Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Im with you Rick,i love hypnotic grooves,(maybe thats what i liked so much about Led Zeppelin) what i m personally shooting for however is a static groove that slowly builds up and gets intense as the loops also evolve.For example a groove that starts with no hi hats or cymbals and slowly starts buliding up with other layered sounds in a very subtle way. But also what really atracted me from the Stylus RMX more than randomization is the tiem designer feature change of time signatures and variations from audio loop grooves. Even cooler is the realtime "simplify" function! Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR109PRx46w i wonder how this would work with static 4/4 loops from the EDP,perhaps using the Stylus as master...wow! but too bad as Per mentioned that is probably too CPU heavy;-( Luis On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Rick Walker <looppool@cruzio.com> wrote: > On 7/22/64 11:59 AM, Per Boysen wrote: >> >> Not really, since RMX's random variation system - called "Chaos" - is >> hard to beat. > > Hi, as a life long rhythmatist, drummer and percussionist, I feel > compelled to weigh in on > this discussion. Please forgive me as it's just my opinion; just my > personal aesthetic here, but here goes: > > I can't stand drum machine programs that have random variations in them. > To me, > they do not feel realistic in the slightest because they are not how > drummers really think. > > Not always, but a lot of times, what people desire in a real flesh and >blood > drummer is someone who is > committed to grooving, able to perform very consistently and who will >move > the groove > at appropriate times. I tell my drum students (and I reveal myself >as a > formalist) that > in pop situations, that one usually doesn't want to fill except at a >minimum > ratio of > 1 - 16. Drummers who are forever morphing their beats get fired a >lot > or at least tend not > to get hired. The reason for this and one of the reasons why we can use > static loops in lots of different > musics, is that it creates a trance to play the same thing over and over > with a modicum of > technique and then we , deliciously, break that trance, causing tension, >in > order to return to the > groove which causes rhythmic pleasure. > > The reason grooves that have randomization built into them tend not to > emulate this quality of a > really good grooving drummer. > It's funny, and I'll probably get myself into hot water here, but I find >it > is usually keyboardists, guitarists > and single line players who favor programs like these and Not > drummers/percussionists and bass players > (the people who, traditionally are assigned the task of holding down the > 'bottom' of a good grooving band) > and to me it always sounds unrealistic to me when I hear then used live. > > Randomness, or the constraint, thereof can be used effectively in > programming. I do it all the time in my own > drum machine programming, but I think it should be used subtley (a good > example is putting a fair amount of > attention to your hi hat patterns, as opposed to your filling patterns). > > My advice to people is to use the static quality of drum machines to your > advantage: take the time to study > a really good groove drummer on a couple of records you really enjoy and >see > if you can program a 'song' > along the lines that this particular drummer uses (how frequently does > he/she fill?; do the fills have anything > to do with the rhythmic structure of the song?; do the fills have any > rhythmic relationship to each other?). > > Another cool thing about human beings and patterning is that if we put >30% > 'Real' into a program most people > will read it as real. In other words, you can take the same kick and > snare pattern and use it identically, but > program 6-10 hi hat patterns that have very small changes in their > programming. For example, use > 16th notes and program the slightest changes into volume, cutoff >frequency > and timing (if your machine will allow > such subtley) and then mix and match these patterns with the 'groove' of >the > kick and snare (and toms?) that is > static. It will 'read' better. > > Another cool trick is to take the linear rhythm of your groove and then > program a fill that plays that rhythm exactly, but changes > the instruments that you use normally to play it........say toms for >kicks > or snares........These 'groove' fills > will propel the song along and you'd be surprised at how different they >will > sound or feel while still, well, grooving! > > Of course, there are lots of musics that are not intended to > 'groove'............jazzy, etc. > But I think even in those forms, the great drummers had a since of form >all > the time and were not just > randomly changing what they play, any more than a great melodic soloist > randomly changes what they play. > > Music is about listening and responding.........or about creating >something > and then , after the fact, responding > with other parts (we are loopers, after all so we are responding to > ourselves). > Why shouldn't drum parts have the same kind of interactive quality, or at > least emulate it the best we can > when we are forced to use pre programmed patterns. > > My two cents. > > rick walker > >