here is about the point where an effect is applied to Ralph's voice when he sings "love formation". So I have added that paragraph back to the article. --Egriffin (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About all these citation needed tags: I don't think every song needs a citation. It should be obvious by ear that this distinctive effect is being applied. This article is named the Cher Effect, which in no way implies that Auto-tune was used to create the effect. --Egriffin (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It should be obvious" is not verifiable. There is no reason to list more than a few examples anyway. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the list of songs utilising the effect is likely to increase out of control. Why not try and list them all? I for one am interested in the list. I don't think there's reason to remove valid data. Citation is only required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." (Wikipedia:Citing sources) —Egriffin (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." Wikipedia:No_original_research

"Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long...As Jimmy Wales has put it: '...random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information... should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information...'" Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence

The problem is one or two marginal or completely wrong example slips in and the whole list goes to pot. Someone decides a vocoder/talk box/tape effects or whatever in a song sounds like the effect described. They list the song. Someone else, unfamiliar with many of the other examples, bases their understanding of the effect on those "examples" and lists others. Soon enough, the article is a hodgepodge of true examples mixed with Rockit, Music of My Mind, Revolution Number 9, Electric Avenue, Rocky Mountain Way, Show Me the Way, etc.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My current method is to tag claimed uses of the effect for a month or so, then remove them. Any of those previously removed that are re-added without cites, I'll take down without waiting. Here are this month's goners:

• Days Go By by Dirty Vegas^{[citation needed]}
• Blue (Da Ba Dee) by Eiffel 65^{[citation needed]}
• Y Yo Sigo Aquí by Paulina Rubio^{[citation needed]}
• Freak Like Me by Sugababes^{[citation needed]}
• Sexual Eruption/Sensual Seduction by Snoop Dogg^{[citation needed]}
• Flux by Bloc Party^{[citation needed]}
• Spirit Walker by Ween^{[citation needed]}
• I'm Sprung by T-Pain^{[citation needed]}

Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged since January 2008 & removed:

• T-Pain
• Eiffel 65
• I'm Sprung Remix by Lil Kia
• Merry Xmas Everybody by Steps
• Shawty by Plies featuring T-Pain
• Buy U a Drank (Shawty Snappin') by T-Pain featuring Yung Joc

Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a comment on Talk:Auto-Tune

What really puzzles me is the fact that "Freak Like Me" is quoted here - it has NO trace of Auto-Tune in it, why was it added here? MoLo 10:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

which I agree with. I can't hear the effect anywhere in the song. —Egriffin (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason to limit the number of "examples" and request cites. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a house of cards. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit did three things: 1) It changes a footnote (<ref name="SOS"/>) to an inline bare link ([http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb99/articles/tracks661.htm]). This simply degrades the page and is of no benefit. 2) It restores the "Settings of the Effect" section. This was previously removed as uncited (see WP:PROVEIT) and is unencyclopedic "how to" material (see WP:NOTMANUAL). 3) It removes the example "Lollipop (Lil Wayne song)", which is cited. There was no edit summary or discussion to explain any of this, so I have reverted it. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]