Every few years, media comes alive with discussion and debate around the use of technology in pop music, often focused on that most personal of instruments – the human voice.

Vocal manipulation is nothing new. It is ubiquitous and fundamental to pop music production – from self-harmonising on records in the 1950s, to autotune technology in the 90s and now millisecond precise editing, combining hundreds of individual vocal performances at the syllable level.

Generative AI is now prevalent in music as well. The use of platforms such as Suno are hugely popular. Suno can clone a voice within minutes. This can then be used to automatically generate a song with your voice, no matter how in tune or technically capable it originally was.

It can also take existing voices and remap them to other tunes. For example, take this mashup (below) of Cotton Eye Joe, “sung” by a digital Amy Winehouse.

But with the advent of this technology, is there a threshold of achievement before the individual voice is manipulated so much it is effectively removed altogether?

Here are six songs that exemplify how evolving technologies have changed the human voice since the 1950s.

1. Buddy Holly – Words of Love (1957)

The technique of double tracking takes two separate recordings of the voice and plays them together.

This simple technique, only achievable with the creative application of advances in recording technology in the 50s, gives the impression of a “thicker” vocal.

In Words of Love, Buddy Holly went one step further and harmonised with himself. It is a technique that is still used in modern production, by pioneering musicians like Imogen Heap.

2. The Beatles – When I’m 64 (1967)

When I’m 64 features an example of pitch manipulation. It’s done by changing the playback speed of the tape the vocal was recorded onto.

The tape is sped up slightly to give a higher pitched and “frail” sound – signifying the 64-year-old man.

Prince often used this technique. You can hear it in songs like Housequake (1987) on the Sign o’ the Times album.

Read more: The artist formerly known as Camille – Prince’s lost album ‘comes out’

3. Kraftwerk – Autobahn (1974)

The vocal statement as this track kicks in sounds robotic. That is due to the use of a Vocoder machine.

The Vocoder combines the human voice with a synthesiser, creating a strange, futuristic effect.

Daft Punk’s Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger (2001) is another example of this technology.

4. Milli Vanilli – Girl You Know It’s True (1988)

Milli Vanilli is perhaps one of the more controversial examples. That’s because in Girl You know It’s True, the vocals were not performed by the artists themselves. Instead, other anonymous singers were used to lay down the vocals for the albums and the two stars mimed. It caused an uproar when the truth came out.

While not strictly a technique, this is a key pivot point where music is commodified beyond the song into a wider package. The MTV era moved backing track performances to the foreground, as artists – especially pop artists – began to mime to the “perfect” recorded music.

This in turn led to protest performances on shows like the UK’s Top of the Pops, from artists like Oasis who played up to the fact they weren’t singing live.

It also caused embarrassment for singer Ashlee Simpson on Saturday Night Live in 2004 when her lip-synching was revealed as the wrong track played out.

5. Cher – Believe (1998)

Believe was one of the first mainstream examples of using autotune technology as an effect, rather than its intended use of bringing an otherwise out of tune vocal into tune.

The verses and pre-choruses of this track are where this takes place.

This was the catalyst that has led on to autotune being a valid production technique. Its use is exemplified by artists like Charli XCX.

6. Ariana Grande – 7 Rings (2019)

Extreme editing of vocals is achievable in modern music software. We are a long way away from literally taking a razor blade to tape to combine one or two vocal performances, as would have been the norm in the late 50s and 60s.

Nowadays we can edit beyond the individual syllable, and it is common practice to do so, to create the “perfect” performance.

Read more: The science behind Ariana Grande’s vocal metamorphosis

In this example, a stylistic choice has been made to remove the biological necessity of breathing – a technical achievement in vocal layering and processing. There are many other vocal processing effects going on as well, but the minimal breathing is notable.

Grande is also know for using Imogen Heap’s MiMu Gloves to play with her vocals by controlling the sound through hand gestures.

Too much tech?

Artists like Grande use technology creatively. But the use of autotune in particular is becoming standard across recorded, and sometimes even live performance.

It has been argued by artists like Justin Hawkins that many singers sound the way they do precisely because they are not perfect and can’t sing exactly in tune. The character and the nuance of who they are lies in between the tones and microtones.

More sophisticated techniques in production, either live or recorded, will continue to develop, now aided by AI. These developments will challenge ideas of authenticity, creative ethics, artistry and ownership.

But it is my hope that artists and musicians rise to this challenge and discover new creative possibilities, sparking new and unheard sonic textures and musical genres. All the while retaining that most fundamental component of creativity – humanity.

Luke Harrison does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.