------------------------------ Loopers-Delight-d Digest Volume 97 : Issue 85 Today's Topics: Re[2]: fun with retriggering ...the [ David.Orton@mail.bl.uk (David Orton ] Re: questions for one and all [ John Pollock ] mixer suggestions [ rick canton ] RE: Improving looper interfaces [ "T.W. Hartnett" Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Someone may have mentioned this already; if so my apologies for sitting at the back and not paying attention... But - whilst I don't know if the JM can retrigger in loop mode using midi (some people have mentioned interesting effects when its synched to a drum box etc) I think I achieved similar results to Kim's various rhythmic overlays in Echo mode. Tap-in a shortish delay with 8 or 9 repeats (for example), let it build a bit, then tap and play slightly longer than the existing phrase, tap again and it restarts the sequence from the point you entered the new phrase. Obviously you can gradually extend this ad infinitum. I've not had a chance to really listen to the results of this yet (now here's a non-guitar looping problem - just how DO you get a reluctant six year old to go to bed so that you can get a hour's looping done before his mother returns from the PTA meeting?!) but it seemed to set-up a series of interweaving rhythms which might not be as complex as the ones Kim described but have a charm of their own. Non anogramatically yours David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 04:17:12 -0500 From: John Pollock To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: questions for one and all Message-id: <339D1B98.361C@delphi.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit MiqSk8@aol.com wrote, in part, >what is it that all of us are trying to achieve > by looping? i'm really interested in the sounds coming out of this group. > Atmospheres? Textures? "Sound Carpets"? Precision Pointillism? Industrial > Indigestion? or more of the compositional types of multiple loops created on > the fly and then swapped between? in other words a way to build traditional > sections of composition to be arranged. i realize this predates the looper's > cd, but i think it would be cool for us to get an idea of what's going on > with all this equipment and talent and ... For me, the answer is, paraphrasing David Torn, "My playing, but more of it." I crave the sound of a band, but seem to be incapable of finding other musicians with musical objectives close enough to my own to make it work. So, for the past ten years, I've been playing with myself (quite literally-- and I cheerfully acknowledge the validity of the implication), adding (to my guitar and vocals) first harmonica, then pedal keyboard/synthesizer, then MIDI guitar/synthesizer, subtracting a drum machine, and finally (to date) adding a Vortex. (Probably any details you might be interested in are on my Web site, which is devoted to tools and tips for the one-person band, so I won't go into them here.) I actually did this for what I laughingly called my living for six years, but quit playing for money four years ago after it became a job, and one I hated. I've only been looping for a few months, and that on an extremely limited basis, so I haven't achieved much. I do have some pretty clear goals, though: 1. I've weaned myself from the drum machine, but still crave percussion, and don't have any hands or feet free to play it. Even if I used it for nothing else, the Vortex gives me the capability to create percussive loops (slapping the muted guitar strings, scraping them, tapping a pickup, etc.) to fill that musical space-- without using someone else's samples, and using sounds I create during the performance of the piece itself. 2. I'm not a very impressive singer, or guitarist, or performer in general-- my strength, in the past, has been my songwriting (mainly the lyrics, but the music for a few of them may rise a little above ordinary). This began to bother me, some while before I "retired." I began fantasizing about creating music that would not depend for its success on my skill with the English language. I remember thinking, the second or third time I saw Bela Fleck and the Flecktones in concert, "These folks are like Abba without vocals-- how could anyone in the world _not_ respond to this music?" Pierre Ben Susan and Badi Assad have also strongly reinforced this urge. But my technical skills are far below any of these people. If I'm to succeed, I'll have to (a) get to a level where I'm using the technology _intelligently_ enough to make the music really interesting, and (b) move beyond that to a level where no one listening to my music, including myself, is consciously aware of the technology. I don't know if I can do it, but it seems a more realistic objective than attempting to achieve the guitar fluency of Ben Susan or Assad. (I've been playing since before either of them was born, and haven't managed it yet, so that hope seems pretty dim...) 3. I've always been an accompaniment sort of guitarist, either strumming or playing fingerstyle. I was always content