Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
<smile> -just my opinion of course, but I think there's alot more going on in the original post than a discussion of feedback. -but, lol! since we're on the subject of feedback and the DL-4 in particular, the CD I recently did contains mostly older material which was completely done on a DL-4 which evolves as any other fadable looper might allow for. part of this comes from me, always adding new material along with the loop almost constantly. -aside from soloing and such. I agree that the lack of feedback control is a hinderence, and to me at least, a big annoyance, but it still works wonderfully in my opinion. <smile> I love the little thing!!! lol! Anyway, I wish I could upload the two pieces I'm talking about somewhere, but alas, until I come up with more webspace I cannot. <smile> -You'll just have to trust me I guess. lol! Anyway, just my thoughts, and have a wonderful day!... Smiles, CQ At 03:02 PM 8/17/02 +0200, you wrote: >Of course you are totally right Rick! >Since we can do great music without any loop tool, we certainly can >with one that has no FB control! >Besides, I was not quite so much referring to the estetics of the >result but the experience of creating the music. Often music comes >with music. You call a spirtit with a tune and it tells you how >another tune goes. >When you introduce a new soloist on stage, the other musicians step >back a little... > >I could have said: The most important feature to a LOOP tool after a >tap tempo recording function and some way to overdubb is a >controllable FeedBack. >But this would have been just an opinion, too, as Andre explains he >uses other functions to evolve... > >Another point of view: We spend about 1/4 of the processor power with >the multiplication and filter that provides smooth Feedback >control... so my mother would say: Since you spent $150 on that >feature, you gotta use it! LOL! > >But in my heart, yes, I think we really need to learn to live with >conscious fading. Its a mission, yes. It has to do with cleaning out, >not becoming attached, possesive... >Sure I want to be tolerant with the ones that dont agree, but I hate >revolutions and to avoid them, we have to be able to let older things >fade in peace to make space for all the new things to happen. If we >cut the old, the new has no base and is more likely to come out wrong. >You could compare the DL4 to the Bible :-) : Fill it until its thick >and then let it run without change until you trash it all together >(possibly with a war...) > >As stig sais, you can do it with output volume fading, too. But then >it leads to the use of several loopers or tracks... a much bigger >technical and operational effort for some more flexibility - a little >less organic, maybe...? >A good point actually: The FB makes that all old stuff fade at the >same rate, which is not the ideal, if we think of history in general. >Some currents (movements, ideas, chapters...) have to fade quicker >than others... so this may be easier to simbolize with a looper for >each current... we will get to that technology without covering the >whole stage with DL4s ;-) > >And he also questioned: >***if people are making good/great music with the tools at hand, why >must they be taught something different? > >I guess that those who are perfectly happy with their great music are >not on that list. >-- > > > ---> http://Matthias.Grob.org > > --- "The only things I really think are important, are love, and eachother. -Then, anything is possible..." http://home.earthlink.net/~thefates Please visit The Guitar Cafe. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the-guitar-cafe