Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
While I have no philosphoical arguments with the use of “canned loops”, there are some issues to address: When I first started doing live, solo looping shows I relied heavily on the use of drum machines and fx processing (sometimes 3 drum machines simultaneously!). As someone already pointed out, the use of a drum machine does constitutes the use of “canned” loops. I used these to help provide some textural/rhythmic diversity to the performance. While I felt this was all well and good, and certainly enjoyed the challenge of programming complex and coordinating sequences, one thing I did notice was the audience’s apparent apathy with the use of pre-recorded sequences. As Rick stated, there are audiences who have come to expect the use of prerecorded tracks, and their added complexity, in a performance. They seem to have no problem with the use/hearing of them. I wonder if these audiences are somewhat “regional” (i.e. urban)? Or, if this is generally found to be accepted when the performance is vocal-oriented (and thus offering the most “human” of sounds for which the audience to relate to, offsetting the automated quality of “canned” tracks)? What I have found is that regardless of the use of live lops, canned loops, or sequencers in a performance, most audiences care very little about the hardware used, but rather about the nature of the performance and its level of entertainment. Yet, my own experience has shown that a great number of audience members at my shows have been quite put off, even alienated, by the use of sequencers/drum machines. In my performances, an audience which was largely enthralled, or at least captivated, by a solo bass looping piece, would immediately find something else to hold their interest the moment the drum machines kicked on. It would seem that most can accept, even if they don’t understand, a looping device being used when they can “see” the original passage played then looped back, yet, the sudden addition of textural, harmonic, rhythmic, melodic, or even timbral complexities, which far exceed the bounds of a “single” musician, confounds them; leaving them feeling a bit “cheated” by the loss of a live performance. I also found that rather than just kick starting a drum pattern, if I were to physically tap out the part on my little machine the audience became rather fascinated with the whole process. It seems there is a definite relationship between the visual and auditory stimuli that an audience receives. This led me to my current set-up where I tap out rhythm/drum patterns on my bass using string muting, body thumps, alligator clips etc. creating drum-like cadences and phrases which are then looped. Sure, it is timbrally different than “true” drum sounds, but the overall effect is the same, and this process seems to capture the audience’s attention, and imagination, much better. I think a similar situation arises with complex fx/signal chains where so much sonic information is passed onto an audience that they cannot fathom how it is all produced by one, two, or three musicians. Without understanding they they simply assume much of it to be canned, and again that feeling of being “cheated” of a live performance surfaces. Max _________________________________________________________________ Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus