Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
To me, "looping" is based on creating a sound bed (often of loops with the same start & stop point), soloing over it for a while, adding to the sound bed, soloing more, etc. "real-time sampling" is more interactive - the musician is manipulating the samples just as much (if not more than) his instrument. He feeds sounds into his devices, than manipulates the devices. About half of the "real-time samplers" I know (Scott Looney, Bob Boster, Thomas Dimuzio on occasion, Lance Grabmiller) don't even use a real instrument while playing. They sample the other musicians on stage and spit that out processed versions. Obviously there's a lot of grey area. There's a Scott Looney mp3 on this page: http://www.edgetonerecords.com/catalog/4016.html >Gary Lehmann at hqr@cox.net done wrote: >Then how about "Real time Sampling" as a name for looping? >Just trying to cause trouble . . . >Then Mark Hamburg gone and said >See my earlier message in which I attempted to make a distinction between >"Real Time Sampling" and "Live Looping" from a listening experience >standpoint. Both are done live. Both benefit from the rhythmic precision >of >good looping equipment. It mostly becomes a matter of what the musician >does >with it afterward and whether the loopy nature of the sample matters. >I also noted in that message that there is a continuum and the distinction >has to do with stylistic centers of gravity rather than hard boundaries. >In >my categorization, Rick Walker floats around the live looping center of >gravity. John Whooley floats around the real time sampling center of >gravity. Mark _________________________________________________________________ Lose those love handles! MSN Fitness shows you two moves to slim your waist. http://fitness.msn.com/articles/feeds/article.aspx?dept=exercise&article=et_pv_030104_lovehandles