Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Interesting... I found myself unexpectedly shocked by this seemingly innocuous point of view. Technically, I understand just using cycle-record within a DAW as the simple way to do things of course. (Lord knows my life would have been easier these last few years and I would have made more music for sure.) And yet, the idea of using that method as the only or main method is---well, so uncompelling as to be a shock to imagine. Sure, it works in a pinch, but what of that feeling that comes from the juggling act / immediacy-of-conversation-with-the-muse where one note suggests the next as if you're thinking it but it's out-loud in real time? There's a time for each style but they are not the same. Cycle record is to limited to loose one's self in the moment and take it to unexpected places. l guess I see recording as enhancing what one does live but not replacing it. That "live" process itself is the goal for me, regardless of the presence of an audience. In fact, in many ways the audience just gets in the way. Don't listen to me though, I've hardly created anything new since I started trying to do everything in the box and that's not fulfilling either. ---Christopher On Sep 17, 2011, at 12:08 PM, Boris Plotnikov wrote: > Mike! Why do you need looper for home recording? You can just record > sample to DAW and loop it. It'll be faster and easier. IMHO whole > greatnes of livelooping is that it's actually live. For home you can > make much better arrangement than using loops (using different chord > progressions, drums, VSTi etc.). > > 2011/9/17 Mike Fugazzi <mikefugazzi@gmail.com>: >> Just thought of this....any good loopers for live performance that have >> good >> compatability with home recording? Right now I am looking live use >> first, >> but would like something easy to use with aninterface and daw for demo >> recording. Thanks. >> >> Sent from my phone, >> >> Mike > > > > -- > Thanks, Boris Plotnikov >