Re: Directness in Simplicity

[andy butler <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>]

Not sure what I'm saying here is any way relevant to Rick's point,
but I thought it was interesting anyway.

Rick Walker wrote:( in context of simplicity in looping)
> With the exception of ambient music where lots of smeary layers are a 
> plus,   I think that a lot of
> loopers forget that everyone in a sextet has to play commensurately less 
> and simpler parts
> to make an arrangement really powerful than in a duo or trio.

> It, of course, is not the only way to go,

...yup, there's a tangential direction to follow

The assumption here seems to be that "more loops" means
"more loops running at the same time".

...but more loops also means the ability to change direction
within a piece by using them in series.

(and some kind of Redo allows re-capitulation, often desireable.
....achievable in the top line hardware/software by muting
the original loop while either new material is introduced, or
while the original loop is being varied/mangled)


While numerous artists have demonstrated that using just one groove
per piece of music can work very well I don't see that live looping
is going anywhere new and exciting as long as that is accepted as a 
restriction.

In UK singles chart music, not usually considered a benchmark of future 
trends,
it's now common to hear rhythmic changes, and even tempo changes within a 
song.
(that "same all the way through" sound is somewhat stuck in that last 20 
years
of the previous century if I'm not mistaken)

The commonest objection from the public against live looping is "once it's 
started it can't change",
...and nowadays they are becoming accustomed to changes.


andy