[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Critique of Critique of Feedback at Max



Is there an estimate of decay time based on position of feedback dial? 
For instance, how long will it take for a layer to decay completely if
the feedback dial is positioned at 3 O'clock?  12 O'clock? 9 O'Clock?

Regards,
Jeff

On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 15:00, Michael Clark wrote:
> The red pill or the blue pill?  Both!
> 
> M...
> 
> 
> At 11:30 PM 8/13/02 -0700, you wrote:
> >Oh my, it's some loop philosophy... how can I resist?  8()
> >
> >How ya doin', Rick?
> >
> >"Rick Walker/Loop.pooL" wrote:
> >
> >> Matthias (whose music I adore and who I consider a good new friend)
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >>     "I just shortly repeat what Kim an me pointed several time at on 
>this
> >> list:
> >>     With FB constantely at max, the loop turns into a ball on a 
>chain: The
> >> phrase you started with keeps you in the same mood, you cannot evolve 
>when
> >> you feel its time, just revolve, chopp off... ;-"
> >> 
> >>     This can happen, certainly, but there are many ways of making 
>music.
> >> I, personally, am not a fan of Jazz Fusion as an example,
> >> but to categorically state that this music keeps you in the same mood
> >> because I don't happen to enjoy the form is absurd.
> >
> >I personally didn't take Matthias' comment as an aesthetic judgement at
> >all.  To me, it's an expression of a technical concern, and a very
> >important and valid one at that: what do you do with a loop once you've
> >built up a texture, if you don't have feedback control?
> >
> >I would speculate that the comment about "the same mood" is not a
> >reflection of Matthias' personal listening taste, but rather the
> >loopists' challenge when working with a loop without feedback: how do
> >you evolve the texture aside from either overdubbing more and more
> >layers to it (thereby creating an ever-denser texture), and/or ending it
> >abruptly (which are the two possibilities Matthias described in his
> >original remark)?
> >
> >Feedback is an incredible tool for this sort of thing, and Matthias'
> >incredibly fluid and organic style would be unthinkable without it. 
> >It's just like I couldn't imagine doing what I like to do without a
> >momentary Replace function (and, increasingly, 8th/cycle quantization,
> >cycle-quantized loop switching, DirectMIDI, etc. etc.) - that's MY own
> >solution to how I develop a loop and change its direction.  (Ironically
> >enough, I can regularly play a whole concert without ever touching the
> >feedback control...)
> >
> >>     I love repetition, personally. I have loved Terry Riley, Philip 
>Glass,
> >> Hamza El Din, Reggae, et. al.
> >
> >I like their stuff too.  And I would point to works like "In C" or
> >"Music For 18 Musicians" as good general examples of the sort of
> >principle Matthias is talking about: the idea that you can evolve the
> >loop by fading various elements in and out of the picture, and that over
> >time, the entire textural content of a basic "loop" can completely
> >change and evolve, in subtle and organic ways.  
> > 
> >>     It's really o.k. if Kim or Mattias don't.   But let's keep our
> >> communications and our aesthetic biases clear.   A personal aesthetic
> >> predilection is exactly that:   a personal predilection.    It's ok 
>to have
> >> them without being judgemental about others.
> >
> >I don't believe either Kim or Matthias are opposed to repetitive music -
> >if they were, they'd very likely find something to do with their lives
> >other than design looping software!  8()  
> >
> >And in the case of Kim and Matthias, it's important to remember that 
> >you're talking about two guys who have designed several versions of a
> >software which is utterly without peer in its particular focus and
> >design angle.  There are things the EDP was doing in its software
> >version 8 years ago that STILL haven't been duplicated or matched.  I
> >can only imagine how frustrating it must sometimes be to have spent so
> >much time working on an instrument that's still so underrated and
> misunderstood.
> >
> >So I'm all for discussing these expanded possibilities, because it
> >increases the general understanding of the tools of the trade.  And it
> >also allows a fascinating insight into some of the creative corners of
> >the design process in general.  For instance, the EDP's
> >painstakingly-programmed 127 discreet feedback values assume a
> >tremendous amount of significance when you see and hear Matthias'
> >seamless work.  Some of the more "out there" Echoplex functions make
> >more sense when you find out that Kim Flint is a big hip-hop, jungle,
> >and heavy metal fan.  
> >
> >I think it's fantastic that there are folks like yourself, Rick, who are
> >making great music with very simple units like a DL4.  But I also think
> >it's important to make people in general aware of the possibilities that
> >lie beyond simply recording, repeating, and overdubbing.  A lot of these
> >techniques are not very difficult to use, they already exist in many of
> >the devices people presently own, and they can open tremendous doors
> >into different technical and aesthetic avenues.
> >
> >It's one thing to choose to work within very tight technical
> >constraints, the way you have.  But it's another thing to be unwittingly
> >constrained by one's own expectations of the parameters that are
> >available, simply because they never explored the other options out
> >there, you know?
> >
> >>     Everyone is Creative.  I think there is a disturbing trend in 
>western
> >> culture specifically to be perfectionistic and judgemental.
> >> I think that we, as artists and loopers have a great opportunity to
> >> reverse this trend (if only in a small,small way) and actively support
> >> people's creativity.  It's all good.
> >
> >I agree that it's important to encourage people to do their thing.  But
> >I also adamently feel that it's JUST as important to approach an art
> >form from a respectfully critical point of view.  
> >
> >In other words, don't just settle for what's commonly available.  Don't
> >just work within the parameters of what we commonly associate with these
> >tools.  Don't just accept that looping HAS to sound a certain way.  
> >
> >Why shouldn't we challenge ourselves - and one another - in a healthy,
> >respectful, encouraging way, to go beyond what we expect, and what we
> >already know we can do?  
> >
> >I haven't seen anything that Kim or Matthias have said that I would
> >describe as disrespectful to other people's music.  Can they be blunt? 
> >You bet.  Direct?  Absolutely.  Fed up with the status quo?  For sure. 
> >Challenging?  I sure HOPE so.  But I think that's how any art form grows
> >and develops - by having a healthy dissatisfaction with the way things
> >are already done.
> >
> >Maybe this is easy for me to say, Rick, since I've heard both of these
> >gentlement express their very deep respect and appreciation for your
> >music.  So I know they're not knockin' ya... far from it, in fact.
> >
> >Well damn, I guess this is a brain spew and a half.  Time to get back to
> practicing!
> >
> >Hope y'all are well tonight.
> >
> >Woo hah,
> >
> >--Andre LaFosse
> >The Echoplex Analysis Pages:
> >http://www.altruistmusic.com/EDP
> >
> >
> 
>