Re: Real Time Sampling

["Matt Davignon" <mattdavignon@gmail.com>]

Admittedly, I usually say now that I play my instrument "with electronics" or "with pedals". I prefer the term "real-time sampling" more than looping for my own stuff. 

I think it requires less explanation. My experience is that most of the people who know what "looping"is are themselves loopers. I've only met a few non-loopers who know what it is. 

Also, as Matt Stevens alluded, "live looping" also evokes a particular genre of music, which I don't think represents what I sound like. (In the way that not every band who jams would identify as 'a jam band'.)

I disagree that the "Real-time sampling" is redundant.  It specifies that the sampled sounds are both being generated and recorded onstage, and playing them back in the same session. (Although it doesn't specify that the person making the sounds is the person sampling them.) Non-real-time sampling would involve loading the samples into your gear before your set begins. 

Matt Davignon

On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Micha? Wiernowolski <mihalw@gmail.com> wrote:

If I understand your question,

'Real Time Sampling' seems wrong to me. Firstly, the term 'Real Time' is redundant, at least in case of sampling
sound. If you are not sure about this think of the opposite 'Non Real Time Sampling', which is an oxymoron.
Now, 'Live sampling' would be a bit better, but it doesn't give the information of  what do you do with those samples.
You could possibly play a tune without loops at all.

Cheers,
Michal

Matt Stevens wrote:

Does anyone else prefer the term Real Time Sampling to Live Looping(apart from it being the name of a wonderful album by andy butler)?

Just wondered?  Someone else suggested Guitar 2.0 to me in an email a few days ago!

Any thoughts?

Matt Stevens

www.mattstevensguitar.com

mattstevensguitar@btinternet.com