------------------------------
Loopers-Delight-d Digest				Volume 97 : Issue 124

Today's Topics:
  Re: not so Ambient                    [ Kim Flint <kflint@annihilist.com> ]
  Re: LOOPING PHILOSOPHY (condensed)    [ illoyd@intrlink.com (Ian///Shakespa ]
  Re: LOOPING PHILOSOPHY                [ pycraft@elec.gla.ac.uk (Michael Pyc ]
  Echoplex Upgrade availability         [ Floyd Miller <floyd@voicenet.com> ]
  Fwd: Re: Echoplex upgrade             [ "T.W. Hartnett" <hartnett.t@apple.c ]
  enticing subjects part 1              [ Michael Peters <MPeters@compuserve. ]
  starting out                          [ Nameless to the Goddess <afn39111@a ]
  Re: LOOPING PHILOSOPHY (condensed)    [ The Man Himself <altruist@shoko.cal ]
  Re: Fwd: Re: Echoplex upgrade         [ Rick Canton <rpc@cyberportal.net> ]

Administrivia:
Looper's Delight
****************

Please send posts to:

Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com

Don't send them to the digest!

To subscribe/unsubscribe to the Loopers-Delight digest version, send email
with "subscribe" (or "unsubscribe") in both the subject and the body, with no
signature files, to:

Loopers-Delight-d-request@annihilist.com


To subscribe/unsubscribe to the real Loopers-Delight list, send email
with "subscribe" (or "unsubscribe") in both the subject and the body, with no
signature files, to:

Loopers-Delight-request@annihilist.com


Check the web page for archives and lots of other goodies!

http://www.annihilist.com/loop/loop.html


Your humble list maintainer,

Kim Flint
kflint@annihilist.com

------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 19:01:27 -0700
From: Kim Flint <kflint@annihilist.com>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: not so Ambient
Message-Id: <v03102806b00add4f6efb@[207.171.196.149]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:32 PM -0400 8/3/97, Ian///Shakespace wrote:
>>been experimenting in a rather limited fashion with putting sequence
>>pattern stuff into synced loops and delays and mucking about with
>>crossfading and feedback and such.
>too many possibilites, eh? yeah this is something i need to get more into,
>but the limited capabilitise of my mixer make it prohibitve at this point.
>oh, for the want of a 1604...

I'm just using the feedback and mix knobs on the delay. (an obie echoplex,
natch) Gets me pretty far, actually. Better mixing would certainly open the
possibilities a lot.



>I've got the delay on the aux send of my mixer, with the outs (the DD3 has
>dry and effect outs) returned on channels. Running the drum machine through
>(feedback minimised) i'll find a suitable delay setting. Usually,
>everything is running from MIDI clocked from my Mac. Anyway, sequnce
>playing. pull everything out of the delay line and get a clean path, then
>crank the feedback. using the aux faders on the individual instruments'
>channels, add little things to the delay line. Since the delay is
>complementary to the drums, everything should be kosher. Keep a finger on
>the feedback control, just in case something gets out of hand. Should I get
>something really grooving, the DD3 has a "hold" function where it'll
>infinitely loop whatever is in memory. I guess made for guitarists to solo
>over a 800ms rhythm guitar chord... whatever, i'll dump the loop into the
>ESi and keep it running there, clear out the delay line and keep building.

ah, that's interesting, I hadn't quite tried that yet. I'll add
"controlling input volume to delay" and now I've got three knobs to turn!


>um, more will come to me certainly, but i'd love to hear about some of your
>particular techniques...

