Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

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

Re: Hardware Loopers--Tools or Collector's items?



Art Simon wrote:
 
> I realize now that my post came off a bit as a troll, 
> and I wish I had been more articulate.

No, you don't (and didn't) come across that way at all to me.  I don't
think any of your points are "wrong," and I don't think there's anything
wrong with using software instead of hardware if a person wants to.

What I think is important, though, is to really understand what these
differences are, and what you're gaining - or losing - in both musical
and practical terms by choosing one over the other.  That's what's worth
talking about.

> I've been thinking about this a lot, and I still think 
> hardware loopers may be on the way out.
 
Indeed, they "may" be on the way out, depending on how you describe
being "in" or "out."  Vinyl records are "out" by a lot of people's
definition, but some labels still press new vinyl, some companies still
manufacture turntables and cartidges, some listeners still spend a
lot of money for records and players, and some DJ's insist on spinning
vinyl because they can't do what they need to with digital files or
CD's. 

Analog tape is "out" for some people, in the sense that digital is much
more prevalent, much more affordable, much easier to maintain, and much
more powerful in terms of what can be done with a signal once it's been
recorded.  Yet a lot of people still maintain that there's a quality and
character to good analog gear that simply can't be replaced or emulated
entirely.  And therefore people still manufacture and use tape as a
medium and approach for recording music.  Some people even embrace the
limitations that the medium imposes, as a way of allowing it to sculpt
other aspects of the creative process in ways that inspire them.

> I'd really be surprised to see any new developments in hardware loopers.

A few years ago, a lot of people scoffed at the idea of the Echoplex
being able to add anything significantly new or improved with a
software-only upgrade to a fixed hardware design.  Bob Sellon has snuck
some really cool (and rather unique) features into his series of
aftermarket JamMan upgrades.  Surprises and new developments thankfully
go hand-in-hand a lot of the time.

But maybe even more importantly, before we start wishing for "new
features in hardware," I for one think it would be a very good idea to
come to terms with the features that are already there - and have been
there for years, in some cases.

I think of it kind of like guitars: there are new and innovative
instruments being made every year, with all sorts of cool new features
and design angles.  But at the same time, people still play, and
purchase, Stratocasters and Telecasters - instruments that have had more
or less fixed designs for decades.  In fact, if you go into a mainstream
guitar store like Guitar Center or Sam Ash, those two instruments are by
far the most popular choices available.

People still keep coming back because the instrument has a particular
depth and direction to it, and people will still pay at least as much
for a good Strat and a Twin combo amp as they will for a Line6 modelling
guitar or amp, even though the digital breed has "more" sounds and
"more" features available to it.

How many years has it taken for the EDP's feature set to start being
fully understood and appreciated on a fairly widespread level?  What new
music can we look forward to as more people start coming to grips with
what it offers, and find ways of using those avenues in their work?  A
"fixed system," whether it's a guitar or a hardware looper or whatever,
isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Especially if it's a deep enough thing
to allow a person to keep finding ways of inspiring themselves to make 
music.

When I listen to recordings of Terry Riley from 1968, or Jaco Pastorious
from 1986, or David Torn from 1987, or Paul Dresher from 1988, or Robert
Fripp from 1994, I hear a depth and a flexibility and a MUSICALITY that
comes from learning and understanding one's instrument - dealing with
what's available to them there and now, and working within the available
limitations - just like any instrumentalist does when they learn how to 
play.

Hearing some of Terry's stuff from the '60s recently was a revelation
for me: it was strictly a reel-to-reel tape loop setup, recorded about
35 years ago.  And the depth and variation he had going makes nearly all
of the "modern," "new," "sophisticated" looping I've heard recently
sound hopelessly stiff and primitive and undeveloped by comparison.

> On the other hand, software loopers seem to be growing 
> both in number and capability.  If people haven't checked 
> out Elottronix XL, they really should. It's developer describes 
> it as a Frippertronics emulation:
> http://www.uv.es/~ruizcan/p_vst.htm

It looks like a really cool plug-in, for sure - if I had a PC I'd play
around with it.  But it's explicitly coming from the long delay
paradigm, and has a very different design angle (and, pound for pound, a
much, much smaller feature set) than something like an EDP.  

It's kind of like the guitar analogy: Line6 might have a fantastic Les
Paul emulation on a six-string fixed bridge 22-fret modelling guitar,
but if I need a seven-string with 24 frets and a whammy bar then that
isn't going to help me a whole lot.

> If we froze the current feature set of the software loopers, 
> then hardware loopers are clearly superior. 

Well here again, the issue of what's better or worse is completely
dependent on a person's musical needs.  If somebody wants twin
long-delay lines with independent syncable LFOs and pans, then the Fripp
emulation might be a "superior" choice for them.  On the other hand, if
I use that sort of thing, I'm going to feel like I'm going backwards
about six or seven years, because it hardly does what I need a looper to
do for me.

> Hardware loopers can also wear out, break and get stolen; 

As can laptop computers!  (And their interfaces.)

> serious considerations as they become increasingly expensive to replace.

True, although this sort of thing is applicable to a lot of physical
musical instruments in general.  A high-end instrument or component will
often cost a lot to replace, and the same model may not be available
anymore if and when that happens.  

Here again, though, at the end of it all, these issues are kind of
skirting around what I feel the crux of the matter is.  And that is:
what do you want to do?  

What kind of musical statement are you trying to make?  How dependant is
it on the features that are available in any particular piece of
hardware or software?  Are you the kind of person who likes to construct
their tools and environments, and tailor things specifically to their
existing vision?  Or do you like to be presented with a tool someone
else has spent time thinking about and designing, and then focus
strictly on making music with that tool by exploring the "finite"
possibilities therein?

The bottom line for me personally is that there's absolutely no
competition in the software world for what I want to be able to do.  If
and when one happens to materialize, I'll check it out.  In the
meantime, I've got a lot more music to make, and a lot more to learn
about how to use the tools I already have.

--Andre LaFosse
http://www.altruistmusic.com