Just learned what A "Vocalizer" does and am horrified!

[kydave]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

HI Jeff...

Have you seen this one? (only 1:09) - CLiCK
Seemed appropriate to the the discussion...

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!! GREAT Larry!!!

Yikes...wait till you find out about interleague play.

Hmmm... I'm still wondering about this one, too.

The keyword in my statement is 'integrity'. Art is by its very nature subject to a vast spectrum of interpretations. Integrity is much more closely defined. An out of tune guitar, ridiculous levels of effects for no other reason than their use, lack of rythym or a voice out of tune disrespect the integrity of the art, not the art itself.

+1 !!

People who need a pitch correcting device to make their singing consistently appealing simply can't sing.

[waveform]

My god I forgot to check AGF and just saw this thread is still going. I have to admit I just started this rather spontaneously. I think we are getting into personal taste. Some love super processed music and some love live acoustic. Like we were discussing before when you have an artist on a studio track backing themselves it sounds funny to some. Pitch correction seems similar, however I'll bet there is stuff out there that I like and it uses it. I remember years ago my friends getting all these crazy effects pedals and changing their sound all the time. I then realized I wanted just to focus on the music, no effects. Its funny what this post has developed into. Now that I think of it there must be tons of recordings using this. The device I use for pitch correction is my guitar. I find my self constantly correcting my self (Austin Powers?). This process constantly keeps correcting my pitch so I am in tune and I know when Im not. Seems to me its like walking up to get the mail or getting in your car to get it. Personally I think live music is the purest and most ultimate form of the art. In that respect I find this device just doesn't work. This is a really interesting conversation its a split between organic and synthesis. Seems to boil down to taste. Fake maple syrup, boobs, resumes, medical degree, apes, the list just goes on. A lot of use would be fine with some of these things, I know I am. Others not. I think if the device can do this then I may just buy it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QS0q3mGPGg

Winning!

[Laughingboy68]

Waveform,

The problem I have is that you continue to use derogatory terms and phrases that have a negative connotation to describe a simple tool that can be used, tastefully, to enhance a performance. I know it's not for everyone, but a harmony pedal is no more fake than any other effect. Reverb fakes the room, loopers fake the fact that the performer doesn't have two or three sets of hands/voices, delay, distortion, aura modelling, amplification, hell, even eq is an artificial modification. We, as musicians, use many tools to get our point across and each should be able to choose them without someone using blanket statements to dismiss the expression of the art. I love vocal harmony, and love singing with other people, but, on a solo gig I occasionally use a gently mixed reproduction of my voice to harmonize with myself (I use the TC Helicon G-XT). It adds a little momentum, raises the dynamic level - and it sounds good if used with restraint. On the other hand if you sing badly into it, it just sounds like "more bad" - it doesn't make up for a lack of ability. The only person I've ever heard harmonize with himself in real time without some electronic help is Bobby Mcferrin. There aren't many of us who can compare with his ability. Vocal harmony abounds in most forms of music because it works and adds to the song.

I'm not a fan of fake boobs, syrup or degrees. However, when it comes to playing four sets a night in a noisy bar, I'll use the tools at my disposal to get the point across. If the song is performed in a church with great acoustics - there's nothing I like more than taking advantage of the room with just my voice and guitar sans effects or amplification. Still, if your distaste for technology is taken to the extreme, that guitar, with its pitch corrected technology of frets, its bracing to manipulate tone and volume and its newfangled steel strings could be regarded as an abomination.

I don't use pitch correction and I don't use a looper to play anything that I've recorded before the gig. Everything is created on the fly. Those are my personal rules. But, I'm not going to judge someone who uses other means to present their vision.

I appreciate the chance to present my views on this topic. I hope some of the purists can recognize a different perspective.

Respectfully,

Mike

[waveform]

Originally Posted by waveform

My god I forgot to check AGF and just saw this thread is still going. I have to admit I just started this rather spontaneously. I think we are getting into personal taste. Some love super processed music and some love live acoustic. Like we were discussing before when you have an artist on a studio track backing themselves it sounds funny to some. Pitch correction seems similar, however I'll bet there is stuff out there that I like and it uses it. I remember years ago my friends getting all these crazy effects pedals and changing their sound all the time. I then realized I wanted just to focus on the music, no effects. Its funny what this post has developed into. Now that I think of it there must be tons of recordings using this. The device I use for pitch correction is my guitar. I find my self constantly correcting my self (Austin Powers?). This process constantly keeps correcting my pitch so I am in tune and I know when Im not. Seems to me its like walking up to get the mail or getting in your car to get it. Personally I think live music is the purest and most ultimate form of the art. In that respect I find this device just doesn't work. This is a really interesting conversation its a split between organic and synthesis. Seems to boil down to taste. Fake maple syrup, boobs, resumes, medical degree, apes, the list just goes on. A lot of use would be fine with some of these things, I know I am. Others not. I think if the device can do this then I may just buy it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QS0q3mGPGg

Winning!

