------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain Loopers-Delight-d Digest Volume 97 : Issue 8 Today's Topics: Re: The Memory Man is back [ Chris Chovit ] the great Beyond..... [ sarajanes@mdcs.com (Sarajanes) ] the great Beyond..... [ sarajanes@mdcs.com (Sarajanes) ] Re: The Memory Man is back [ neato@pipeline.com ] beyond:what, or whom? re-sent: fault [ Texture444@aol.com ] RE: beyond:what, or whom? [ Michael Peters <100041.247@compuser ] Re: beyond:what, or whom? re-sent: f [ Dpcoffin@aol.com ] Re: beyond:what, or whom? [ Michael Preston To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: The Memory Man is back Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Andre wrote: >I'm not overly familiar with the Electro Harmonix Memory Man pedal, but I >understand it to be similar to an Echoplex (the original stuff, not the >Oberheim bit) in design and function, with added pitch-modulation >features. Apparently the thing has been reissued, with a price of (I >*think*) about $200, and is in stores as we speak. (Er, type). > I have an old Memory-Man...I'm not familiar with the original Echoplex, so I can't comment on the comparison, but the Memory-Man is a pretty warm sounding delay, with a max delay time of about a half second. It sounds great when you tweak the delay time while playing -- you get a real smooth pitch shift. Also the chorus mode sounds really rich, and has a stereo output which sounds great. The reissue is the Memory Man Deluxe (5 knobs, instead of 3), which also has vibrato. As a side note, I am selling my Memory-Man if anyone is interested (for $125). I really like the effect, but there is a slight coloration of the sound, even in bypass mode (it doesn't use a true bypass switch). If anyone is interested, drop me a note. On this note, is anyone familiar with an analog delay which is full-bandwidth and has a true bypass switch? - Chris _____________________________________________________ Chris Chovit cho@gomez.jpl.nasa.gov AVIRIS Experiment Coordinator ph: (818) 354-8077 JPL M/S 306-336 FAX: (818) 393-4406 4800 Oak Grove Dr. pager #: (800) 759-8255 PIN 834-3869 Pasadena, CA 91109 _____________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:44:52 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Michael To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: The Memory Man is back Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, The Man Himself wrote: > I'm not overly familiar with the Electro Harmonix Memory Man pedal, but I > understand it to be similar to an Echoplex (the original stuff, not the > Oberheim bit) in design and function, with added pitch-modulation > features. Apparently the thing has been reissued, with a price of (I > *think*) about $200, and is in stores as we speak. (Er, type). > > --Andre Hello, Are you talking about the Electro Harmonix 16 second delay pedal? I've never heard of the memory man. How long is the max delay time? If it is the 16 second delay pedal $200 is a great price. I have been using one (on loan) and have had very good results with creating loops. I also have the manual to 16 second delay, when I have time I'll copy it and sent it to the Looper's Delight page. Doug Michael ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:42:49 GMT From: sarajanes@mdcs.com (Sarajanes) To: loopers-delight@annihilist.com Subject: the great Beyond..... Message-Id: <853522969@mdcs.com> Greetings oh looped ones, The implied notion in several of the recent posts on the "beynd Fripp" subject, is that somehow his body of work is progressing in a errant fashion or that he has an unjustly high level of stylistic influence on the "unlurked" who populate this group. Unfortunately for me this sounds all to much like what I call "Battle of the Bands" mindset. The notion that anyone's work in this medium has any more viability than anothers is rampant bullshit, the likes of which does nothing to promote either the genre as a whole or our individual musical endevours. Besides which it should be obvious that Fripp draws these remarks as a direct result of his achieving a greater degree of critical and (relative) market success than most if not all of the other players working with this technology. John Tesh could take up looping... that would certainly require a major widening of the mental corridors that seem a tad constricted to this looper(especially if he met with rabid success and was heralded as the "true innovator" of this medium) ears reached does not equate with minds entered. Very Sincerely, Bryan Helm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:42:49 GMT From: sarajanes@mdcs.com (Sarajanes) To: loopers-delight@annihilist.com Subject: the great Beyond..... Message-Id: <853527597@mdcs.com> Greetings oh looped ones, The implied notion in several of the recent posts on the "beynd Fripp" subject, is that somehow his body of work is progressing in a errant fashion or that he has an unjustly high level of stylistic influence on the "unlurked" who populate this group. Unfortunately for me this sounds all to much like what I call "Battle of the Bands" mindset. The notion that anyone's work in this medium has any more viability than anothers is rampant bullshit, the likes of which does nothing to promote either the genre as a whole or our individual musical endeavours. Besides which it should be obvious that Fripp draws these remarks as a direct result of his achieving a greater degree of critical and (relative) market success than most if not all of the other