] [Thread Prev
Re: Looperlative - Max Time?
Well look who woke up! It's Kim! Nice to have you
back, your posts are always great.
I totally agree with Kim. While the Repeater is set
up to save your loops, there is rarely a loop that
doesn't get overdubed with or without some % of
feedback. I found trying to get the loops off the
compact flash card to be like memories of a dream
where you know there was more but you can't quite get
it. Recording the whole damn thing (nice for me I'm
always synced to a midi clock so extracting loops is
painless... more painless than getting them off the
Repeater's card) is for sure the way to go.
--- Kim Flint <email@example.com> wrote:
> At 04:02 PM 1/29/2006, loop.pool wrote:
> >kim wrote:
> >"....with people who are serious about looping and
> have been doing it for
> >some time, they usually are performing a whole
> process with loops. Building
> >it up, taking stuff out, manipulating the loops,
> changing the loops,
> >evolving it from one thing to another. There is not
> some static point where
> >you would save something. "
> >I agree with you there, kim, but on my last long
> tour, I saved my favorite
> >loops onto my Repeater and now am having a lot of
> fun going back
> >and using them as Ur loops in new compositions
> (which are not
> >real time), completely out of the context with
> which they were made
> Sure, I agree with that. Looping is a great way to
> generate a lot of ideas
> for composing or a lot of source material for
> compositional building blocks
> But then I still don't understand why you would only
> save one single
> still-frame static loop out of the whole process of
> creating and evolving
> the loops in a given piece. What if there were many
> great points during
> that process that you want? Or what if a point you
> didn't think was
> interesting in the moment suddenly becomes really
> interesting two weeks later?
> And as you suggest, oftentimes the magic moment is
> in the middle somewhere,
> just before you manipulate the loop in a different
> direction. In the heat
> of performing, I doubt you would think to stop and
> save the loop right at
> that point, or that you would want to interrupt your
> performance to do
> that. You would be going on with your playing, and
> then only later think
> how you really liked that spot two minutes into the
> piece that is now
> completely obliterated by all the loop manipulations
> done after that moment.
> That's why I think it makes far more sense to just
> record the whole
> process. Forget about saving a single static loop.
> Save all the audio of
> the whole looping process, both input and output.
> Along with that, save all
> the MIDI output of the looper. The MIDI commands
> will serve as marker
> points so you can later see everything you did,
> where the loop start and
> end points are, etc. You can go back through it and
> find all the good
> points, and not have interrupted your creative
> process with typing in file
> names in the middle of a performance. You could even
> recreate the whole
> thing back into the looper if you wanted to, just
> plug it the other way and
> press play.
> It's real easy. At the beginning of the piece, press
> record. At the end,
> press stop. then you have everything, like a movie
> with time code and the
> director's instructions, rather than a single frame
> with no context.
> Kim Flint | Looper's Delight
> firstname.lastname@example.org |
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around