If I keep making statements that detracting from the character of the vocalist then where are they in my last post? You start off the statement saying I use derogatory language then ending it with respectfully yours. This is kinda manipulative, I am not slamming others for using this, the focus is the unit itself. Derogatory usually infers a negative connotation of an individual, not a small black electrical box. Maybe I'm just racist. I have given examples of how units like this could be used for the good of man kind. But no one said anything about that. The new Vocalist 3 from DigiTech sounds better then the previous models. What I wonder now is what is the crowds reaction would be hearing this and not actually seeing your back up singers. Pitch correction another story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_OllNLjagc

The last part is interesting sounds a lot better, but still my ear is picking up something.

[Laughingboy68]

Waveform,

My apologies. I think I was objecting to your comparison of the use of this type of gear to having an affinity for, or approval of such things as fraudulent medical degrees or resumes. Some of this traces back to your original post - which, if I remember correctly, implied that you were horrified that someone would use a tool such as the Digitech Vocalist and that the world was going to hell in a handbasket if people would use such technology to cover up for a lack of talent. I'm paraphrasing I know...

Because I use this technology, it kinda ticked me off to hear my approach described like this.

I suppose some people will always think that what I'm doing during my performances isn't real; or that it takes no talent or practice to get it to sound like I do. I use the harmony pedal as a seasoning on select songs and then try to use it tastefully. Like cayenne pepper, a bit goes a long way. Most, if not all of my tunes could be done without, but I believe the extra harmony adds to the expression of the song in some cases.

I think I can detect a softening in your stance from the last post or two. I don't expect I'd change your mind completely, but perhaps help you to have a better understanding of why others might use effects like this.

I will always state my opinion (sometimes with vigor). I hope that I never overstep the bounds of respectful debate. If I do, it is without intent.

Musically,

Mike

[Laughingboy68]

I think a better example of how this stuff can be used is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHP7gUJXhCo

Obviously, Matt at Sweetwater is trying to show off the things that the gear can do. I would tend to use more subtle loops and harmonies in a live setting.

Mike

[slewis]

This thread seems to have lumped-together a number of issues that are, to me, very distinct. We've talked about

> pitch correction -- which in my mind is quite clearly a compensation for lack of talent (if you can sing on or close enough to proper pitch without one -- -- there's the "talent" -- why on earth would you use one of these?);

> harmonizers -- which do exactly what they say they do, when used properly, and if that's your thing, go for it (although I'm not really interested in hearing them, and many here have said that it's quite easy to over-use them);

< vocal effects -- which would include vocal harmonizers, of course, but harmonizers essentially add a second voice to the first human voice. To me, other effects -- like reverb, delay, chorus, whatever -- fall into the same "hey, use it if you want to" category. But you can still quite easily sing off-key with any of these, of course. The talent is still needed, either way.

Maybe like a nice mahogany stain is applied to an unfinished tabletop, harmonizers and other effects are added to an amplified but otherwise unaltered voice. Pitch correction isn't an add-to, it's changing that beautiful mahogany to a Formica simulation of beautiful mahogany. (How's that for an analogy? )

Not trying to beat a dead horse, just trying to clarify....

[Rodger]

Originally Posted by slewis

> pitch correction -- which in my mind is quite clearly a compensation for lack of talent (if you can sing on or close enough to proper pitch without one -- -- there's the "talent" -- why on earth would you use one of these?);[/I]

For pitch correction to work properly, the singer must be close to the proper pitch. The correction tweaks a note that is slightly off to the desired pitch. If the singer is more than slightly off, pitch correction makes it sound even worse. So, by your definition, those who use pitch correction effectively are talented because they are close enough to the proper pitch.

On the other hand, if pitch correction performed as magically as some think - so that a tone deaf singer who was way off pitch can be wonderfully made to sound in perfect pitch - that answers your question "why on earth would you use one?" Of course a tone deaf singer would use such a device. Sadly for those folks, it does not work this kind of magic.

