Re: Adding effects to a loop (was Re: Electrix/IVL petition)

["krumsite" <krumsite@hvc.rr.com>]

i gotcha and I agree

chris lane`-memory boxing
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart Wyatt" <stuart@solostring.com>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Adding effects to a loop (was Re: Electrix/IVL petition)


> On Friday, July 5, 2002, at 05:57 PM, Mark Sottilaro wrote:
>
> > Not trying to knock your philosophy,
>
> I was not trying to knock anyone else's philosophy either :) , just
> trying to explain how my head works (at least for the moment).
>
> > but you say, "I dont believe in adding effects to pre-recorded loops,
> > or altering them in any way afterwards..."  Well, in a sense, aren't
> > all loops pre-recorded?
>
> Er... I should type slower, and think more when I write.... I see
> ambiguity in what I wrote... :(
>
> > Or do you, like myself, draw a line between loops that you're making
> > during a performance (not pre recorded) and loops made prior to the
> > performance?
>
> I draw the line at using anything pre-recorded. Everything that I use
> loop wise is recorded live during the performance.
>
> >  Here's why I ask.  Adding effects via the Repeater's simple, yet
> > brilliant, effects loop will alter your loop without changing what you
> > played.  Because you're improvising what you're putting into the loop
> > (I believe you said you were in a previous post, correct me if I'm
> > wrong), you've got no choice but to be influenced to play somewhat
> > differently based on what you already hear in the loop, which is *not
> > exactly what you played*.  Then you take off the effect, and now you've
> > got a loop that was created with a set of variables that is no longer
> > there.  So you keep adding, based on that.
>
> I understand what you are trying to say. For me, just using my electric
> violin with a clean sound, and one looping device (DL4) gives me an
> almost infinite amount of options when I come to 'paint' on the looping
> canvas. I've tried adding effects, playing around with the sounds after
> they are recorded etc. etc., but it just does not feel right. It overly
> complicates something that is so purely simple... maybe pollutes is the
> correct word... I dont know. Maybe a parallel can be drawn with Django
> Rheinhardt (not sic - cant be bothered to look it up) - he was able to
> produce amazing things on the guitar using just two fingers and a thumb
> that people with 5 fingers cannot play. By keeping it simple in my setup
> and rules, it allows me a greater freedom than if I had rack after rack
> of synchronised effects units....
>
> Am I making sense?
>
> >
> > It's just an interesting and fun way to work with live loops, IMO.
> > That added little chaos is a nice element, especially when looping
> > alone.
>
> True. I've heard what other loopers on this list do with their music,
> and it works for them.... sadly, it just does not work for me.
>
> Gotta go... I have my first night tonight playing with an
> improvisational theatre group... and I've just realised I'm cutting it
> fine if I'm going to get there on time.
>
> Later ;)
>
> >
> --
> Stuart Wyatt - Solo String Project
> http://www.solostring.com
> stuart@solostring.com
>
>