to leave the distorted single-note wailing to others-- until I heard Sonny Sharrock and Nicky Skopelites' _Faith Moves_. Suddenly, I wanted to try to play like Sonny (why did he have to go and die before I could hear him live?). But my left foot is no substitute for Nicky. Just maybe, my left foot and the Vortex can be. 4. Before I started working as a one-person band, I played steel guitar in country bands for a long time. The pedal steel guitar put fewer obstacles between me and the music than any other instrument or combination of instruments I've tried. But the way I played it, and the ways I want to play it, don't work for me without accompaniment, and I haven't had it out of the case in ten years. Once I develop the ability to loop on the fly with some consistency, I just may be able to play it again. So my looping efforts are primarily aimed at accompaniment. I'm not unaware of the possibility of making the loop the focus of the music, and have experimented with gradually changing loops (very easy with the Vortex). But I'm a very chord-oriented person, and I'll have to have more delay time than the Vortex gives me before I can get serious about that kind of approach. I don't know whether it qualifies as looping (and don't much care), but I'm also playing around with canons, both live (using MIDI guitar and the 12-second delay capability of the Casio VZ-8) and sequenced (step-entered using the software that came with the computer). But as far as describing, categorizing, or labelling the music itself (Precision Pointillism? Sound Carpets?)-- hey, we musicians are exempt! That's a job for critics and other non-musicians! ;-) But you can hear a few examples of my primitive efforts for yourself at my Web site, if you're so inclined. > personally i'm still struggling with all the abilities of the 'plex and the > timing of using next loop-so i'm concentrating more on the single loop. it's > amazing how varied the result can be by taking different approaches (chordal, > linear, heavy, ethereal, synchronized, chaos). i am constantly just letting > it go onto tape. (i'm spending all weekend in the california mountains to go > through them all!) I hope we get a chance to hear them from your Web site! John Pollock mailto:johnpollock@delphi.com http://people.delphi.com/johnpollock (Troubador Tech) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 05:39:43 -0500 From: John Pollock To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: Non-Guitar Looping Message-id: <339D2EEF.12B2@delphi.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Dpcoffin@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/7/97 9:08:44 PM, James wrote: > > < switching between toys will be easier.>> > > I've just seen the DTorn video and got my first glimpse at the mixer > revelation...anyone know if that mixer he uses is still around, or have any > suggestions for ideal mixers for looping and maximum fx-routing flexibility? > I've been looking at the Mackie 1604 (all mono) and 3204(?)--with its stereo > sends, but no pfl, which seems pretty essential. Love to hear any > recommendations/advice/thought/etc....Thanks! Just thoughts, at this juncture: Just after I got my Vortex last winter, I found an Akai MB76 MIDI patch bay in a pawn shop for US$50. Of course, I snatched it up. Believe it or not, I haven't even connected it up yet, for a lot of reasons. But many of those reasons should be vanquished within the next couple months. Then I'll be able to test my thinking, which went something like this: The MB76 has seven inputs and six outputs (duh...), all line level. Two of each will be assigned to the Vortex. Fighting for the remaining five inputs are the stereo outputs of two synthesizers (one triggered by MIDI guitar, the other by MIDI pedal keyboard), the synthetic stereo output of the guitar preamp, the third guitar signal from the yet to be btained second preamp (so I can have both distorted and clean guitar signals, and Vortex either one independently), and the microphone signal from the yet to be obtained mic preamp (for Vortexing vocals, harmonica, yet to be determined acoustic percussion instruments, etc.). Oops-- that's more than five signal sources, isn't it? :-( The output side plays a role in sorting out the inputs: Two channels will feed a Dynaco 35w/channel stereo power amp (the only stereo power amp I have at the moment), and a third could feed an existing mono powered mixer. Dilemma: The pedal keyboard synthesizer could profit most from stereo; the guitar-controlled synthesizer, from Vortexing. Compounding dilemma: The pedal keyboard patches almost always include bass, for which the Dynaco's power capacity is inadequate. I could easily configure the patches with bass on one channel and the higher-frequency layered sounds on the other-- but it's precisely those layered sounds I want to hear in stereo. AAAAAAAAAARGH! I can dispense with the ersatz stereo from the guitar preamp, but I'm truly obsessed with the notion of a distorted guitar solo over a clean guitar loop, and vice versa. I may