Ok, here's some things I've done that seemed to work:

I usually use my old Alesis HR-16B drum machine, connected through the
delay. (with a guitar distortion pedal between them lately) Set it to some
pattern and just let it go. The wet/dry mix knob  generally acts as a sort
of crossfade for me. so,

- set the delay to something extremely short, like less than 10ms, feedback
all the way down, mix all the way wet. The drum machine should sound pretty
normal. Turn the feedback up and you get these wierd synthy-ring-modulated
percussion sounds. Basically, the delay is short enough to be an audible
frequency itself, which gives the drum samples a totally new character.
Vary the feedback knob to control the sound, sort of morphing between the
normal and synthetic sounding one. Very fun and expressive. Now vary the
delay time to change the character of the sound. On the echoplex I do this
by setting RecordMode=SUS, so I can tap very lightly and get very short
delays. I leave Overdub on all the time. Each time I tap the button I get a
slighly different delay length, changing the sound. Go nuts with the
feedback knob....

- Something like what you describe, where I use longer delays (somewhere
between  maybe a sixtenth and two beats in length) with the mix more
towards the direct sound, and feedback in the middle somewhere. Use the mix
knob to bring the delays in and out of the pattern, getting all sorts of
weird rhythms. vary feedback to change the density of the rhythms. Change
delay lengths to change the sort of rhthyms that come out. On the plex I
just leave Overdub on all the time to keep the input open. You could also
use delay mode.

- Sync the delay to clock out from the drum machine. Make a loop of the
drum machine pattern, playing them both next to each other. (sort of
interesting just like that, since inaccuracies of midi clock always give
you slight audio phase problems that can sound pretty cool) Reverse the
loop, quantized so that it is still synced to the sequencer. Now you have
the original and the reversed version playing together. By itself, that's
ok but a little muddy. With judicious, rhythmic crossfading on the Mix
knob, you can pull up reversed drum hits at regular points and get some
interesting patterns.

- On the Echoplex you can set the number of eighth notes in the pattern it
is syncing to with midi clock, by using the 8ths/beat parameter. That's so
you can sync loops to a 7/8 pattern or something. But we're just going to
abuse that! Use a totally ordinary two bar drum pattern. Set the 8ths/beat
parameter to some odd meter, like say 9, 11, 13, etc. Start the drum
machine, and record a loop of it at some point. The percussion in the loop
will be in tempo, but in a different time signature! Let the two play next
to each other and you get a constantly evolving drum pattern. Sounds like
the drum machine suddenly became very creative. Using the Mix knob to
crossfade between the two makes one time signature or the other more
dominant. time signature morphing I guess. lotsa fun.


Those are the best things I've come up with so far, just fooling around
with a pretty simple set up.

kim

______________________________________________________________________
Kim Flint                   | Looper's Delight
kflint@annihilist.com       | http://www.annihilist.com/loop/loop.html
http://www.annihilist.com/  | Loopers-Delight-request@annihilist.com

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 07:56:10 -0400
From: illoyd@intrlink.com (Ian///Shakespace)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: LOOPING PHILOSOPHY (condensed)
Message-Id: <v02140b00b00b697e91ed@[206.156.204.55]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Gonna give Kim a shot at most of this, but a few points I feel I must jump on:

>From Part 3:
>The difference is that if it's sampled, you've got a recording of somebody
>else's music.  If it's "sampled in your brain,"  then it's being filtered
>through your own sensibilities.

But the whole idea of (re)contextualising comes from how the sample is used
in another piece of music. Sure 5 guitarists will play "Black Dog" slightly
differently, and 5 techno artists will use the sample from "Black Dog" in
different ways in wildly varying styles, but the guitarist is still just
playing "Black Dog". So in a way, just as the guitarists sensibilities
affect how he plays the guitar riff, a DJ's sensibilities affect how he
uses the sample in a song or dropped into his set.

>If you're actually playing, however, the "editing process" takes place
>automatically -- and it takes place in a manner that no other human on the
>face of the earth can precisely duplicate.

I'd love to see someone, given the same bank of samples and even the same
gear as me try to duplicate what i do in the studio. Easily 75% of what i
do is live, tweaking synth filters and delays, fading bits in and out,
manually triggering samples, guitar work... the "editing process" is just
as live as if i sit down with my guitar and play the same arpeggio over and
over, slightly different each time because my hand cramps up.

