Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
From: "mech" <mech@m3ch.net> > With that in mind, I'd ask a question to clarify the situation you're > speaking of. When you use effects, do you use them to augment the > existing tonalities or to transform the instrument into something > completely different? For me both. I do have some effects that completely mangle my original tone until it doesn't sound like a guitar anymore, but others that are more transparent and just flavor (mild or spicy) to my original tone. I suppose effects that have a fairly immediate effect on my tone are less of an issue in terms of taking credit for the overall output, vs me taking credit for creating something interesting to begin with. The example I have with the long delays is a good one. There are just some effects that take your original tone and then take a life of their own...those are the one's stealing the credit for creativity. I play one note, and the gear arpeggiates, produces a completely elongated and lush pad of sounds that have nothing to do with my original raw guitar note. So, I guess this is a matter of degree and qualifying which type of effects, rather than making a blanket statement about all effects. Some or more obtrusive than others. > I find that when I use effects as ornamentation -- to "dress up" the > existing sound -- I can very often paint myself into a similar corner as > you are describing. It seems that past a certain point it becomes > difficult to wrangle the burbling mess into something meaningful. At >that > instant, I'm frequently left with the impression that I'm doing nothing > more than trying to hide the original instrument; obscuring it rather >than > trying to cull some bit of truth from it. Yep. I agree competely. That's my point. It's like we can have a love-hate relationship with our gear. > On the other hand, I frequently use effects in a transformative manner >-- > where the effect is an indistinguishable and integral part of the sound. > Best example I can give is from the last improv session our group did a > couple weeks ago. On one cut, I had found a excellent slide guitar >patch > on my Yamaha VL70-m, which I happened to be playing with my WX-11 wind > controller. It sounded pretty good by itself (despite the fact that the > tone module is monophonic) but then I ran it through an intelligent > harmonizer and started playing a bit with chord voicings. Suddenly, it > dropped into a full-blown pedal steel, complete with Nashville-inspired > slides and transpositions. > > In that instance, the effect *became* the sound. There were no problems > of the sort you mention, because the effect was used to create a brand >new > instrument, rather than merely add more extra dimension to an existing > one. Yes, you are in agreement with my clarification above on the two different types of sound. A similar situation for me is the guitar synth patch on my VF-1. Sure, it completely transforms my original guitar sound, but when I play an E as a quarter note, that's what I get in the output, not a 20 second effect that I have no control over, or for which I can't take credit. It seems harsh, but effects can and often to take the place of talent. It is easy to hind behind the cool effects, rather than using raw talent and having the effects just enhance what you do. I suppose I could claim the same about looping. I know and have seen solo looping guitarist who really couldn't stand on their own as soloist without the looping gear. They use their limited talent to build layers of sounds that end up sounding rather sophisticated, but require very little technical ability...playing a few quarter and whole notes here and there, using some lush delays and pads, etc. Yet when I see someone that can play like Joe Pass, or even half of Pass, sit down and play, I know this guy doesn't need anything but his instrument to express himself...a looping device would be an enhancement of his talent, not a substitute. Kris > > -- > _______ > "You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike..." > >