have to get my old MXR Stereo Chorus fixed, just to use as a pre-preamp signal splitter. I can dispense with the microphone. So now I'm down to two guitar signals, four synthesizer signals, and two Vortex signals fighting for seven inputs. Well, I can run the pedal keyboard synthesizer directly into the mono powered mixer, till I can find/afford a stereo power amp for it... As I said: Just thoughts, at this juncture-- no conclusions! :-) John Pollock mailto:johnpollock@delphi.com http://people.delphi.com/johnpollock (Troubador Tech) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 09:22:00 -0400 From: "Sellon, Bob" To: Loopers-Delight Subject: RE: Improving looper interfaces Message-Id: <9706101244.AA27376@beryllium.lexicon.com> One point to keep in mind is that refining a user interface does not always mean modifying the physical controls. One of the things we have been looking very closely at is the reuse of buttons for different functions depending on the state of the machine (JamMan in this case). For us, this started with Tap which, on the first prototype (a modified PCM 42) was two separate buttons: Start and End. The thinking is that it is easier to have one control that you must manipulate a certain way than to have a separate control for each function. With a growing feature set, the separate control approach will leave little room on stage for the performers. The trick is finding the right combination of functions for a particular control (aftertouch, etc..) so that functions are still easy to get to. This is a lot harder than it seems and I've/we've certainly made some mistakes but I do believe this is fertile ground. One of the reasons the guitar is such a popular instrument is that it provides a relatively simple interface with an incredibly wide degree of control. Travis mentioned that he would rather see money spent on the feature set than on the interface. While I agree with the sentiment, I must admit that I have been very frustrated with the limited user interface of the JamMan, particularly the display. We've had tons of feature suggestions but getting advanced features into the box usually means you have parameters to tweek. How do you display BPM on a box like the JamMan. Good luck. The bottom line is, you don't want to blow the budget on the user interface but you have to be not careful to put in too little. Bob Sellon Lexicon/Stec ---------- From: Loopers-Delight[SMTP:Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com] Sent: Monday, June 09, 1997 4:07 PM To: Looper's Delight Subject: Improving looper interfaces ---------------------------------------------------- >Loopers are in their infancy when compared to the development of the grand >piano or a guitar, or many other fine instruments. We should not be >satisfied that the ergonomics of looping instruments have been well solved >or worked out. We do have a long way to go! > >That may be an important role for our little group in the looping universe. >How should this instrument work ergonomically? How can we make it better? >You have the ears of the most progressive designers in the field present on >this list, tell us what you think! > >And as technology allows us more possibilites, the interface design becomes >even more challenging. Many ideas for what the next generation of loopers >should do have been proposed here. How will the musician control these >features? What will make them intuitive and easy to use expressively, like >guitars and pianos and saxophones? This reminds me of the "alternate synth controller" thread that pops up in the keyboard world every now and then. It usually starts with someone bemoaning the fact that the Most Powerful Sound Generating Device Known To Man is triggered by roughly the same interface that Mozart used on a harpsichord. "Surely there have been advances in controller/interface technology in the last few centuries!", says the frustrated synthesist, "Why just the other night I was thinking that if I could control the vibrato of each individual voice by moving my toes along a vertical axis, I would FINALLY BE ABLE TO GET SOME MUSIC MADE! Naturally, this addition alone would not be nearly enough to allow me to express my considerable talent, I also wish to be able to control the filter sweep my moving my toes along the horizontal axis. Nay, even this would not be enough to convey the worlds of sound that are trapped within my head--I want to be able to dynamically assign the horizontal and vertical movement of each of my ten toes (if only I had more!) to a different paramenter, for each patch, as needed. I DEMAND that all the International MIDI Committee immediately adopt and standardize this Ten-Toe Controller (10TC) as a required addition to all future keyboards and effects processors. P.S. I wish to pay no more than $24.99 for this controller." Given that there's a bit of hyperbole involved in the above example, but it took forever for aftertouch to become fairly common. And there was one keyboard which would would read wiggling the keys from side to side, so