Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Yeah, you're right, the EDP hardware should never change, it should stay exactly like it is forever.... Hah ha ha hah ha ha ha! You fools! Soon a new generation of loopage will appear aided by a machine called The Repeater. It will transcend your tiny ideas of what a looper should be. Ha ha hahh ahhah aha ha, we will rule the world! YOU FOOLS! I dare anyone to find a piece of software for a Wintel or Mac OS box that will do what the Repeater does in REAL TIME (as in suitable for a performance) (software that needs additional hardware cards to run need not apply) Granted, the EDP is a very mature product, however it's really been without any real competition for a very long time. Me thinks that has changed. If anyone here really believes that these two products aren't in direct competition with each other, you're asleep. There are those among us that can and will buy one of each flavor, but I believe the vast majority of non professional musicians will be forced to make a choice, as I was. The two big features that pushed me over to the Repeater side were non volatile memory (not to mention significantly higher memory capability) and stereo loop capability. I'm VERY glad I held out. Mark Sottilaro On Sunday, September 30, 2001, at 05:43 PM, KILLINFO@aol.com wrote: > Kim, > > In a message dated 9/30/01 1:34:23 PM, kflint@loopers-delight.com > writes: > >> If having a lot of static loops stored that you can trigger at will is >> what >> you want to do, perhaps it is a sampler you want. Or if being able to >> save >> a lot of stuff so you can carefully edit it into a recorded >> composition is >> what you want to do, perhaps a pc based recording studio is what you >> want... >> ... If playing and creating loops live and improvisationally is what >> you > want >> to do, a performance looper is probably what you want. Don't expect to >> find one tool that does all of these things well, because you won't. > > I have to say amen to this. All of these things are (at their conceptual > cores) very different devices. They may seem superficially alike in many > ways but at a much deeper level they are not the same at all. > > I do all of the types of things described above in my own music. The > improvising musician (guitar geek) part of me needs the EDPs as > "spontaneous > performance loopers" -- for the very reasons Kim outlines. The somewhat > "more deliberate" composer/sound designer part of me needs the PC > (well actually a Mac in my case) for my more anal-retentive sound/loop/ > composition/editing/tweeking needs. And, thirdly, I frequently employ > various sorts of samplers to play all manner of other odd bits of > pre-recorded (often computer-mangeled) stuff that would be either > too hard to reproduce live by any number of real human beings, or loops > that are deliberately so dirt simple and static that no human would > be interested in playing them (there's a time and a place for > everything). > > I'm not the most advanced loop-person around but over the course > of a couple of decades at it I have found Kim's assertions to be qiuite > true and born out by experience. > > Ted >