Recently after featuring performances by very well known singers on my YouTube channel ('Wings of Pegasus') I was surprised to learn that the general public didn't realise the singer's voices had been manipulated by pitch correction. This means the voice we're hearing wasn't the recorded voice, but a post edited version that has been tuned to be more accurate to pitch, then released.

A lot of people have asked how this is allowed to happen, as they didn't know that the singer they were a fan of wasn't singing as accurately as is being portrayed. Many have mentioned that if they knew the voice was being pitched digitally, it would affect their decision making in buying new music, as they would rather support a singer who didn't rely on technology to pitch their voice but one who has trained or has the ability to be accurate naturally. In every day life, it is viewed by some as similar to buying a 'fake' product, but being charged the same as the genuine article, as you aren't made aware that it isn't an original.

I think there is certainly something that needs addressing here, as there are so many regulations on 'false advertising' and a customer knowing exactly what they're paying their hard earned money for, but in music all of that is seemingly not considered. There are no indications given to the customer of something that could greatly affect the customers view of the artistic value of what they're purchasing.

A case against a singing group called 'Milli Vanilli' set a precedent where, as the artist's voices were not their voices, a US court decided that consumers were all eligible for a full refund as this information was not disclosed. 

With the current widespread application of pitching technology in the music industry, I struggle to see the difference. Something is not what you're thinking it is because it has not been disclosed to the customer. For example, if Milli Vanilli had today's technology and used pitch correction instead, would they have then gotten away with it? As it still isn't their voices, but a digital pitch corrected version of the noise they made into the microphone, resulting in a new audio file that is perfectly on pitch. It does seem the line is extremely blurred legally as to what is 'allowed' and what is not, and no guidelines anywhere to signify anything either way.

All that is certain is the listener is clueless as to what they're listening to, so they naturally assume a singer's voice is a singer's voice, not a pitch correction plugin that has created a new voice that didn't actually exist in the first place. 

I think people should at least be told what they're listening to, so they can make an informed decision of whether to buy something or not. The same is applied to every other product in the world, so why not music? There may be people that will buy songs with pitch corrected vocals, others may prefer non pitch corrected vocals, but at least give people the choice as that is their right. It's their money they're spending after all.

I would propose that pitch corrected (including autotuned) vocals on releases are signified by a logo or emblem on the single/album cover. This would give the customer the peace of mind to know what they are listening to and potentially buying.