players working with this technology. John Tesh could take up looping... that would certainly require a major widening of the mental corridors that seem a tad constricted to this looper(especially if he met with rabid success and was heralded as the "true innovator" of this medium). Ears reached does not always equate with minds entered, for players and audiences, and those who find themselves,by necessity, being both. Very Sincerely, Bryan Helm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 21:47:17 -0500 From: neato@pipeline.com To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: The Memory Man is back Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> --Andre wrote: >> I'm not overly familiar with the Electro Harmonix Memory Man pedal, but I >> understand it to be similar to an Echoplex (the original stuff, not the >> Oberheim bit) in design and function, neato says: actually the electro-harmonix has very little similarity to the original echoplex...the original echoplex were all tape echo's...and the early models were tube designs...the memory man was one of the first analog foot type delay pedals (the mxr green box being another)..incidentally , there were a number of different memory man models like economy, deluxe,deluxe with chorus etc etc >> Doug Michael wrote: > Are you talking about the Electro Harmonix 16 second delay pedal? I've >never heard of the memory man. neato says: no, the electro harmonix 16 second delay came out much later than the memory man...it was initially advertised as "fripp in a box"...it was the first single unit looper...later some ingenius folk began tweaking some lexicon digital delays for increased delay time...then came jamman..the rest is history.... cheers all my mistakes were once acts of genius neato@pipeline com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 07:50:31 -0500 (EST) From: Texture444@aol.com To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: beyond:what, or whom? re-sent: faulty slip.net Message-ID: <970118075030_374681082@emout11.mail.aol.com> dear folks, to begin: please pardon the appearance, here, of any over-simplistic descension into dime-store philosophy. but: anyway: in my too-limited dialogue w/the creative musical community, particularly w/the phylum of a)guitarists & b)loopists, i continue to strive to encourage *all of us* to bypass (or, even: go beyond) what bryan helm pithily describes as a >>battle of the bands mentality<<. whatever's currently-considered-to-be-'great art', systems-thinking & methods, fame & notoriety, ideological backdrops, the fade-to-black icons of popular culture: these things come & go, enter & vanish, shift & metamorphosize into: what? (i mean, cripes, one day yer life-as-you-know-it goes, na?!), so. even the subtlest & most mesmerising of gauzy worldly veils conceals something. imho (& in my own experience), music- at its essence- formlessly- (!formlessly!: ephemerally: unfixedly)- embodies human potential for transformative experience, for solace & psycho-spiritual delineation on this fascinating, fleet & stunning earthly plane. in such light, it's possible for one to consider one's attempts @ >>going beyond fripp<< as something other than merely a more "intellectual" version of the "faster-louder-higher" or >>battle of the bands<< syndromes; it's possible to transform this "negative" energy of (oftimes, contained) competition into a vital force with which to fuel one's abilities to receive & transmit soundwaves that benefit oneself & one's listeners: broadening the bandwidth, allowing the fragile, fracturing shell of ego-centrism to meld gracefully w/the entire remaining pantheon of innumerable internal beings/symbols, & step down: at least, for a minute: from its surreptitiously usurped throne. what was i talking about? oh yeah: fripp, or whomever, as symbol: as benchmark. is it "wrong" to emulate (thereby, learning from) yer heroes? methinks, no!, not at all: but it can be extremely self-deluding/unhealthy to continuously ape their actions to the degree that music's transformative potential is *obviated*, is temporarily lost to you: serving witness to pop-culture's propensity for the denial of the most basic kind of self-realisation: & exhibiting an unfortunate lack of both compassion & respect for yer own evolution and, ultimately, that of yer hero's, to boot. as loopists, maybe we're presented w/a different slant on music, via these unique (but, still-infantile!) set of tools: the loop like a mirror, the development of the act of reflection being always "in potens", the group of accompanying musicians: our own internal orchestras of symbols, and further: driven towards ritual ecstacy both uniquely personal &, at once, communal in nature: "see the artist play w/her just-discovered-self, ma!": et cetera. so: for me, 2 focal questions slither their snaky way into view: what seems more critical to me: queries for a more personal perusal: can we get beyond our *own* limitations in this chosen medium? even those limitations that seem fenced & barriered by what we (possibly: mistakenly) assume to be our heroes boundaries? can we aspire to something of more lasting value than feeding the harsh fecundity of a two-headed, two-dimensional societal beast with it's continual this-vs.