Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
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