What's that vocal effect used by Kid Rock and Cher?

[Green]

KR uses it on "Only God Knows Why" and I first heard it on Cher's "Believe". It's that funky voice shifting effect. Anyone know what I'm talking about and/or how to do that?

-Green

[pglewis]

I'm not sure what _they_ used, but I've heard several people say you can easily achieve that sound using Antares autotune. My advice would be to figure out what settings achieve this sound, and then avoid them like the plague.

[Shana]

Its called a vocoder. You can get that effect with a special vocal effect box. Dont ask me how to use it though
Shana

[Track Rat]

Actually it was all of the above. a vocoder ues an external source (your voice from a mic) to modulate a keyboard. Sort of like a talk box.

Here is more on the subject than you could possibly want straight from the horses mouth. The guy who recorded it. I copied it from Sound on Sound magazine all copyrights belong to SOS UK of course.
RECORDING CHER'S 'BELIEVE'


That Vocal Trick In Full

Everyone who hears 'Believe' immediately comments on the vocals, which are unusual, to say the least. Mark says that for him, this was the most nerve-racking part of the project, because he wasn't sure what Cher would say when she heard what he'd done to her voice. For those who've been wondering, yes -- it's basically down to vocoding and filtering (for more on vocoders and the theory behind them, see the Power Vocoding workshop in SOS January '94).

Mark: "It all began with a Korg VC10, which is a very rare, very groovy-looking analogue vocoder from the '70s, with a built-in synth, a little keyboard and a microphone stuck on top", he enthuses. "You must mention this, because SOS readers will love it -- and I know, because I've been reading the mag for years!

"Anyway, the Korg VC10 looks bizarre, but it's great to use if you want to get vocoder effects up and running straight away. You just play the keyboard to provide a vocoder carrier signal, sing into the microphone to produce the modulator signal, and off you go. The only drawback is the synth -- you can't do anything to change the sound, so the effects you can produce are rather limited.

"I played around with the vocals and realised that the vocoder effect could work, but not with the Korg -- the results just weren't clear enough. So instead, I used a Digitech Talker -- a reasonably new piece of kit that looks like an old guitar foot pedal, which I suspect is what it was originally designed for [see review in SOS April '98]. You plug your mic straight into it, and it gives you a vocoder-like effect, but with clarity; it almost sounds like you've got the original voice coming out the other end. I used a tone from the Nord Rack as a carrier signal and sequenced the notes the Nord was playing from Cubase to follow Cher's vocal melody. That gave the vocals that 'stepped' quality that you can hear prominently throughout the track -- but only when I shifted the the Nord's notes back a bit. For some reason, if you track the vocal melody exactly, with the same notes and timing, you hardly get get any audible vocoded effect. But I was messing about with the Nord melody sequence in Cubase and shifted all the notes back a fraction with respect to the vocal. Then you really started to hear it, although even then it was a bit hit-and-miss -- I had to experiment with the timing of each of the notes in the Nord melody sequence to get the best effect. You couldn't hear an effect on all the vocals by any means -- and on others it made the words completely impossible to understand!

"In the end, we only used vocoded sections where they had the most striking effect, but didn't make the lyrics unintelligible. To do that, I had to keep the vocoded bits very short. So for example, when Cher sang 'Do you believe in life after love?', I think I only cut the processed vocals into the phrase on just the syllables 'belie-' from 'believe' and 'lo-' from 'love' -- but that was enough to make the whole phrase sound really arresting. I made sure throughout that the last word of each vocal phrase was unprocessed, because again, I found it sounded too bubbly and hard to understand when it was vocoded."

Mark spent time alone in the studio painstakingly processing Cher's vocals in this way, and by the following morning, he was convinced he didn't have the nerve to play her what he'd done. "It was a bit radical," he laughs. "Basically, it was the destruction of her voice, so I was really nervous about playing it to her! In the end, I just thought it sounded so good, I had to at least let her hear it -- so I hit Play. She was fantastic -- she just said 'it sounds great!', so the effect stayed. I was amazed by her reaction, and so excited, because I knew it was good."

Although the vocoder effect was Mark's idea, the other obvious vocal effect in 'Believe' is the 'telephoney' quality of Cher's vocal throughout. This idea came from the lady herself -- she'd identified something similar on a Roachford record and asked Mark if he could reproduce it.

He explains, "Roachford uses a restricted bandwidth, and filters the vocals heavily so that the top and bottom ends are wound off and the whole vocal is slightly distorted. It took a while to work out exactly what it was that Cher liked about this particular Roachford song, but in the end we realised it was the 'telephoney' sound. I used the filter section on my Drawmer DS404 gate on the vocal before it went into the Talker to get that effect."

Better 'Believe' It...

'Believe' took approximately 10 days to record. Once it was completed, Mark ran a monitor mix onto DAT and sent it to Rob Dickins for clearance. To Mark's surprise, Rob was so pleased with the sound that the monitor mix basically became the final version, with only the most minor of tweaks. "The vocals were much too loud, because I was trying to clear the track," he laughs. "But apart from that, it worked fine, and everyone was really happy with it. It just goes to show that you don't need to spend days mixing in order to"...we only used vocoded sections where they had the most striking effect, but didn't make the lyrics unintelligible. To do that, I had to keep the vocoded bits very short."
get a hit. With 'Believe', I was adjusting things as I went along and running everything live on the computer, which meant I could save just about everything, apart from the effects and EQ hooked up to the desk. All the level changes in the mix were already recorded in the sequencer, so the finished mix just kind of grew in an organic way as we worked on the track."

The single was mastered at Townhouse, although very little was actually changed at this stage. "It was very straightforward," says Mark. "Just the fades and the odd dB of cut and boost here and there -- standard mastering stuff."

Looking back, Mark says the most satisfying part of the project was getting to know Cher who spent six weeks at the studio working on the album. "The first day was incredibly nerve-racking," he admits. "I thought she might think our setup was a bit small, and that she would turn out to be a bit 'Hollywood'. But she was really great and easy to get on with. These days, artists like Cher are used to working with producers who have their own studios -- and these are not necessarily big, just well equipped."

With such a massive hit to their credit, it's not surprising that the eight-man team at Metro is now in great demand. They are currently finishing a Gypsy Kings album (which was started after the group guested on the 'Dov'é L'Amore' track), and other high-profile projects are in the pipeline, such as the first single from Gary Barlow's new solo album, and the next Tamperer release. Whether they will continue their relationship with Cher, however, remains to be seen.

"She's said she wants to work with us again, but you know how record company politics can be," says Mark. "I hope it does happen, because it was a great project and one we all thoroughly enjoyed. We certainly never expected the single to do so well -- let alone seven weeks at number one. But when I listen to it now I can see why it worked. It's a great song with a fantastic chorus, and the weird vocoder effect on the vocals makes it special."




Europe's No1 Hi-Tech Music Recording Magazine


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sound On Sound
Media House, Trafalgar Way, Bar Hill, Cambridge CB3 8SQ, UK.
Telephone: +44 (0)1954 789888 Fax: +44 (0)1954 789895
Email: info@sospubs.co.uk Website: www.sospubs.co.uk

© 1999 Sound On Sound Limited. The contents of this article are subject to worldwide copyright protection and reproduction in whole or part, whether mechanical or electronic, is expressl

[Green]

Woah!

Thanks Dorian et al.

[Mike B]

ANNOYING!!!

[pglewis]

http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000155.html

One particular post I love:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It's well known that the producers lied through their teeth to preserve Cher's reputation. The recording fraternity have been clutching their sides laughing at all their talk of 'vocoders' etc in in interviews! Any one with Auto tune can do the 'Cher effect' in one second flat, I do it to crack bands I am working with up, they love it! Would you like to do an interview about your recording of a pop goddess and admit to needing software to fix flat vocals? I think not! The producers did a good job of back pedaling but those in the know, know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Green]

And you would avoid this effect like the plague because....why?

[dbho]

i keep trying the anteres autotune on my vocals and i cant hear a damn difference. Im trying to make it do the effect and cant?> any ideas?

DBHO

[pglewis]

Green: Just personal preference, that's all.

dbho: Sorry... I don't have an auto tune, and I've never tried it. I'm just passing on what I've heard.

Put the settings to retune 0, and the choosy lever as high as it will go you will hear it.

[Rev E]

DBHO,

Maybe you sing so in-tune that there's nothing left for the Autotune to fix. Seriously, I agree along the lines of Shakes' comment. It probably has something to do with the threshhold that you set. Set it to operate at a lower threshhold and you should get a more noticeable effect.

Rev E

[Track Rat]

Ya you have to get rude with the controlls. You'll hear it.

[toad_uk]

I've achieved the same effect using a pitch shifter with midi control. I altered the pitch where I wanted it by playing the keys on my keyboard.

[Dorian]

You are welcome Green! Mike B I hope you mean the effect is annoying and not the answer. I thought it pretty much answered his question which is the point of these forums.Why would using a vocoder instead of a pitch shifter(Antares) preserve your integrity as an singer? They are BOTH cheesy artificial effects. With one you pitch correct via antares software and a vocoder does it via midi by correcting the note to a pitch assigned by a keyboard or other midi instrument. It is still pitch shifting.To get this with the antares you can set it to the fastest speeed and even set custom scales so it will skip one note and snap a pitch up to the next highest value.

[S8-N]

I hear that song and dont hear any weird effects...

[pglewis]

Dorian:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Why would using a vocoder instead of a pitch shifter(Antares) preserve your integrity as an singer? They are BOTH cheesy artificial effects.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know that, I know that, and most of the folks around here know that. But how much do you think Cher would want the general public to know they used something called an "auto tune" on her voice? "Vocoder" sounds much more cool. Truth means nothing, perception is everything.

S8-N: You playin' your albums backwards again?

[darxide]

some say it's annoying, and others say, 'avoid it like the plague'..

and i somewhat feel the same way.. but only because of how it's been copyied so much, after the first one(s) to use it. (the many 'great artists', showing off their originality/creativity...)

that's what's 'annoying' about it, to me (lack of integrity)..

the effect itself isn't annoying, it's the Money-happy Artists, that could care less about being creative (if those "artists" are actually capable), or about having an original sound..

if they're not going to 'avoid it like the plague', the least they could do is alter it a bit, and try to produce a different, _creative_, _original_ sound using the effect..

but Figures are what concerns them..

[Dorian]

I agree that it is cheesy and so identifiable that you won't hear it too much again. Integrity? Obviously you have not heard of pro tools. The only reason they did not just use a plug in is that the crappy little studio did not have pro tools. Integrity? How about that bullshit with Santana and Clapton? They never even came up with a tune for the record. They jammed for a couple of hours and the engineer and producer pieced the tune together with pro-stools.I am not even sure half the people making records can even play.I agree there should be more artistic integrity but hey. I own an Autotune to keep me from having to redo a take for one note.but I do not use pro-stools to create my music form bits and pieces like a quilt..

[Dorian]

By the way I did not know you knew that. I think your point about the Antares being called the autotune( auto-intonation processor) may be a good one. Maybe she stipulated that they lie about it in her agreement or something.I cared enough about Greens'question to answer it with an article I stumbled on but I certainly am not gonna hire a private detective to find out the REAL story on the vocal effect of a crappy disco song.

[pglewis]

Hey Dorian... it's that darn BOLD. I was going for emphasis, not shouting. Take me with a grain of salt... I sound intense, but I'm mostly harmless.

[Dorian]

I sure will PGlewis, and thank you.I didn't mean to be so defensive( and of course I was funnin' about the PI).I do hate that everything is now done with pro-stools though. Don't you? It's been a real tough week as my drummer and best friends wife died of cancer and I guess I am touchy.I posted a thread on VS planet called priorites about it. After thinking about what you said I think you may well be right about the Cher thing. If a singer is way off and you pitch correct it with the Antares( I have one) with the speed and sensistivity cranked up you will get that same yodeling "effect" Have a good day.
www.blues2001.com/rolaids

[pglewis]

Well, I'm going waaaaaay off topic but I just can't keep from adding my $.02, now that I have more than 5 minutes to reply .

In all honesty, I think the bottom line is what does it sound like. If it sounds good, I don't care if it was a sample, a live instrument, or an effect tweak. It's always a taste issue, but if it sounds cool I could care less about how the sound was made. I might wanna know for my own information, of course, but I'm not gonna be a snob or purist. Sound is the end result, not the tools.

Loop-based software, digital multi-tracks, and oodles of effect plug-ins have moved powerful composition, recording, and mastering tools within the reach of the masses. As a result, there is a lot of crappy loop-based, over effected, digital stuff showing up. But in the hands of a true artist, good music can be made with these tools.

It wasn't the effect on the vocals that bugged me, it was the effect on me. I'm media ignorant and I've never heard the Cher song, but I did hear the Kid Rock song a couple of times. The problem for me is that the gimmick pulled my attention away from the song and forced me to focus on the gimmick itself. I haven't been fond of gimmicks since after my first week with a digital delay. I try to know "what I'm going for" when I reach for a knob these days. I'm not afraid to do weird shit if it helps me get closer to what I hear in my head. But I hope I'm doing it to enhance the material.

Standard net disclaimer: this is not an accusation of any sort. I'm just spouting my manifesto.