>Look at the John Lennon song "Come Together."

Apples and oranges, my friend. Kim was stating that creatively there's no
difference between a sample of him and a sample of someone else, even if
they're both playing the same thing. I understand your point with the
Lennon example, and its a valid point, except it's not. Look who's
recontextualising now... :-0

>What we're talking about is the difference between quoting somebody
>else's idea, as opposed to out-and-out taking that idea and inserting it
>into a different context.

I will have to take this one up at a later date... this is a whole new
thread too...

>No, you're just five years behind the trend of all those rap producers
>who sampled "Atomic Dog" in 10,000 different hip-hop songs.  ;}

See my counter to your Zeppelin example: each of those producers used the
sample in a different way (unless you think all hip-hop sounds the same)
and created an entirely new piece of work from it. Not slighting p-funk,
but they always play it the same.

----
>From Part 4:
>I would go on to say that tape-and-razors looping is the "classical"
>precursor to MIDI-based sequencer editing.

Hmmm... try and remove one note from a sequence and one note from a tape
(and retain the loop length integrity) and then maybe you'll see why i'm
taking issue with this.

>Just look at where the term
>"cut and paste" comes from!

If you must know, the term comes from the graphic design field, and was
cross-polinated to the music world with the first digital editors.

>I agree with the first part of the sentence, though I am unconvinced that
>we are indeed all doing the same thing.

If you're looping your guitar and I'm looping your guitar, we're doing the
same thing. given, we're doing it with different tools, but the fact of the
matter is, we're both using the same technology to varying degrees to the
same ends (making music).

>I've come to the conclusion that if you want to talk about people
>who are truly involved in what's being referred to a "electronica," then
>you're dealing with more than just what sorts of beats and samples
>they're using.  It has to do with a whole lifestyle -- philosophy,
>clothing, social behavior, language, spelling, et al.

Man I really gotta say here that I _hate_ the term electronica and the way
that the media has pigeonholed anythig with a dancey beat and synths as
"electronica". Its too wide ranging I really can't see how anyone can put
the Metalheadz in the same category as Future Sound Of London... But I
digress...

>They can join the ever-growing club. 8-{  But just wait -- they're gonna
>*hate* me once they hear how I've bastardized their music...

The whole point of electronica is accepting what others do and seeing how
people change whats previously been done. Jungle was a prgression, it
didn't just appear one day. Heck, if you would have told me 3 years ago I'd
be working on stuff in the 160bpm range I would've laughed in your face!
But slowly, the electronic music "scene" (and i'm using that broad-based
word very dangerously here) has just expandced and expanded...

>I hope so.  In the meantime, I hope the last four posts or so have been
>of some food for thought.  And as always, no flames intended!

Truly they have, and I hope my (our?) responses too have been... And
obviously we're taking things too seriously if we get all bent out of shape
here.

Ugh, more to think about at work (gotta run!), and certainly more to come...

Ian///Shakespace
www.intrlink.com/~illoyd

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:55:21 +0100
From: pycraft@elec.gla.ac.uk (Michael Pycraft Hughes, PhD)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: LOOPING PHILOSOPHY 
Message-Id: <836.199708041355@rank-serv.elec.gla.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The Man said to The Moderator:
>> What difference is it really if the sample is recorded on a hard disk
>> or recorded on your brain? 
>The difference is that if it's sampled, you've got a recording of somebody
>else's music.  If it's "sampled in your brain,"  then it's being filtered
>through your own sensibilities.  

One thing I have to add here is that most people remember ideas badly. 
It's also easier to mix ideas from wildly eclectic sources without sounding
contrived when actually "playing an instrument"  (yes I know a sampler is
an instrument, don't get all PC on me here!!).   Bill Frizell is a good
example.

