Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Support
Looper's
Delight!!

Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info
Looper's Delight
Looper Profiles
Tools of the Trade
Tips and Tricks
Musings
History of Looping
Loopography
Rec. Reading
Mailing List Info
Mailing List Archive
File Library

Support
Looper's Delight!
In Association with Amazon.com

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

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



I may be wrong but I think the Looperlative is the
only box out there that allows multiple tracks of
different lengths synced or not synced to each other.

Mark

--- Seth Elgart <selgart@earthlink.net> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


Archive Top (Search) | Thread Index | Author Index
Looper's Delight Home | Looper's Delight Mailing List Info
This page is maintained by Kim Flint
contact us
Support
Looper's
Delight!!

In Association with Amazon.com
Any purchase you make through these links gives Looper's Delight a commission to keep us going. If you are buying it anyway, why not let some of your cash go to your favorite web site? Thanks!!