Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
<smile> I'd like to chime in if I might, and agree with Andre. I think this same sort of idea happened with the Repeater, in the sense that people were disapointed when Electrix folded, saying that the software could have had so many features and now would never be revised. Well, the software HAS a whole bunch of amazing features as it is! <smile> It does some amazing things! Re: Stutteries on the EDP, again, I agree. the coolest way to do the whole stuttery bit for me at this point, doesn't use any Loop IV features at all! It's not even quantized. It's just the sus record function, and that's it. And I think it sounds great! I think it's a very good idea to work with something in an order that makes sense to you, and that allows you to build on what you've learned, and grow, freeing you up. -and also USING what you learn, as you go. Not only will you develop technique and understanding, but also your own style and voice with what it is you're learning. -just my thoughts... Smiles, Cara At 01:26 AM 2/14/03 -0800, you wrote: >Aye carumba, > >With regards to Rick and Gary's comments on LoopIV vs. LoopIII, let me >try and clarify/state my own point of view, so as to not be >misinterpreted or misunderstood. > >I don't particularly feel that someone has to master LoopIII before they >can justify getting LoopIV. What I do have some issues with is the >tendency to want to dive into the more sophisticated functions of the >Echoplex without having a good solid foundation on the basic functions. >Or worse yet, never even getting a good grasp on what the basic functions >are. This holds true regardless of which software version is being used. > >A few examples of what I'm talking about: > >1) After doing a clinic at the Y2K2 Santa Cruz festival in July of 2002, >one fellow (a very fine musician who had been using the EDP for at least >six years by that point) came up and asked me if the Unrounded Multiply >was new to LoopIV. The answer, of course, is that it's been part of the >software ever since the EDP was first released about eight years ago. > >2) In early 2002, I had an exchange with another very talented, >long-term (six-plus years in 2002) EDP user, who remarked that one >feature he'd really like to see in a future software version was a >SUS-action Record, to allow very quick loop lengths to be achieved in a >momentary manner. As I told him, this feature has also been standard in >the EDP ever since its initial release back around 1994. > >3) Shortly after uploading some EDP solos in December of 2001, I heard >from one of the members of the LoopIV beta test team, who had heard the >material and automatically assumed, from the sound of the tracks, that I >already HAD a version of LoopIV. But all of that particular material >was done using LoopIII and a standard EFC-7 footcontroller. > >4) At a clinic at Kim's back in August of last year, I was demonstrating >the idea that Feedback could be used to scale back the level in just one >part of a loop, without affecting the overall loop level, and without >just doing a fade-out. Several people immediately asked what I was >doing, and if it was new to LoopIV. But here again, it's been a >standard part of the EDP from day one. > >The point here is not to toot my own horn, but simply to say that I >think it's very important to try and cultivate a deep and thorough >knowledge of the foundation of whatever sort of "system" you're making >music with. If your system is playing jazz guitar, then I think you >should learn how to play "Autumn Leaves" before you try to tackle "Giant >Steps." If your system is rock guitar, then learn a minor pentatonic >scale before you start hunting for a Van Halen transcription. If you're >a fusion drummer, try to cultivate a solid 4/4 backbeat before you >transcribe Dave Weckl solos. > >And if your system is the Echoplex, then I personally am a strong >advocate of learning the thing from a very "foundational" point of view. >Meaning that you first get acquainted with Record, and its various >permutations and parameters (and there are a lot). Then you work your >way from left to right across the front panel - it's no coincidence that >the functions are laid out the way that they are, because they each >progressively build on and expand basic concepts that were introduced in >earlier, more "basic" functions. > >One thing I've found with the EDP is that the more any one facet of its >design is understood, the more the overall thing comes into focus. By >the same token, however, if you don't spend a certain amount of time >learning the fundamentals, you might end up with holes in your knowledge >you don't even know you have... which would end up getting in the way of >things you'd like to do down the road (as in example number 2 above), >and might keep you from trying out things you'd like to do, but didn't >even know were there in the first place. > >(Case in point: a year ago, a guy emailed me to say that he was about to >get rid of his EDP because he didn't use it nearly as much as his >Repeater, but heard the December 2001 solos and was intrigued. The last >I heard, this same guy was now seriously thinking about selling his >Repeater to help finance a second EDP purchase). > >Certainly, if you want to get into more sophisticated types of Echoplex >functions, I would personally stress understanding the EDP from the >ground floor up. I've seen a fair number of people getting more and >more interested in the highly active, glitchy/stuttery side of things, >but not necessarily understanding what some of the roots of those sorts >of techniques are, where certain parameters are located, how they impact >the techniques in question, etc. > >My own personal take on that sort of technique is that, yes, some of it >has to do with understanding how a few specific functions operate, and >some of it has to do with features in LoopIV that weren't available in >LoopIII. But a big part of the reason I sound the way I do with LoopIV >is because I spent six years working with LoopIII beforehand. That >doesn't mean it should take everyone else six years (hey, I'm a slow >learner!), but it does mean that, from my point of view, that sort of >thing will ultimately be easier and more fluid if you understand the >basics. > >So no, I definitely don't think you have to master the "old" Echoplex >before you should upgrade the software. I simply subscribe to a certain >approach to learning and using any musical instrument. And I understand >that my ideas about the EDP are pretty atypical of how most people >approach it, and that not a lot of other players will share this view - >nor do they need to, if they have an approach they're satisfied with. > >Anyway... > >--Andre LaFosse >The Echoplex Analysis Pages: >http://www.altruistmusic.com/EDP > > --- "The only things I really think are important, are love, and eachother. -Then, anything is possible..." http://home.earthlink.net/~thefates Please visit BadFiction and The Guitar Cafe. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/badfiction http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the-guitar-cafe