Bob Womack had a perfect example of the proper use of pitch correction in a recent recording post. Female singer, singing acapella, has a last held-out note at the end. She goes slightly flat as she holds the note... not by much, but a little. Bob applied pitch correction at the end to make that last night consistently in tune.

[TerryAllanHall]

Originally Posted by Captain Jim

I do use a vocal harmonizer, the TC Helicon Gxt. It gives up to 3 part harmony in 3rd or 5ths above and below. The correction on the model I have is a function of the software listening to the guitar chords, and making the harmonies "correct" as for a minor vs a major. Sing badly, and it sounds bad. Mix in too much harmony and it sounds odd. Mix in a bit of harmony, keep it subtle, and it adds another dimension to your performance.

Other musicians understand what the pedal is doing, many are fascinated by it. Most of the time, the crowd just enjoys the music, often commenting on the overall sound. Most musicians have no problem with a singer doing their own harmony tracks on a recording... this is pretty much the same, just easy to use live (I don't care for backing tracks for myself). Like any effect, over-use it and it gets old. Add some harmony on the chorus and it sounds richer.

Some guitar players use effect pedals on their guitar to modify the tone. Similar situation for the vocals, with a harmonizer. It won't make a bad singer sound good... just like pedals won't make a crappy guitar player sound good.

If you play in public, you have made adjustments to the PA or amp to get the sound/tone you prefer. This isn't like auto-tune that many of the current pop stars over-use.

I played in bands for a lot of years. Playing solo, I missed the vocal harmonies; this gives you the option. Don't write it off as a gimmick if you haven't used one.

Best wishes,
Captain Jim

Exactly!

[hotwired]

Great perspective. I'm only a year or so into being an acoustic act, and that "year or so" includes a full year DOWN due to COVID. JUST got my first biweekly gig, 3 months in, then shut down. Been practicing an hour a day in my office 7/365 since, with a couple FB live shows.

I'm JUST NOW getting around to trying out my 720 Looper and Vocalist Live 3 (big old metal ones that some people claim are the best ever made). My wife is used to hearing my voice and is more or less forbidding me to use the vocalizer...even on 7 bridges road...I'm like, "Honey...one guy singing 7 bridges road is a stretch!" And the vocal intro to "Fat Bottom Girls" .... but I digress...my question is, "Can one guy with an acoustic guitar just play with simple amplification and modest effects like reverb and not ever use loopers or vocalizers? Is he at a disadvantage in doing so?"

Honestly, I have some much creedence and skynyrd on my set list, I'm probably OK without the vocalizer, but I'm a lead guitarist at heart, and it kills me to have to forego the leads on some numbers simply because the bottom would drop out.

On a side note, the lack of looper has me getting more and more creative. Finally got a nice 2-3 string double stop intro to "Amie" so it keeps that "ring" all the way through.

[Nymuso]

I was in a band in the early 2000s that was reviewed by a local music critic. He absolutely slammed us for us for using what he termed, "fake harmonies."

I asked a musician friend who knew this guy what he was talking about. "Your vocal harmonizer." My what? "Harmonizer - you were using a harmonizer, right?" What's that? "It generates harmonies. You weren't using one?!" No, we sang all our harmonies. "You better tell him."

We did. Did he publish a retraction or clarification? No, he did not. But we took his misidentification as a compliment.

[MikeBmusic]

8-year-old thread! Harmonizers have come a long way since then, as has pitch-correction software.
Can a solo artist play 3 or 3 hour sets without looper and harmonizer - of course. If you have done it long enough, you realize that either 1) the songs become shorter because there are no 'lead guitar sections' or 2) you are playing instrumental 'verses' with no lead (good way to lose your audience if you do it often). Subtle harmonies (not ALL the time!) do the same thing - keep the audience's ears listening instead of tuning out the same-old 'one voice/one guitar'.

[open-road-matt]

Originally Posted by hotwired

...my question is, "Can one guy with an acoustic guitar just play with simple amplification and modest effects like reverb and not ever use loopers or vocalizers? Is he at a disadvantage in doing so?"

This thread was revived from 2013! But I really like this question and my answer is yes! I've been doing exactly this for years. I don't play full time anymore but I did for a long time. I play the harmonica to fill in for solos and in the olden days I would play a Porchboard (rhythm instrument I would tap with my foot) when I needed to fill out the sound. But everything is and was live and organic. No loopers, vocalizers, tracks, etc.

