] [Thread Prev
short looping times
It's funny, I've had only 4 second loop pedals and I've never felt shorted
it. Now I have a computer and I rarely ever use it to make loops. The added
"live" control of the hands on approach to me surpasses the ability to
longer and edit better. I wind up with short loops with unusual,
rhythmic or melodic patterns. If I were to do the same thing with longer
my music would become too hard to follow and I probably wouldn't enjoy it
The other night, I spent three hours or so editing myself a 15 second loop
the computer. It sounds pretty, but I don't know what else I'd add to it,
how I'd spice it up into a CD-worthy song. Besides, I'm way too lazy to
that much time working to get a final product.
p.s. David Orton, it looks like we lost you on the (CF) chain. Could you
respond to a CF mail?
> At 04:51 PM 7/26/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >> On topic (sort of), as someone who has never had beyond 5 seconds of
> >> capacity, I sometimes wonder what I'd actually do with 64 seconds of
> loop time
> >> (but I'm willing to find out :-)
> >I have 32 sec and I'm damnes dure I've never reached that deliberately.
> i think tht's one of the reasons i've stuck with the jamman. i've never
> felt i needed more than 32 seconds and having the option of more time
> might actually cause my brain to melt mid-show.
> it may be that i'm a simpleton, but the lack of options with the jamman
> what makes it appealing to me. i need something to be super
> for me to be able to incorporate it into performance. it does what i
> it to.
> which prompts another question: anybody out there ever feel like your
> is controlling your creativity instead of the other way around?
> = =
> = M a r k C h r i s t e n s e n =
> = Cramped Quarters Studio / Jasperpottamus Music Publishing =
> = internet: email@example.com =
> = http://www.middlebury.edu/~mchriste/murkie.html =
> = =