Re: Andre LaFosse vs. Mark Sottilaro: The BAD DESIGN SLAPDOWN

[Mark <sine@zerocrossing.net>]

With the unplayable animation (it played as a quicktime movie, but not as 
a string of
images) I was trying to show an extreme case, and you're right, Electrix, 
for the most
part, DOES design really cool stuff.  Shit, I should get a commision for 
all the
Warp-factories I've gotten people to buy.  I LOVE my Warp Factory and my 
MO-FX.  YUM.
(they both have a wet/dry mix!)

Anyway, the same holds true for the Repeater, I've been talking it up to 
whoever will
listen.  I really want this product to do well.  I think it will become a 
classic, as
the EDP and the JamMan have.  One of the great things about the EDP and 
the Repeater is
that the creators have an open channel of communication with their users.  
This
feedback is very usefull to them.  If I were Daemon, and saw all the 
Repeater posts,
I'd pee my pants with glee.  Hell, despite any nitpicking, I dropped out 
of the group
buy with Alto music so that I could purchase one for more money at 
Banana's at Large so
I'd have it for the three day weekend.  BTW, Banana's is a great store to 
deal with.

Mark Sottilaro

Andre LaFosse wrote:

> Yo peeple,
>
> and Yo Mark.  Thanks for the eminently thoughtful followup.  Gotta say
> that the subject header has all the makings of a killer remix CD.  "The
> Bad Design Slapdown"... that's gotta be an album title in the works!
>
> I appreciate your raising the issue of "creator's intent."  The analogy
> you drew with the in-depth yet unusable animation doesn't strike me as
> being entirely applicable to the Repeater situation, however.
>
> Why?  Because in the case you mentioned, the background was unplayable
> on a personal computer.  It couldn't function in the environment it was
> commisioned for.  Whereas the Repeater is (finally!) very much a
> real-world entity that does operate as it's supposed to.
>
> And it's the last four words of that sentence that I think are the crux
> of the issue here.  Damon has said that it was designed more from the
> point of view of a recorder than a processor or sound editor, which I
> think is the core of the current debate.
>
> Electrix is very highly regarded for making very user-friendly units
> with musicians in mind, so I think it's a bit unfair to suggest that
> they didn't understand what they were trying to do.
>
> Could it be that some of the Repeater customers, in fact, didn't
> understand what Electrix was trying to do with the product?  In light of
> some of the comments knocking the thing for not functioning like a
> standard effects processor, it's at least an interesting twist worth 
>considering...
>
> The bottom line (it seems to me) is that the whole concept of what a
> looper IS, and what it's SUPPOSED to do, and HOW it's supposed to do it,
> is still very much up in the air.  There aren't any hard and fast rules.
>  And when it comes to hardware-based, real-time, multi-track loopers,
> Electrix has just written the first chapter of that particular book.
>
> Here's an interesting angle: if Electrix is focusing so much on the
> real-time looping angle, and wants to dedicate its brain trust to that
> niche (as seems to be the case), why couldn't different loopers be
> designed for different types of looping applications?  In much the same
> way that people will reach for an SG over a Les Paul, or a Telecaster
> instead of a Strat...
>
> Anyway...  there's not much more I can say without having a Repeater in
> my hand, but I very much look forward to hearing more about the thing,
> and seeing what sorts of creative paths it leads people down.
>
> --Andre
>
> PS - very glad you dug the CD, Mark.  Thanks again for picking it up.