RE: RC-50: Multiply feature? (overdubbing w/ different lengths)

["Bill Edmondson" <edmondson5@comcast.net>]

That would work as you described but it takes a longer to build the music
bed in front of a live audience. If there were A/B/C sections to the tunes
and 10-15 tunes per set, the process of building the song would get
'musically tiresome'.

Also, if the loop could be of varying lengths, I could imagine it being a
more natural form of entry because I think in terms of repeating phrases 
for
each part and not thinking which of the loops is the longest and adjust 
from
there.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seth Elgart [mailto:selgart@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 7:03 AM
> To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
> Subject: Re: RC-50: Multiply feature? (overdubbing w/ different lengths)
> 
> At 6:53 AM -0700 6/1/06, Buzap wrote:
> >If I record a sample ("phrase") and go into overdub,
> >does that mean I have to stick to the initial phrase
> >length no matter what?
> >I wanted to do this: record 1 bar, then overdub
> >2-bar-pattern, then overdub 4-bar-pattern etc.
> >Is there a reasonable way (like multiply) to do this?
> 
> Why not do it the old fashioned way, by playing it by hand? Play the
> first one bar pattern through four times, then play the second two
> bar pattern twice, then play the four bar pattern once. This way you
> have three different length phrases, except that as far as the
> looper's concerned they're all four bars. As long as you're not
> playing sevens against eights or something this will work fine. You
> could do that too if you're willing to play the patterns by hand
> eight times and seven times respectively, and if the looper can
> record a phrase of that length. On the other hand, if you want 11
> against 13, then you'll have to record 143 measures before they'll
> line up again.
> 
> In the late 80s/early 90s I was working on a "sound track" for a
> play. I had a piece that was about 3.5 minutes long, with a
> burbling-along arpeggio running throughout, but they wanted it to be
> twice that because that's how long the scene was. For the original, I
> simply played the four-note arpeggio eight times, then made that loop
> (I was using Performer, or maybe a hardware digital sequencer). Very
> simple. However, when we re-recorded that for the play, the studio
> had only the one tape machine and no computers or other looping
> devices. I had to sit there and play that dang arpeggio by hand for
> seven minutes. It took me an hour of trying before I managed to play
> it perfectly all the way through, and I had to throw everyone out of
> the room to do it. The Human Sequencer.
> 
> What was I talking about? Oh, yeah. The moral of this little story is
> to not worry about the possible lack of functionality of the hardware
> in question, but to simply play the different length patterns by
> hand. <g>
> 
> It'll work just fine.
> 
> 
> 
>           Seth