-thatting? anyway. well. sorry if i blathered: i do that, now & again: i mean no harm. i promise i'll post w/something more concrete, sometime. best to all, david torn ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:49:22 -0500 From: Michael Peters <100041.247@compuserve.com> To: "'INTERNET:Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com'" Subject: RE: beyond:what, or whom? Message-ID: <199701181249_MC2-F91-27C3@compuserve.com> David: > can we get beyond our *own* limitations in this chosen medium? even those > limitations that seem fenced & barriered by what we (possibly: mistakenly) > assume to be our heroes boundaries? > can we aspire to something of more lasting value than feeding the harsh > fecundity of a two-headed, two-dimensional societal beast with it's continual > this-vs.-thatting? Fully agreed. Thanks for pointing this out again - I really enjoy your way of putting it. Michael Peters private: 100041.247@compuserve.com work: mp@harold-scholz.de http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mpeters (Never whistle while you pee) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 13:34:45 -0500 (EST) From: Dpcoffin@aol.com To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: beyond:what, or whom? re-sent: faulty slip.net Message-ID: <970118133443_913050474@emout19.mail.aol.com> Jeez, it's fun to hear a good blatherer blather...long live the 20-min solo! (uh...for some reason, I stopped listening to almost all prerecorded music about 5 years ago---happened around the same time as I discovered the "record" button on my stereo---so now I enjoy/respond-to other players primarily via their verbal utterances and channelings---with almost no idea what they're actually playing! High on my current list of most-entertaining guitar-talkers are both David Torn and RFripp. Others? Steve Vai's OK Buckethead's spotty, but occassionally snags a good tongue lick EVHalen (surprisingly good current interview in British mag "Guitar") Carlos Santana (the king of cosmic talk) ...actually, it's fascinating how many "known" players can talk inspired (non)sense. I guess interesting minds can't HELP combing usefully thru the constant oceanic blizzard of information our12 senses are perpetually blessed with. May they, and all of us, remain impelled to report our findings.) dpc ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 17:49:47 +0000 From: Michael Preston To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: beyond:what, or whom? Message-ID: <32E25EBB.529B@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Wow, great, (:><:),... I'm a dime-store lover of wisdom too. So I'm compelled to try to answer David Torn's questions, and hopefully enrich his good words, with some rhetoric of my own, and ideas and advice that I've learned and sometimes taken from others. David Torn wrote, among other things: 1.> can we get beyond our *own* limitations in this chosen medium? even >those limitations that seem fenced & barriered by what we (possibly: >mistakenly) assume to be our heroes boundaries? Yeah, well, "just" choose to believe that the world is a work of art continually giving birth to itself, and that you are an artist, a creator in this world, an ACTIVE accomplice in this *ex nihilo* art/birth process. Also, take the PASSIVE, seemingly detached, approach to the world-as-work-of-art-continually-giving-birth-to-itself and stand back, in awed rapture, to absorb and reflect on the veiled mysteries which the world-as-work-of-art reveals to you as truths. Try your best to avoid making idols of the truths you find revealed or the folks who seem to be involved in transmitting those truths. But, get to know those folks; spend some mutually-agreed-upon time sitting at their feet, wrestling with 'em, and climbing up on their shoulders, for the view. Do the ACTIVE thing a lot more than the PASSIVE thing. In all this activity and passivity be ever on the lookout for opportunities to experience ecstacy *ekstasis*: to be taken out of your old self by the power of strangeness and beauty while you are becoming somehow new: transcending your situation, emerging into a new time and space with new possibilities for creation. 2.> can we aspire to something of more lasting value than feeding the >harsh fecundity of a two-headed, two-dimensional societal beast with >it's continual this-vs.-thatting? I think that David Torn is answering "yes" to question 2 in this piece: >it's possible for one to consider one's attempts @ >>going >beyond fripp<< as something other than merely a more "intellectual" >version of the "faster-louder-higher" or >>battle of the bands<< >syndromes; it's possible to transform this "negative" energy of >(oftimes, contained) competition into a vital force with which to fuel >one's abilities to receive & transmit soundwaves that benefit oneself & >one's listeners: broadening the bandwidth, allowing the fragile, >fracturing shell of ego-centrism to meld gracefully w/the entire >remaining pantheon of innumerable internal beings/symbols, & step down: >at least, for a minute: from its surreptitiously usurped throne. There's a creative impulse in the act of negation. But the this-vs.-thatting process (if I'm reading openly enough) joylessly lacks an ability to refer to and nurture this creative impulse so it ends up eating its own children; it really seems ego-hurtful. Imposing distinctions, making boundaries, drawing borderlines, and other negative acts are essential to furthering the world-as-work-of-art-continually-giving-birth-to-itself process. Something of value will always emerge from this negativity, but whatever it is, it may not last long. >(i mean, cripes, one day yer life-as-you-know-it goes, na?!) Thanks, (and requisite dime-store philospher apologies for my blathering) to David Torn, and the rest of the insightful risk-taking loopers. Preston ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 14:29:04 -0300 From: matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias Grob) To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: RE: Trying to get beyond Fripp? Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Andre: > >>Try this: Stop listening to Fripp and check out a very very different area >>of music. That sounds (and reads) a lot more harsh than it's really >>intended, but I've always found that the best way to let an influence >>assimilate into my collective unconscious, rather than sound like the >>musical equivalent of a bad photocopy, is to get what I can from someone's >>work and then go someplace very different. > >yeah, you're probably right. Well, since we all listened to a lot of music and have some basic technique and thus are stuffed with input, I would rather suggest to listen to *none but your own music* for a while (it was a year, in my case). It does not save you from going on with habits, and you may accept them as they stay for some reason, but you might stop *following* someones light and thus become more aware of your own. Either you get bored with yourself and stop playing (could that happen?) or you are forced to developp into your own direction. Since all in nature developps constantely... Faith - you get helped! Ok, it takes some isolation maybe. I did not go to concerts any more. I played every night and recorded it and then had a smoke and listened to it, looking for internal movement and relaxation, sometimes dancing alone. When I went out to see friends, I took the latest tapes with me and showed them, instead of listening to their music. After a year, noone could stand it any more: "could we please listen to some normal music?". But by then I had observed the reactions of mine and of listeners and was able to continue on stage. Once the process started, music from others does enrich it, but not stop it. Maybe I should live another phase like that - after the *&%# contract and upgrade is done and you all understood how all works... I definitally want to bring out my CD this year! >I've already got one. I've been using it for 2 years and it's a >wonderful device. You can do things with it that Fripp hasn't done yet! Look, one is going "beyond" soundwise! :-) Thanks, David, for your teaching about the evolution from "this-vs.-thatting". Matthias ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 14:28:53 -0300 From: matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias Grob) To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: about the problem of brotherhood Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >-- [ From: Sabine L. * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- For a little moment I felt lucky to have met the first female loopist. Where... Then I realized, it was Todd ho asked me privately: >I understand you developed the Oberheim Echoplex unit. I am currently using >it and need some help in finding a way to hook up two units, one for me and >one for my music partner and be able to control the overdub, multiply and >undo functions independently of each other with both machines syncronized >with each other. Either of the machines could set the initial record loop >time. That would be fine for my application. Try this: - Connect both machines BrotherSync with a stereo 1/4" cable. - Set both to Sync = Out - Do a record on one unit. The SYNC LED (green dot between the two MULTI digits) of the other unit should start blinking at each start of the brothers loop. Then the second unit can record. It will happen quantized, which means that the recording will only start and stop at the loop start of the first units - which forces it to be of the same (or a multiple) length. Due to the sample sync through the stereo cable, the two units will not run away from each other. In the beginning, this use of quantization only for syncing may confuse you: + It is switched on automatically with the first click that comes in. So you have to wait for that if you want to follow your brother. + Possible trouble is that the brother forgets to reset his unit after sound is faded and when you start the next loop, you are forced into the old timing again. -> ask the brother to please *&%# reset and then play again. + Similar trouble: If your brothers unit was reset after yours and you want to start the next trip, your unit will wait forever for sync coming and not start recording. -> reset your unit and start Record again (or is it enough to just press Record a second time? In the newer soft versions, a second press makes escape from the quantizing wait state and I do not remember about the "current" because I only used it for a month, over two years ago - what a weird world...) Do those confusions come from the stupidity of the machine or of the user? Whenever the machine does not count with the stupidity of the user, I consider it stupid itself - and reverse. Usually it takes two unaware parties for an error to happen: it takes a *transmitter and a receiver* (on stage for example: an unfiltered light system *and* a sensitive sound system. In politics: a power abuser and a unconscious population). SAD: Usually the transmitter and the receiver start discussing about who is guilty instead of resolving the problem on both sides... Needless to say that we have a much better proposual for SyncRecord in the soon-to-be-released-all-too-famous-update (I could not stand to explain the trouble to each partner that came to loop with me ;-> ) : No quantization needed, and you decide on the spot whether you start with a synced or unsynced loop. In other words: Record will make you master and Multipy slave. You will experience how nice it is to be slave amongst brothers... - to be brother in any way! Any more trouble just tell me! Matthias PS You know what? It takes me two hours to write such a post, but I like doing it! