Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
At 10:42 AM 1/29/2006, Kevin Goldsmith wrote: >I think it all comes back to a matter of style. I personally would have no >problem filling 16 loops of 10 minutes of length each and using them all >in >performance (although probably not more than a few at the same time. uh, please walk me through this, cause I'm just not seeing how this could possibly make a viable performance. You have one piece of music using 16 loops, 10 minutes each. So just the time to record the audio into all of these loops will take you 160 minutes. And we are all watching you while you record them. In order for the audience to get the impression that these are loops (assuming that is even possible with a 10 minute loop), the loop needs to repeat at least twice. So now you are talking about an additional 320 minutes, for a total of 480 minutes for one song? 8 hours? Or even if you have some of the loops repeating in parallel, you are still talking at least 3-4 hours for one musical piece. Do you really create music like that? Do you actually find audiences with the patience to sit through it? I can't even imagine this, unless it is one of those performance art torture/endurance experiments people like to do in art school. >I have >hit barriers with every piece of loop hardware I have ever used and after >trying to get around it by combining them in multiple ways, I'm just using >software now and that seems to work for me. what does that have to do with loop time and how you use it? kim > Kevin > > >On 1/28/06 4:45 PM, "Paul" <paulrichard10@adelphia.net> wrote: > > > << If any of you are planning to do a show where you make 10 minute >long > > loops >> > > ______________________________________________________________________ Kim Flint | Looper's Delight kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com