Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Sorry about responding to this so late, I've been busy this week and
haven't
been keeping up with the list.
On 1/29/06 12:26 PM, "Kim Flint" <kflint@loopers-delight.com> wrote:
> At 10:42 AM 1/29/2006, Kevin Goldsmith wrote:
>> I think it all comes back to a matter of style. I personally would have
>no
>> problem filling 16 loops of 10 minutes of length each and using them
>all in
>> performance (although probably not more than a few at the same time.
>
> uh, please walk me through this, cause I'm just not seeing how this could
> possibly make a viable performance. You have one piece of music using 16
> loops, 10 minutes each. So just the time to record the audio into all of
> these loops will take you 160 minutes. And we are all watching you while
> you record them. In order for the audience to get the impression that
>these
> are loops (assuming that is even possible with a 10 minute loop), the
>loop
> needs to repeat at least twice. So now you are talking about an
>additional
> 320 minutes, for a total of 480 minutes for one song? 8 hours? Or even if
> you have some of the loops repeating in parallel, you are still talking
>at
> least 3-4 hours for one musical piece.
>
Why would it be necessary for an audience to know you are looping? We're
talking an idea environment, right? So, I would expected to be able to
record more than one loop simultaneously. But having a piece go around two
hours is within the realm of some of the gigs I've done.
> Do you really create music like that? Do you actually find audiences with
> the patience to sit through it? I can't even imagine this, unless it is
>one
> of those performance art torture/endurance experiments people like to do
>in
> art school.
>
Wow, would've expected something more open-minded from you Kim, but yeah I
do.
>> I have
>> hit barriers with every piece of loop hardware I have ever used and
>after
>> trying to get around it by combining them in multiple ways, I'm just
>using
>> software now and that seems to work for me.
>
> what does that have to do with loop time and how you use it?
>
It's not a function of loop-time only. This was a general discussion of
looping capabilities.
Kevin