] [Thread Prev
Re: MORE LOOPS?
At 3:15 PM -0700 6/13/07, RICK WALKER wrote:
>So, my long winded point is that there is a distinct danger using
>to play TOO MANY LOOPS at the same time. Why am I
>shouting.............................I DON'T KNOW WHY!!!!!
Just playing a bit of devil's advocate here. I'd definitely agree
that having the ability to record so many loops does tend to allow
people to compose cluttered arrangements. However, there is a
technique that this -- having many available loops, that is -- opens
up very well.
Rainer touched upon applying classical orchestration to your looping.
Look at the way many composers (Mozart; Ravel's Bolero; heck, even
Ennio Morricone) pass parts between different instruments, often
playing with the way orchestral instruments combine with each other,
doubling each other's parts and passing the lines from instrument to
So, you could lay down a part with a flute line. Next, double that
line with a clarinet. Third pass, eliminate the flute, but double
the remaining clarinet with an oboe. Next pass, oboe and bassoon;
then bassoon and, say, french horn; then french horn and flute again,
only in harmony a fifth below, etc., etc., etc....
While you could do the above with only two loops and overdubs/undos,
it sure is a lot easier to do it with multiple loops, especially if
you're revisiting parts.
Of course, it goes without saying that just because you've recorded 8
separate loops doesn't mean you have to play them all together (or,
well, you could: if you're going for a really massive line, or an
overall jumbled texture).
I guess that the bottom line is that there really are no rules (not
even this one). Just know what you're doing and, more importantly,
WHY you're doing it. That way, you'll be driving your gear, rather
than letting it drive you.
"I want to keep you alive so there is always the possibility of