>If you have five different people sample the same Zeppelin riff on the
>same sampler, you're gonna get five identical samples.  If you give five
>different people the same guitar, and have them play the same Zeppelin
>riff, you're going to get five subtly (or not so subtly) different
>versions of that riff, because the riff is being filtered through the
>basic fundamental aspects of what makes each one of us a seperate and
>distinct human being. 

Now I don't think it's as profound as the fact that we're all separate and
distinct human beings.  It's more about being sloppy!  :)

If we (guitarists) all play "black dog" we're playing what we remember the
riff to sound like, played using our sloppily-learned techniques which
may/not be the same as Page's sloppy techniques.  Teach everybody to play
the same way, and....its GIT!!!  :)  

If the sampler looks at the sample as the sound source, the equivalent is
the guitarist looking at marshall&strat as a sound source.  What makes this
sound different in the hands of different players is touch (vibato etc) and
phrasing.  The problem I think many guitarists have with sampling is that
many samplers (ie people who sample) don't vary their sound source much in
these terms.  Of course, when they remix it out of all recognition people
complain that it sounds nothing like the original!

>Of course, you can take that sample and tweak it to make it sound
>different, but you can do the same thing with that riff an a guitar as
>well.  If you're sampling, you've got to deliberately go in and change it. 
>If you're actually playing, however, the "editing process" takes place
>automatically -- and it takes place in a manner that no other human on the
>face of the earth can precisely duplicate. 

The only thing that bothers me about sampling as such is that when a
musician plays a live instrument a lot of the decisions are
spur-of-the-moment.  These things are often lost in studio construction. 
However, in the studio there is the opportunity to create a more focussed
statement than might be achieved simply by improvising.  There are
arguments for both.

If it's any consolation, I have always been a mammoth Art of Noise fan. 
Now _there_ was creative sampling....

>A lot of guitarists I know (including myself) think that Tom Morello's
>solo on "Bulls On Parade," wherein he imitates the sound of a DJ
>scratching a disc by sliding his hand up and down the fretboard while
>toggling his pickup selector, was one of the hippest things to come out
>last year.  Sure sounds like a DJ scratching a record.  So why not just 
>bring in a DJ to scratch?  If you have to ask...

I have to ask.  This makes no sense to me at all.

Finally, one from pt.4:
> I've actually been using sequencers and drum machines for nine years -- that's
> longer than I've been playing guitar! 

Of course, we all knew that from your GP resume...  :)

Michael

/-------------------------------------------------------------------\
|Dr Michael Pycraft Hughes | Tel:0141 330 5979 | Fax: 0141 330 4907 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Bioelectronics, Rankine Bldg, Glasgow University, Glasgow, G12 8QQ |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  http://www.elec.gla.ac.uk/groups/bio/Electrokinetics/main.html   |
\-------------------------------------------------------------------/

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 13:04:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Floyd Miller <floyd@voicenet.com>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Echoplex Upgrade availability
Message-Id: <199708041704.NAA02508@omni1.voicenet.com>

Has anyone found out where and how to obtain the new upgrade?

(and if you have, would you share any information, please?)

Date: Mon, 4 Aug 97 12:40:45 -0000
From: "T.W. Hartnett" <hartnett.t@apple.com>
To: "Looper's Delight" <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Echoplex upgrade
Message-Id: <199708041738.KAA24294@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Here's what I got back from Oberheim in regards to the Echoplex upgrade.

Travis

***********************


Subject:     Re: Echoplex upgrade
Sent:        7/21/97 9:37 PM
Received:    7/21/97 4:44 PM
From:        Dean Fouts, dfouts@gibson.com
To:          T.W. Hartnett, hartnett.t@apple.com

Dear Mr. Hartnett,
Thank you for your e-mail inquiring about the  upgrade for the Oberheim
Echoplex Digital Pro.  To have the upgrade installed, you would need to
send a cashier's check or money order for $80 payable to Oberheim to:

GMI/Oberheim
Attention: Dean/Customer Service
1818 Elm Hill Pike
Nashville, TN  37217

Also, you will need to please e-mail me the following:

serial number
date & place of purchase
home phone number (& work if you'd like)
address from where you are shipping & return address (may be same)

Upon receipt of this information and your payment, I can issue you a 
Return
Authorization number & an address to where you may send your unit.

