Re: How do you approach looping composition?

[Greg House <ghunicycle@yahoo.com>]

max valentino wrote:

> I have noticed a few things about we loopists and how we work.
> There are some of us who pile up fx and processing before the loop and 
> make each "layer" have it's own sonic signature, allowing it to 
> standout from the other layers.  In this aspect, it is much like 
> multi-track recording, and is very much an additive approach in which 
> our "box" is contiually being filled until it can simply hold no 
> more.   Perhaps, Christian, this is one dilemma you have encountered 
> with your own looping.  Of course, the only remedy to this is to know 
> when to stop adding to the loop.
> At thast point it may be creative to begin subtracting from the loop, 
> peeling away layers before constructing new ones.

This very thing is one thing I really enjoy doing with the Repeater. I can 
record
different layers across the 4 available tracks, making it very easy to 
remove
selected layers (sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanantly), or to 
emphasize
or deemphasize selected layers within the loop. With other looping devices,
removing or changing the level of selected layers within the recording is
somewhere between difficult and impossible. The Repeater is a very good 
tool for
someone who likes to work this way. Personaly, I don't care to have ALL the
layers of my loop running through the same effect, especially some of the 
more
extreme things like a lowpass filter. Sure, it's cool, for a little while, 
but
having the variety within the layers is more to my taste.

> In both cases here, there is a tendancy to create a loop and let it 
> run, with all the varied, "added" parts, for the length of a piece.  
> For my own compositons, of late, I have been working with loops 
> which I "fly" in and out of a piece, adding color and texture, 
> rather than being a static event which I add to or play over.  Having 
> the ability to run multiple loops in parallel means I can fade in and 
> out short loops to add color/contrast, density, accompaniment, and 
> texture to a solo bass piece.  I can "remove" them from the piece, and 
> yet bring them back at a different point in the performance to provide 
> a sense of continuity.  This makes the "loop" interactive with my own 
> playing, and hopefully, when done right, it is seamless enough to not 
> stand out from the rest of the "played" performance ( in what the 
> audience may percieve as "canned").

That's exactly the same thing I was talking about doing with the Repeater. 
I'll
readily admit that I don't do much composition, just improvisation. Just a
reflection of what a poor musician I am, but that's how it works out. 
Therefore I
do much better with a layer by layer approach, where I can react to what 
I'm
hearing in the previous layers. An approach where I had to play some exact 
part
for each layer, and remove this one at this time and that one at another 
time,
then replace this, or mangle that, and a bunch of precision things just 
would
never come off right for me.

However, I watched Phil Keaggy do this kind of thing a few months back,
seemlessly, using just an old Lexicon Jamman. I honestly couldn't figure 
out how
he was doing some of the stuff he was doing, but it sure sounded nice. But 
he was
using his loops to make background parts within his precomposed music, so 
I'm
presuming that he had his "tricks" well rehearsed ahead of time. That's an
example of someone employing looping in a "traditional pop music" format 
(which
was discussed in a previous thread), where things are all planned out, and 
it
worked great for him.

I guess the only answer is to look at the way your musical mind works, how 
you
approach things, and adapt your looping techniques (and looping equipment) 
to
best accomodate your individual approach to the music.

Greg

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com