Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
On Saturday, May 3, 2003, at 04:48 AM, Geoff Smith wrote: > Hi all > I have been thinking about, how we all want our loopers to do this or > that...... or wouldn't it be cool if ... i.e. more options to sound > like more things..... I kind of feel like the opposite is true for myself. I'd be totally happy with a looper that has the sound quality of the EDP, the stereo nature of the Repeater and the functionality of the JamMan... which is a pretty basic looper by EDP or Repeater standards. Where I get off is in what you put *in* the loop. The sonic choices (which can be loop features such as the Repeater's pitch and time stretching or the EDPs slice and dice features [if it could only Julieanne!]) are what interest me. For me the looper is the canvas. I want it to be good quality and a big size so I can get the most out of my paint, but I want it to be fairly "blank". Not saying it should be like this, but for me that's what I dig. I think a looper should be simple enough so that it's really the last thing you're thinking about when you're making music. I think this is one of the big draws of the DL4 and it's big sibling the EchoPro. > Which leads me in some sense to think... > With the advance of digital technology making looping achievable in > most musical contexts, so the character and individuality of looping > has been obsorbed into a bigger picture. DigitalLoopers can now do > structures like verse chorus verse chorus repeat, in a way that it > would be problematic with analogue equipment. This removal of these > limitations has seen a sense of a loss of individuality of the sound > of Live-Looping with a gain in its > flexability and integration. > I.e. looping can now be made to sound like other forms of music > generation. So you need to ask your self the question: Does your technology inform your sound, or does your sound inform your technology? Or is it a feedback loop between? When I listen to older pop music I often think, "Oh yeah, there's that DX7 patch..." or something like that. Good music then brings me to a place where I'm lost in the music and no longer listening to the technology. Poorly made music often relies on the gimmick of a new sound and has little else. It's a trap we've all got to avoid. > However there are exceptions like Andre Lafosse etc. who are creating > a new aesthetic out of looping as opposed to simply emulating another > musical process.... There was a thread a while back that I started about the differences between using your looper as a "processor" or in a more passive way. Both techniques are indeed valid and it's just a matter of choice for the musician. If you hear something in your head that your Repeater can't do, you'd better buy an EDP and visa versa. I've heard both great and horrible music come from both. What Andre does could be (and has been) done with traditional post production editing. What makes it cool is that he's a great musician and it allows him to make those edits to his loops live. Does that ability to do the glitch/insert technique live in real time inform the kind of edits he's doing? My guess would be: Yes so in that way Andre has been creating a new aesthetic. In a similar but more subtile way I use the Repeater's effect loop to post process my loop while leaving my direct input untouched (until it's first loop iteration). Most people are probably not even aware I'm doing it but when the loop I hear isn't exactly like what I played into it, it can't not influence what I'm going to play next, and therefore the "feature" of this piece of technology has allowed me to create music that I wouldn't normally have made without it. Much in the same way I couldn't play the music I play without amplification. I heard that Bing Crosby was the first baritone singer in pop music because before microphones and amps you had to sing in a high pitch to cut through the band. Very interesting IMO. I've always loved how Laurie Anderson can have a carcophony of sound around her but at the same time get all intimate by "whispering" in your hear. > > Both positions are valid and a sign of how versatile a tool looping > has become. Its maybe a question of as a looper do you seek to create > a new aesthetic or simply to have the option to emulate many > previously used aesthetics, like sequencing, multi tracking etc. Sure, sequencing and multi-tracking were all previously used, but loopers allow you to do it *live* which is really what interests me. There's nothing I do with my Repeater that I couldn't do with Digital Performer, but the Repeater allows it to happen in real time and those types of techniques really do have an effect on your playing. Similar to the difference between recording a dry signal and then putting effects on it later or doing the effect live. Common sound engineer wisdom says put the effects on later, but I say "hogwash!" How that effect changes your technique is what it's all about... well not all. Mark Sottilaro