I hope this information is helpful to you.  I look forward to hearing from
you.  In the meantime, good luck with your musical pursuits and thanks
again for your interest in Oberheim.

Sincerely,

Dean Fouts
Oberheim Customer Service
 

At 08:53 AM 7/17/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Dean,
>
>I heard that the upgraded software for the Oberheim EDP is available.  
>How can I get it installed?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Travis Hartnett
>
>

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:34:23 -0400
From: Michael Peters <MPeters@compuserve.com>
To: "'INTERNET:Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com'" <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
Subject: enticing subjects part 1
Message-ID: <199708041434_MC2-1C50-1DD1@compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

Jim asks,

>Has anyone done any amazing pieces using nothing but cardboard boxes?

I've done it a couple of years ago in one of my rare non-guitar pieces <g>.
It wasn't cardboard boxes exclusively, but they played the solo. No
kidding! The voice was doubled by a plastic box.

I took the empty open box (without its lid), put it upside down on a very
smooth stony surface, and moved it along, pressing a little which produced
a sad, unstable sound a little bit like a muffled trumpet. For a few
seconds I could produce a stable pitch which then broke into pieces. Very
interesting! I put that into my sampler, cut off the beginning, and voila!
I had a breathtaking new solo voice. The squeaking plastic box was even
better (it made my hair stand on end). The most interesting part of the
voices was the ending with the stable pitch breaking apart into a howling
mess. 
___________
Michael Peters   
        http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mpeters
HOP - Fractals in Motion ..."the only screen saver you'll ever want"
        http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mpeters/hop.htm
Support the Warr Guitar Defense Fund
        http://home.earthlink.net/~greendog/warrfund.html

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 16:04:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nameless to the Goddess <afn39111@afn.org>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: starting out
Message-ID: <Pine.A32.3.95.970804160202.77719A-100000@freenet2.afn.org>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

So say I'm thinking about starting out with loop music and don't want to
necessarily drop a load of cash for the absolutely top of the line device,
for both reasons of simplicity and it possibly being a bad idea.  What would
you suggest?

(always looking for something to expand beyond the solo-bass pit)

DANGER: HIGHLY INEFFABLE! <*> afn39111@afn.org <*> Why am I such a dork?
The Church of Perelandra: http://www.afn.org/~afn39111
B5 (passing beyond the Rim) list: babylon5-request@gatekey.com

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 13:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: The Man Himself <altruist@shoko.calarts.edu>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: LOOPING PHILOSOPHY (condensed)
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.91.970804122647.6250A-100000@shoko.calarts.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

So much for electronica being under-represented on the list...  :)

On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Ian///Shakespace wrote:

> But the whole idea of (re)contextualising comes from how the sample is used
> in another piece of music. Sure 5 guitarists will play "Black Dog" slightly
> differently, and 5 techno artists will use the sample from "Black Dog" in
> different ways in wildly varying styles, but the guitarist is still just
> playing "Black Dog". 

And the DJ is still "just" sampling it!

> So in a way, just as the guitarists sensibilities
> affect how he plays the guitar riff, a DJ's sensibilities affect how he
> uses the sample in a song or dropped into his set.

But again, the "sensibilities" that are at work with a guitarist are an
intangible, organic, built-in thing, and they're there from the crack of
the cosmic DNA.  It's a fundamentally different sort of thing than how a
digital recording of someone else's music is being played back.

It's like the difference between a painting and a photograph.  Different
photographers will take different sorts of pictures of the same thing, but
the degree of implicit, preliminary variation and distinction just isn't
on par to what you'll get if different painters work off of the same
model. 

