Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Michael:
>The JM is great; the only differences I'd make are
>1. The ability to play different loops concurrently, ie like a multitrack
> recorder where each could be muted, faded etc
Matthias:
>Now I am confused. I was not aware the JM was able to play its various
>loops simultaneously. And its your proposual for this modification that
>iniciates this mail... ?
No, it can't - but I'd like it to.... :)
>Or: what would be the difference between a multitrack looper and having
>several simultaneous loops?
Matthias again:
>Hmm, you do not use multiple loops (neither do I), but would we use
>multiple tracks?
I think so. Before I got my JM I assumed this was how multiple "loops"
worked.
I'd like the ability to loop a verse with chords and a bassline, then keep
the bassline but drop the chords out for the chorus, then bring them back.
Or fade between one theme and another without losing a fundamental pulse or
riff. I think that, for example, it would help you do the kind of music on
your cassette (review to follow soon, folks) without editing later, ie
live.
>You would not need to operate several loops as one?
>To "pre-operate" them with the "phrased" (JM) or "quantized" (Plex)
>functions might help, but in my case would not resolve, because I rarely
>play in respect to loop-end.
>I see that a extended use of multiple tracks could make UNDO and Multiply
>rather useless (having only 3-5 parallel loops, I would still want them!).
>But then, the various loops have to be of different length and synced,
>which corresponds somehow to the Next-Insert (TimeCopy) function of the
>Plex. For the operation of several loops, would it become complicated?
Probably, but it would be worth it. It would give more control overt the
evolving stucture of the music.
To help resolve this, Kim provided:
>Loop - a potentially complex set of media data, repeating in some fashion
>in time. A "Loop" can contain one or more "tracks." The tracks repeat in
>some relation to the loop repetition rate, and may all be synced together
>in equal lengths or have complicated time relationships to each other. Any
>looper, no matter what it's features, would only play one loop at a time.
>When we talk about multiple loops, we mean things that are discreet from
>each other in time. So you might switch from one loop to another, but you
>wouldn't play two at once. If you did, you would still have one loop, but
>it would just have more tracks. Got that?
THAT'S IT. I don't wan't multiple loops, but multiple TRACKS with
individual control over each TRACK, or at least the possibility of
controlling 2-4 tracks with layered looping in each track.
Matthias once more..
>Yes, I think display becomes very important in this context. Thats why I
>thought we should do it in a computer right away...
Michael:
Naah... A MAC on top of a marshall stack does _not_ look good....
Dr Michael Pycraft Hughes Bioelectronic Research Centre, Rankine Bldg,
Tel: (+44) 141 330 5979 University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, U.K.
"Wha's like us? Damn few, and they're a' deid!" - Scottish proverb