I have good friends who play to tracks and that suits them. I think it's about where you play, what you play and the vibe you want to create. I'm not trying to sound like a full band and no one expects me to. I also don't book myself in places where people are expecting to hear (or dance to) a full band.

I think it's also about connecting with the audience. Any knobs or buttons at my feet diminish that connection for me. Even the Porchboard did that to some extent. I also don't reach too far out of my wheelhouse for cover songs. I'm not trying to sound like the record. I pick cover songs that fit well with my originals and then it's me doing my rendition of an acoustic version of that song. If the song isn't in my range, I change the key. If the guitar part is too hard for me, I simplify it. If that doesn't sound right, I tweak it until it does or maybe I scrap that song.

When I see music I like to see a raw, organic, live performance and I don't care for things that stray too far from that. But that's just me. My wife and I were in a bar in Florida listening to a guy who was "playing" to tracks but he wasn't even playing his guitar. He was kind of pretending to strum and he was singing. I thought he was maybe just a tad to close to putting on a CD and sitting down and joining us in the audience! But...he was on stage and he had people hanging around and I imagine he made some money. To each their own.

Use the tools that make you perform your material at your best! And if you find something that works, go with it!

Matt

[CASD57]

Originally Posted by open-road-matt

This thread was revived from 2013! But I really like this question and my answer is yes! I've been doing exactly this for years. I don't play full time anymore but I did for a long time. I play the harmonica to fill in for solos and in the olden days I would play a Porchboard (rhythm instrument I would tap with my foot) when I needed to fill out the sound. But everything is and was live and organic. No loopers, vocalizers, tracks, etc.



I have good friends who play to tracks and that suits them. I think it's about where you play, what you play and the vibe you want to create. I'm not trying to sound like a full band and no one expects me to. I also don't book myself in places where people are expecting to hear (or dance to) a full band.



I think it's also about connecting with the audience. Any knobs or buttons at my feet diminish that connection for me. Even the Porchboard did that to some extent. I also don't reach too far out of my wheelhouse for cover songs. I'm not trying to sound like the record. I pick cover songs that fit well with my originals and then it's me doing my rendition of an acoustic version of that song. If the song isn't in my range, I change the key. If the guitar part is too hard for me, I simplify it. If that doesn't sound right, I tweak it until it does or maybe I scrap that song.



When I see music I like to see a raw, organic, live performance and I don't care for things that stray too far from that. But that's just me. My wife and I were in a bar in Florida listening to a guy who was "playing" to tracks but he wasn't even playing his guitar. He was kind of pretending to strum and he was singing. I thought he was maybe just a tad to close to putting on a CD and sitting down and joining us in the audience! But...he was on stage and he had people hanging around and I imagine he made some money. To each their own.



Use the tools that make you perform your material at your best! And if you find something that works, go with it!



Matt

This totally fits what I would do as a solo act, not that I am at this point, but I'm moving that direction this year.
If I did looping it would happen as part of the entertainment. Build the song in front of the people.

But that would happen later as a new thing in my sets.....make it entertaining and they will come. [emoji6]

[Chriscom]

Since folks are commenting on this zombie thread...

I think backing tracks are in a different category than harmonizers and loopers. In fact I'd place them in that order of easy-to-hard.

I did play alternating sets once with an amazing sax player, who played to backing tracks because if you play sax solo, what else are you going to do (other than jam with me, he was great). For singers everyone has their own interests but I don't like backing tracks there, others do, or don't care at a party bar, super.

Harmonizers require at least a little work, since its source is coming from the singer, and it helps a lot to sing in key, and only works well IMO if used sparingly.

Effective looping takes *tons* of attention and skill. That can be overdone too--If it takes three minutes to lay down the foundation I lose interest. But again, used with care it adds a lot of variety and since it's all coming from the guitarist, I don't consider it artificial at all.

As mainly a singing strummer (with some fingerpicking thrown in) I am painfully aware of cover songs known for middle lead solos, and have avoided some for that very reason. In some cases I can add enough of a chord/simple riff fill that keeps things moving along quite well. And at the end of Sister Golden Hair, there's a doo-wop doo-wop thing I started singing again with *just* a touch of harmonizer because it adds a little surprise (plus it's harmonized for real on the album). Sounded even more lame than a harmonizer without it.

It depends! There are certainly locals here who need fewer tricks than I do, they're better than me