[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: Critique of Critique of Feedback at Max
<smile> -just my opinion of course, but I think there's alot more going
on in the original post than a discussion of feedback. -but, lol! since
we're on the subject of feedback and the DL-4 in particular, the CD I
recently did contains mostly older material which was completely done on a
DL-4 which evolves as any other fadable looper might allow for. part of
this comes from me, always adding new material along with the loop almost
constantly. -aside from soloing and such. I agree that the lack of
feedback control is a hinderence, and to me at least, a big annoyance, but
it still works wonderfully in my opinion. <smile> I love the little
thing!!! lol!
Anyway, I wish I could upload the two pieces I'm talking about somewhere,
but alas, until I come up with more webspace I cannot. <smile> -You'll
just have to trust me I guess. lol!
Anyway, just my thoughts, and have a wonderful day!...
Smiles,
CQ
At 03:02 PM 8/17/02 +0200, you wrote:
>Of course you are totally right Rick!
>Since we can do great music without any loop tool, we certainly can
>with one that has no FB control!
>Besides, I was not quite so much referring to the estetics of the
>result but the experience of creating the music. Often music comes
>with music. You call a spirtit with a tune and it tells you how
>another tune goes.
>When you introduce a new soloist on stage, the other musicians step
>back a little...
>
>I could have said: The most important feature to a LOOP tool after a
>tap tempo recording function and some way to overdubb is a
>controllable FeedBack.
>But this would have been just an opinion, too, as Andre explains he
>uses other functions to evolve...
>
>Another point of view: We spend about 1/4 of the processor power with
>the multiplication and filter that provides smooth Feedback
>control... so my mother would say: Since you spent $150 on that
>feature, you gotta use it! LOL!
>
>But in my heart, yes, I think we really need to learn to live with
>conscious fading. Its a mission, yes. It has to do with cleaning out,
>not becoming attached, possesive...
>Sure I want to be tolerant with the ones that dont agree, but I hate
>revolutions and to avoid them, we have to be able to let older things
>fade in peace to make space for all the new things to happen. If we
>cut the old, the new has no base and is more likely to come out wrong.
>You could compare the DL4 to the Bible :-) : Fill it until its thick
>and then let it run without change until you trash it all together
>(possibly with a war...)
>
>As stig sais, you can do it with output volume fading, too. But then
>it leads to the use of several loopers or tracks... a much bigger
>technical and operational effort for some more flexibility - a little
>less organic, maybe...?
>A good point actually: The FB makes that all old stuff fade at the
>same rate, which is not the ideal, if we think of history in general.
>Some currents (movements, ideas, chapters...) have to fade quicker
>than others... so this may be easier to simbolize with a looper for
>each current... we will get to that technology without covering the
>whole stage with DL4s ;-)
>
>And he also questioned:
>***if people are making good/great music with the tools at hand, why
>must they be taught something different?
>
>I guess that those who are perfectly happy with their great music are
>not on that list.
>--
>
>
> ---> http://Matthias.Grob.org
>
>
---
"The only things I really think are important, are love, and eachother.
-Then, anything is possible..."
http://home.earthlink.net/~thefates
Please visit The Guitar Cafe.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the-guitar-cafe