Sonu Nigam Explains Why He Uses Auto-Tune on Select Songs: ‘You Give 99%, Bring It to 100%’

Veteran playback singer Sonu Nigam has offered a more nuanced take on Auto-Tune than the familiar argument that pitch-correction technology is simply a shortcut for weak singers.

Speaking to trade analyst Komal Nahta on Game Changers: The Music Series, Nigam acknowledged that he uses Auto-Tune on some of his own recordings. But his larger point was about how the recording environment has changed: modern productions are far more digitally controlled than the live-instrument sessions in which he trained and built much of his career.

His position is therefore not that technology can substitute for vocal ability. Quite the opposite. Nigam argued that a singer should first deliver an accomplished performance, with technology serving only as the final layer of refinement.

Sonu Nigam admits using Auto-Tune on certain recordings

During the conversation, Nigam said criticism of Auto-Tune often overlooks how contemporary music is actually produced.

He acknowledged: “I use auto-tune on certain songs of mine.” 

The admission is notable because Nigam belongs to a generation of playback singers strongly associated with vocal training, live performance and an era in which extensive digital pitch correction was not a standard part of recording.

Rather than distancing himself from the technology, however, he argued that its emergence has not necessarily been a negative development.

Nigam recalled recording in an environment built around live sarangi, strings and other musicians. In that setting, he explained, the singer and instrumentalists responded naturally to one another, and tiny pitch variations existed within the overall performance. Modern recordings, by comparison, are substantially more digitised and tightly aligned, making an untreated vocal more conspicuous when it deviates from the surrounding production.

That distinction is central to understanding his argument: the singer is not saying Auto-Tune makes an incapable vocalist good; he is describing pitch correction as one of the finishing tools available in a digitally precise production environment.

‘Give your 99 per cent and bring it to 100 per cent’

Nigam was equally clear about where he believes the technology should stop.

His benchmark was simple: “You give your 99 per cent and bring it to 100 per cent with auto-tune.” 

He cautioned against using studio technology to effectively manufacture a singing performance from someone who lacks the underlying ability.

That makes his position considerably more restrictive than a blanket endorsement of pitch correction. Auto-Tune, in his telling, is acceptable when it polishes an already capable vocal performance. It becomes problematic when production technology is expected to replace training, pitch control and actual singing ability.

The distinction also explains why Nigam spoke positively about riyaaz. He noted that singers of his generation trained without depending on such technology something he regards as valuable even in an era when producers can correct recordings digitally.

What did Sonu Nigam say about actors singing?

Nigam also addressed another long-running discussion in Hindi film music: actors recording songs themselves.

He said actors using Auto-Tune to sing songs is not inherently objectionable and can allow them to explore singing creatively.

But he rejected the idea that technology makes professionally trained singers interchangeable with actors who sing occasionally.

According to his comments, using pitch correction to help an actor perform a song is one thing; suggesting that the same process removes the need for specialist singers is another.

That observation broadens the conversation beyond Auto-Tune itself. It touches on the evolving role of playback singers at a time when film stars, independent artists and digital creators increasingly record their own vocals.

The bigger point is how recording itself has changed

The most useful part of Nigam's comments may be his comparison between two generations of studio practice.

Older Hindi film recordings frequently depended on musicians performing together, with singers working in an environment shaped by live accompaniment. Contemporary commercial tracks can instead be assembled through separate vocal takes, programmed instrumentation and digitally processed elements.

Nigam's argument is that this precision changes what listeners perceive as an acceptable vocal. Against highly controlled instrumentation, even small pitch differences can become more noticeable.

That does not mean every modern song requires Auto-Tune, nor did Nigam make such a claim. His comments specifically concerned the selective use of correction within certain recordings.

That distinction matters because headlines describing him as having “admitted using Auto-Tune” can easily suggest a confession about vocal ability. The actual interview presents something different: an experienced singer discussing how production technology has changed the standard of sonic precision expected from recorded vocals.

Sonu Nigam's comments come from decades inside playback music

Nigam's perspective carries additional weight because his recording career spans the transition he is describing.

Long before current digital workflows became dominant, he established himself as one of Hindi cinema's most prominent playback voices. His career has consequently covered both large-scale analogue/live-instrument recording practices and today's heavily digitised studio environment.

That makes his remarks less an argument between “real singing” and technology than an observation about how professional singers have adapted as recording techniques evolved.

He also stopped short of suggesting that technical advances have reduced the importance of practice. On the contrary, his “99 per cent” formulation puts the majority of the responsibility back on the vocalist.

The Celebrity Hour Take

Sonu Nigam's comments are interesting precisely because they disrupt the simplistic version of the Auto-Tune debate.

Pitch correction is often discussed as evidence that a singer either can or cannot sing. Nigam frames it differently: the meaningful question is what existed before the technology was applied.

If a trained vocalist delivers an accomplished performance and minor correction helps that recording sit more naturally inside an extremely precise digital production, Nigam sees the tool as legitimate. If technology is doing the fundamental work that the singer cannot, he draws a line.

That distinction is increasingly relevant as music production becomes more technologically sophisticated. Vocal processing is unlikely to disappear, but Nigam's argument suggests that technical perfection and genuine singing ability should not be treated as the same thing.

His most important point, then, may not be the admission that he occasionally uses Auto-Tune. It is the standard he sets before using it: technology should complete a performance, not create the performer.

Sources & Verification

This report was prepared by cross-checking Sonu Nigam's remarks from his conversation with Komal Nahta on Game Changers: The Music Series as reproduced by multiple established publications. India Today, Cinema Express, Mint and other coverage independently reported the same core statements: that Nigam uses Auto-Tune selectively, believes digitised production has changed how untreated vocals sit within recordings, and opposes using the technology as a substitute for genuine singing ability.

A directly indexed full version of the original podcast was not available through the research results I could independently retrieve, so exact quotations in this article were restricted to wording consistently reproduced by multiple publications..