> I'd love to see someone, given the same bank of samples and even the same
> gear as me try to duplicate what i do in the studio. Easily 75% of what i
> do is live, tweaking synth filters and delays, fading bits in and out,
> manually triggering samples, guitar work... the "editing process" is just
> as live as if i sit down with my guitar and play the same arpeggio over and
> over, slightly different each time because my hand cramps up.

This is all very true.  I think for me the bottom line is that if you're
working with samples, even if you're tweaking and recontextualizing the
thing to the nth degree, you're still working with blocks of other
people's material, in a way that's far more overt and undiluted than if
you're translating that material through your own performance.  This is
really the crux of a lot of this thread: The difference between working
with someone else's performance as opposed to working with your own
performance.  This is ultimately a very personal issue, and for some
people there's basically no difference at all.  For myself, I know that
there's a sense of satisfaction and reward that I get from playing guitar
that I definitely *don't* get from sitting in front of a computer screen
for a few hours.  Both methods of making music are very important to me,
but if I had to choose between electronic music or guitar, the Mac would
be out the window in a heartbeat. 

> >Look at the John Lennon song "Come Together."
> 
> Apples and oranges, my friend. Kim was stating that creatively there's no
> difference between a sample of him and a sample of someone else, even if
> they're both playing the same thing. I understand your point with the
> Lennon example, and its a valid point, except it's not. Look who's
> recontextualising now... :-0

Hmmm...  well, if Kim (or whoever else) really doesn't see a difference
between those two things, I can't say he's wrong.  I personally would feel
very uncomfortable with inserting a sample of someone else's music into my
own; even the recent slew of sample CD-ROMS is non-kosher for me.  I've
heard some great things done with them (the drum tracks on the last Torn
album come to mind), but for my own part, I just can't bear the thought of
literally buying music off the shelf.  I can live with using the basic
samples that are in my sound modules, but when it comes to the actual
gestures and rhythms, I don't feel right unless I'm setting them in
motion. 

> >From Part 4:
> >I would go on to say that tape-and-razors looping is the "classical"
> >precursor to MIDI-based sequencer editing.
> 
> Hmmm... try and remove one note from a sequence and one note from a tape
> (and retain the loop length integrity) and then maybe you'll see why i'm
> taking issue with this.

I'm not saying that each format is identical to the other in terms of what
you can do.  Your observation is absolutely spot-on, but I still think
that when you drag a mouse over a section of a sequence to copy it to
another location, then there's a historical precedent for that in people
splicing reel-to-reel tapes.  It's the same with looping: you can't do the
same sort of looping with a JamMan that you can with two Revoxes, but I do
think that the former represents the evolution of an idea developed by the
latter. 

> >Just look at where the term
> >"cut and paste" comes from!
> 
> If you must know, the term comes from the graphic design field, and was
> cross-polinated to the music world with the first digital editors.

I stand corrected.  One day musicians will get out of our centuries-old 
habit of waiting for the visual arts world to come up with terminology 
that we can then rip off!

> If you're looping your guitar and I'm looping your guitar, we're doing the
> same thing. given, we're doing it with different tools, but the fact of the
> matter is, we're both using the same technology to varying degrees to the
> same ends (making music).

True, but within that general realm of similarity is contained a universe 
of different possibilities.  (This is getting a bit high on the "muso" 
scale...  maybe I'd better go watch "Contact."  8-/)

> Man I really gotta say here that I _hate_ the term electronica and the way
> that the media has pigeonholed anythig with a dancey beat and synths as
> "electronica". Its too wide ranging I really can't see how anyone can put
> the Metalheadz in the same category as Future Sound Of London... But I
> digress...

I feel a bit funny about the "electronica" tag myself, but I do think it
makes a certain amount of sense.  The first serious "rave culture" mag I
checked out was _URB_, and (coincidentally to your example above) there
were articles on both FSOL and Metalheadz in the same issue.  It's a
wide-ranging category, but I still think that you can put those two groups
in the same general territory, just as you can put Charlie Parker and
Ornette Coleman in the same area, or Chuck Berry and Eddie Van Halen.  And
in the case of electronica, I think it's a territory populated by people
who subscribe to a different philosophy than I do. 

