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

RE: Critique of Critique of Feedback at Max

andre lf opined:

>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)?<

** hmmm. to me it comes down to: how do you use the looper? maybe that has 
more to do with the need to have feedback or not. 

fer instance:

say i'm playing with three other people (who all have loopers as well - - 
hey, it happens), maybe i set up a little loop, fade it out, do a time 
modification and then bring it back periodically as formal device (sorta 
like a recurring chord/texture, but it's the loop).

say i'm doing a duo gig with someone (or even a solo thing) and i set up 
three different loops on three separate loopers and then fade them in/out 
against each other or bring one (or more) back as part of an improvised 

say i use the dl4 function that can bring in only one cycle of loop, loop 
a small melody fragment, put it up and octave and have it go backswards, 
then pull my melody in at (hopefully) auspicious times. 

none of these really need to have a feedback control in the mix. 

>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. < 

** i think the key here is great music. i would ask why is it "important"? 
if people are making good/great music with the tools at hand, why must 
they be taught something different? (i say this in all respect, just 
interested in the philosophy here.)

>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. < 

** ah, so it's looping as discrete art form, not as means to an end. at 
least that's how i read this?

>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. < 

** something tells me that most people on this list are not going to do 
that - - one way or another we all seem to be malcontents when it comes to 
that which is "standard" . .  . 

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?  

** well, i guess that rick did in a way. he challenged the supposition 
that one *had* to have feedback ;-)


<font size="1">Confidentiality Warning:  This e-mail contains information 
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the 
reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or 
agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any 
dissemination, publication or copying of this e-mail is strictly 
prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss, 
disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may occur while 
using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail.   If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by return 
e-mail.  Thank you.