Re: Loop approach: Loop as effect

[Matthias Grob <matthias@grob.org>]

very interesting thread !

Shure, the important is the result and categorizing is less nice than 
the "all is One feeling", but, as Kim points out, its fundamental for 
comunication.
Names are inherent to things: Just because you sit on a table does 
not make it a chair.
To sell a CD you need to select one section of the shop.

As Kim suggests, the "all is One feeling" seems to be a 
characteristic of our era.
You could explain it with astrology, but technology also brings it.
I definitally want one of those 
still-and-camara-dictaphone-walkman-portable storage and 
documentation devices! What is it called?
A computer does a lot more than "compute"...
The "workstation" idea was too wide for musical tools...

I observe that makers of catalogs dont know whether they should put 
the looping devices. We should help them.
Of course, it would be nice to have a separate chapter called 
"looping tools", but I guess we are quite far from that.
I suggest that small loop units like DL4 go to the pedal effects and 
big ones like the Repeater to the studio recording tools. It may not 
be a typical studio unit, but it has the characteristic of a recorder 
and nowadays most musicians use studio tools, too.
Here is why:

So here we treat the distinction Effect - Instrument - Recorder.
(we are talking of "musical instrument" here, since most objects are 
instruments, somehow...)

I tend to agree with Kims "an effect just sits there" definiton, but 
when you think about the interactivity:
I control my effect units by pedal, so did all the wah pedalers for a 
long time. Also a AirFX is extremely interactive and they define it 
as "effect" themselves.
If you play in a church, you play different, due to the acoustics, 
which is rather "effect" than "instrument"
So its not the lack interactivity which defines "effect".

Its interesting how the percussionists (in Brasil, at least) 
distinguish "instruments" and "effects": the ones they play 
continuous rhythms they call "instruments" (drums, bells, 
triangle,,,) and the ones that chime in every once in a while or 
rather paint, they call "effects" (chimes, whistles, rainstick,,,,)
According to this, a random echo would be "effect", but not a rhythmic 
loop.
In turn, even a constant drone traditionally comes from an instrument 
and has the musical function of an instrument, so it does not feel 
right to me to call any loop "effect".

To call the loop gear "instrument" seems wrong also, since the 
instrument creates sound. Noone would call a tape recorder 
"instrument".
"Composition tool" hits pretty exactly, but suggests some serious 
planning way of working which is not typical to users of loops. And 
its not handy.
I prefer "Recorder" since soon we will hardly remember tapes and 
recording will be immediate and include. Also, the looping devices 
will become more multitracky and integrated in recording software...

-- 


          ---> http://Matthias.Grob.org