BTW, if you've got a better suggestion as far as terminology goes, I'd 
genuinely love to hear it.

> The whole point of electronica is accepting what others do and seeing how
> people change whats previously been done. 

I don't know if everything I've seen in electronica supports your claim. 
A lot of people within that community have written off Prodigy as being
showbiz distillations of the more superficial aspects of that scene.  (And
these claims were around a long time before _Fat Of The Land_ was a hit). 
Then you've got people knocking groups like Everything But The Girl and
David Bowie for allegedly jumping on the proverbial bandwagon to try and
graft some contemporary relevance onto themselves (whether or not that's
the case is a matter I shan't attempt here).  

I must say that I see quite a bit of disagreement and dispute in *any*
artistic scene, and electronica is no exception.  That's healthy for any
artistic "scene": different ideas get tossed around, and sometimes the
different perspectives form the basis of some pretty vehement
disagreement.  That's not a bad thing, but I think your assessment of the
electronic dance culture as being inherently open to anything is
unrealistic.  If that were indeed the case, it would likely be a lot less
interesting than it is.  (Which reminds me, I've got to start looking for
loop gigs at techno clubs, if only to see the looks on people's faces when
I walk into the gig with a guitar instead of a turntable). 

> But slowly, the electronic music "scene" (and i'm using that broad-based
> word very dangerously here) has just expandced and expanded...

I read an interview with LTJ Buken where he said that he wanted his music 
to go global.  Well, when he's got former shred-head guitarists from Iowa 
programming jungle rhythms, he might well reconsider the wisdom of that 
wish...  :}

> And
> obviously we're taking things too seriously if we get all bent out of shape
> here.

I'm pretty sure we're taking them too seriously anyway!

--Andre

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 16:28:33 -0700
From: Rick Canton <rpc@cyberportal.net>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Echoplex upgrade
Message-ID: <33E665A1.3B37@cyberportal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

T.W. Hartnett wrote:
> 
> Here's what I got back from Oberheim in regards to the Echoplex upgrade.
> 
> Travis
> 
> ***********************
> 
> Subject:     Re: Echoplex upgrade
> Sent:        7/21/97 9:37 PM
> Received:    7/21/97 4:44 PM
> From:        Dean Fouts, dfouts@gibson.com
> To:          T.W. Hartnett, hartnett.t@apple.com
> 
> Dear Mr. Hartnett,
> Thank you for your e-mail inquiring about the  upgrade for the Oberheim
> Echoplex Digital Pro.  To have the upgrade installed, you would need to
> send a cashier's check or money order for $80 payable to Oberheim to:
> 
> GMI/Oberheim
> Attention: Dean/Customer Service
> 1818 Elm Hill Pike
> Nashville, TN  37217
> 
> Also, you will need to please e-mail me the following:
> 
> serial number
> date & place of purchase
> home phone number (& work if you'd like)
> address from where you are shipping & return address (may be same)
> 
> Upon receipt of this information and your payment, I can issue you a
> Return
> Authorization number & an address to where you may send your unit.
> 
> I hope this information is helpful to you.  I look forward to hearing from
> you.  In the meantime, good luck with your musical pursuits and thanks
> again for your interest in Oberheim.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Dean Fouts
> Oberheim Customer Service
> 
> 
> At 08:53 AM 7/17/97 -0500, you wrote:
> >Dean,
> >
> >I heard that the upgraded software for the Oberheim EDP is available.
> >How can I get it installed?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Travis Hartnett
> >
> >




so does this mean that the upgrad is not user installable? also , is 
there any way to fix one part of an led that isn`t working?...in the # on 
the far right where the time counts while making a loop , part of that # 
doesn`t light....anyone?
thanks in advance ,
rick

--------------------------------