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

Andre Sez . . . (was: Re: evangelize EDP please--shouldn't that be rhapsodize?)

If you want an example of how the EDP is a deeper tool than the Repeater,
listen to Andre LaFosse
Here's a quote:

"By throwing a semi-haphazard series of musical events at the EDP, and by
using various EDP functions to further randomize and tweak those events, it
becomes a very different sort of process for me: less a case of dealing 
static repetitions of an idea I've already played, and more of a dialogue
with a seperate musical entity.

Hearing an initial idea re-contextualized in such a manner is a very
liberating thing, because one of the fundamental challenges of any
composition or improvisation is, "Where do I start? Out of all of the
possible that could happen right now, what should I do?" Having the EDP 
an unexpected slab of sound back at me is a very immediate and inspiring 
of answering that question: "HERE'S where I can start. And here are some
possibilities that I never would have thought to play (or been able to play
in the first place!) if I hadn't stomped on the Insert button a few dozen
times, or flipped the loop into Half Speed, or semi-randomly hit Remultiply
and SUS-Insert..."

Microscopic subtleties of rhythm, timing, and texture which would be
invisible on first glance can become themes and motifs. Multiple fragments
of "random" sounds become compositional sections which can be expanded,
developed, and juxtaposed in relation to one another. Quantization settings
can take haphazard events and impose an unexpected structure onto them. For
me, once some raw musical material has been reflected back in such a 
fractured) manner, it can be much easier to decide what to do with it all 
the first place.

It might be argued that approaching an entire performance as a series of
improvisations is a hazardous proposition. Fair enough... but it also seems
to me that the strength of a performance can rise or fall on the basis of
countless variables that come into play. It's entirely possible to present 
set of entirely pre-composed material, executed proficiently, and still 
wildly varying results from one performance to the next, for both the
audience and the performer.

For myself and my own music making, improvisational looping seems to 
the fundamental chance, uncertainty, and spontenaity at the root of ALL
musical performance, to find ways of working WITH it, rather than 
against it. "

***I have to say that the delay of the dry signal on the Repeater turned me
off but that it has a very clear sound and that if you already have one,
it's not a bad thing to just invest your time in that--time is very useful
in this regard--but the EDP rules and Andre demonstrates that handily on 

Gary Lehmann

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Greenstein [mailto:paul@ubiq.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 7:46 AM
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
Subject: Re: evangelize EDP please

OK, I get the picture, but I'm trying to clarify what the EDP does that
the Repeater doesn't...


On Wednesday, October 29, 2003, at 02:53  pm, Claude Voit wrote:

> I have 3
> Claude
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Greenstein" <paul@ubiq.co.uk>
> To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 1:18 PM
> Subject: evangelize EDP please
>> Assuming that some people are using both the EDP and Repeater, can
>> someone evangelize a bit about the EDP for me? - or maybe make a few
>> comparisons...
>> I'm tempted to buy an EDP (if I can find one), but as I already use
>> the
>> Repeater, I'm having difficulty justifying it as opposed to buying a
>> new guitar or whatever...
>> Paul