Re: MORE LOOPS?

[Mech <mech@m3ch.net>]

At 3:15 PM -0700 6/13/07, RICK WALKER wrote:
>
>So,  my long winded point is that there is a distinct danger using 
>this technology
>to play TOO MANY LOOPS at the same time.     Why am I 
>shouting.............................I DON'T KNOW WHY!!!!!
>
>your thoughts?

Rick,

Just playing a bit of devil's advocate here.  I'd definitely agree 
that having the ability to record so many loops does tend to allow 
people to compose cluttered arrangements.  However, there is a 
technique that this -- having many available loops, that is -- opens 
up very well.

Rainer touched upon applying classical orchestration to your looping. 
Look at the way many composers (Mozart; Ravel's Bolero; heck, even 
Ennio Morricone) pass parts between different instruments, often 
playing with the way orchestral instruments combine with each other, 
doubling each other's parts and passing the lines from instrument to 
instrument.

So, you could lay down a part with a flute line.  Next, double that 
line with a clarinet.  Third pass, eliminate the flute, but double 
the remaining clarinet with an oboe.  Next pass, oboe and bassoon; 
then bassoon and, say, french horn; then french horn and flute again, 
only in harmony a fifth below, etc., etc., etc....

While you could do the above with only two loops and overdubs/undos, 
it sure is a lot easier to do it with multiple loops, especially if 
you're revisiting parts.

Of course, it goes without saying that just because you've recorded 8 
separate loops doesn't mean you have to play them all together (or, 
well, you could: if you're going for a really massive line, or an 
overall jumbled texture).

I guess that the bottom line is that there really are no rules (not 
even this one).  Just know what you're doing and, more importantly, 
WHY you're doing it.  That way, you'll be driving your gear, rather 
than letting it drive you.

        --m.
-- 
_____
"I want to keep you alive so there is always the possibility of 
murder... later"