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:50:22 -0300 From: matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias Grob) To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: beyond:what, or whom? Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The Coffin spoke (what could DP mean?): >High on my current list of most-entertaining guitar-talkers are both David >Torn and RFripp. > >Steve Vai's OK >Buckethead's spotty, but occassionally snags a good tongue lick >EVHalen (surprisingly good current interview in British mag "Guitar") >Carlos Santana (the king of cosmic talk) Holdsworth certainly hold some speaches of worth. I am not so much interested any more in what he is saying, but the one that talked the clearest articulated to me is still old Jimy (remember Red House?). I am technician of a soft reggae-soul band around the lovely big black LAZZO. So when he asks a member of the band to solo (often, as a good leader he valorizes his musicians) he sais: "chora para mim" (cry for me) . May this come from the blues? Why is it easyer to cry than to laugh through the guitar? All the revolutionary complaints are accumulated in our habits of screaming distorted guitars, while light softly supporting sounds are left to flutes and harps (and the worst: synthesizers ) and the heart desires moving romantic sounds come from saxes (soprano for tenderness, tenor for sex). Well, I might exagerate a bit... So, all I am trying to say: There is "beyond" in musical language, expression, clarity, and there is another one (maybe rather "beside") in content. The first, probably is rather the players "work" (and the main intention of the list) while the second is what he transmits (probably from beyond). How to find that may be beyond the potential of this list, but interesting anyway. If a speaker has something really interesting to say, we listen to him, even if he is hard to understand, so "beside" may be more important than "beyond". There is a dangerous tendency against that: 2000 years ago, Cicero (?) told os how to speak nice enough so that people assimilate the content whatever it is. I do not think we should cultivate this for our music. >...actually, it's fascinating how many "known" players can talk inspired >(non)sense. I guess interesting minds can't HELP combing usefully thru the >constant oceanic blizzard of information our12 senses are perpetually blessed >with. May they, and all of us, remain impelled to report our findings.) Amen Matthias ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:50:35 -0300 From: matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias Grob) To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: slider for a vortex Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Would anyone bother for this brother of another list? >Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:55:31 -0800 (PST) >From: Saul Stokes >To: synth-diy@horus.sara.nl >Subject: slider with a vortex >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Sender: owner-synth-diy@horus.sara.nl >Precedence: bulk > >Hi, awhile back I decided to build a slider controller for my Lexicon >Vortex. Last night I got it together and hooked it up but it doesn't seem >to control any of the Vortex's features. It does however work on my other >instruments. At first, I wasn't sure of the pinout on the slider and tried >different combinations to see if it would work. Now that I have it hooked >up the correct way (thanks to Ric) and it still doesn't work, I'm >beginning to think that maybe I fried something due to my experimenting. >I can't imagine this happening since it's just a slider and a stereo cord. >My question is could I have fried something by hooking the stereo wires >up every which way to the slider? Also does anybody use an expression >pedal on their Vortex? Do you have any problems with it? > >Ciao, >Saul >www.hypnos.com/stokes.htm > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:51:32 -0300 From: matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias Grob) To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: archiving Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Helow, newer list users! I wonder whether you are helped with our archive and whether its worth the effort for you to catch up with all that has been said? I think it is, because a lot of fundamental thinking happened when it was all new. I once started the condensed version to save you from diging through all the headers, repetitions and wild mix of different subjects, some of them even outdated. Does anyone apreciate it? It takes some time to do it (it took me 2-3 hours to do what there is). And there is a lot of newer good stuff to add to it. I thought that someone who is about to study the archive might be the right person to do this work because - he is going through the mails anyway and copy pasting is quick - he is one of those that profit from our initial work, so its fair What do you think? Matthias --------------------------------