On 9/12/06, a k butler <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk
> wrote:actually there's a whole load of ways to keep a loop interesting
without having to post process it,
Subject: Techniques to stop loops getting boring
if that's of interest
yes, of course, I was not explicitly referring to post-processing. What I mean is that the sound must change, or at least, from the listener's perspective, have the appearance of changing. Which is what I meant by affecting the sound rather than effecting it. As a composer, or player, we have to do something to the sound rather that just let it repeat unchanged. So techniques can involve, as you mentioned Kris, reversing, chopping or sequencing as well as mangling in your favorite tone mangler. There are times when I like to investigate the threshold for pure repetition, just unchanging repetition, but that is just personal inclination for stretching listening boundaries and personal tolerance. Which is partly my question - if we are talking about structure then structures are built to do someting, to achieve an end. Whilst, let's say, 'controlling' your loops can be entirely done for the purpose of making the sounds interesting (or not boring, but is that really the best challenge we can set ourselves?), I am interested in the whole range of motivations for control. That is, as a loop controller, one might be trying to set up a groove, get the dance floor bustling, mix-up an otherwise generic band setup, set an ambiance, challenge the listener's preconceptions, challenge the listener's pain threshold. I don't know, just what are people trying to do with loops?
So for me the question is - are there specific methods of control, ways of looping if you like, that produce different end results for the listener (in as much as the endless variety of subjective responses to music muddies such a question)? In other words, how do we turn people on with loops, and what do we turn them onto and into?
>I'm not sure that looping, loops or loop manipulation presents new
>possibilities in so much as they present new insights into something
>that was there all along.
For me, there's new possibilities.
Yes, I didn't mean to sound negative, as I'm totally into the potential of loops and what they can be used to achieve. Which was my point again, I guess - there is no doubt a myriad of musical possibilities yet to be explored with looping, but if one is to advance a theory of loop structures (sorry, it's what I've been trying to do for the last 8 years of academic study, so I have alterior motives and methodological bias) then the idea of structures for me needs to be thought of not just from a musical perspective but from a general view of aesthetics - what do these structures do for people. So for me it's more interesting that loops can make people loop in on the world around them - see and hear what was already there but that which they may have missed otherwise.
I don't think the looper has to be complex, it's the ability of the
player to control the device which creates the interest.
again, I agree, but controlling to what end? Complexity in structure is useful if the player is trying to communicate something about complexity, though of course not necessarily necessary. As a composer, without trying to add pretense to an already spurious ramble, I'm interested in combining all the techniques and structural ideas talked about here and more, to achieve large scale investigations of loops - looping theory in practice if you like.
>a metonymic capability for understanding the world around us.
ahhh...that beats me, what's it mean? Kris? anyone?
yeah, ahh, I guess put more simply, can loop compositions or loop structures teach us anything about the way repetition works in the world around us, or indeed, the way we might be able to apply it in our everyday lives?
omjn