that you could apply vibrato with a guitaristic motion. As far as making looping device interfaces more ergonomic, I'd rather that money be spent on fixing the feature set, rather then devising some sort of cuddly accordian-style interface. Every dollar spent on, say, a large-LCD display on the front of the unit or physical dials to control parameters is a dollar less spent on developing the software/hardware. In addition, I think that looping rigs tend to be more esoteric than the average musician, who only sends audio in one direction. I remember a long-lived thread on MIDI foot-controller implementation for the Big Two, and there didn't seem to be a consensus on what people wanted out of it. If Lexicon or Oberheim has to try and second guess all the unusual, one-of-a-kind rigs that the next generation of loopers are going to be installed into (whoops--scratch Lex, they already decided that looping was too much work for not enough payback), we'll never see anything. I don't want to sound like I'm advocating a position of "everything's great--we should all be so grateful for the crumbs we've been thrown". I think that any improvements on the interface front are going to come from specific solutions to specific problems, not from saying "I wish everything were more flexible and easier to use!". Think of something like the Parson's-White B-bender or the Floyd Rose tailpiece, they were solutions to clearly identified problems ("How can I play this three-handed lick with two hands?" and "How can I yank on my vibrato bar all night without going out of tune?"). Granted, they don't represent a change in the guitar interface, but as we move out of the realm of physical tone generators and into the more hypothetical realm of digital audio manipulation, the ground is uncharted. Travis Hartnett ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:58:42 -0700 From: rick canton To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: mixer suggestions Message-ID: <339D6BA2.533C@cyberportal.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit in my guitar rack i have a preamp w/ a visual volume pedal in the fx loop, mono out into an ada cabinet simulator , mono out into a 1x4 splitter. 1st output goes to an intellifex ltd , 2nd output goes to the 2nd intellifex ltd , the 3rd out put goes to the 1st channel of a RANE SM-82 MIXER , the 4th out put goes to a small sabine tuner. the 2 intellifex`s go stereo out to the RANE SM-82 MIXER . then of the stereo fx loops in the RANE SM-82 MIXER , i patch in mt 2 plexi`s w/ 198 seconds each.from the main outputs of the RANE SM-82 MIXER , i go into a rolls tube mic pre , then XLR out to the mixer. CAN YOU GUESS WHAT MIXER I USE? i got the mixer from full compass catalog for about $410.00. it has much more options than i can throw at it ,or how i`m using it , & it`s pretty quiet..... so :RANE SM-82 MIXER thanks, rick ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 97 11:00:31 -0000 From: "T.W. Hartnett" To: "Looper's Delight" Subject: RE: Improving looper interfaces Message-Id: <199706101559.IAA04520@scv4.apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" >Travis mentioned that he would rather see money spent on the feature set >than on the interface. While I agree with the sentiment, I must admit >that I have been very frustrated with the limited user interface of the >JamMan, particularly the display. We've had tons of feature suggestions >but getting advanced features into the box usually means you have >parameters to tweek. How do you display BPM on a box like the JamMan. >Good luck. The bottom line is, you don't want to blow the budget on the >user interface but you have to be not careful to put in too little. If you want to display BPM, you have to have a numerical readout, there's no two ways about it. As far as improving the interface on future JamMan, I'd suggest something like the the Zoom 508 uses. It has a two character display with about 10 dots that come on to indicate the status of different modes. Some of the display messages appear in the form of scrolling text, and I was surprised at how much info they managed to cram into two alphanumeric characters and a few dots. If you've got something as powerful as the JamMan, I think you really need to put more on the front panel, and yes, raise the price a little. Jon, can you give an estimate as to how much it would have added to the JamMan list to physically add in a simple LED display (not factoring in the additional R&D time to tweak the interface to take advantage of the increased info bandwidth)? The Echoplex was about $300 more than the JamMan, and seemed to have about $300 more stuff, more features, and more display info on the front panel. However, that $300 seemed to be the breaking point for a lot of people, it was just too much for them to drop, even people who were already fairly loop-aware. I said this before in mail to Motley, and I don't think it's a stunning revelation, but I think that selling looping devices to the masses requires in-store demo's of how to use the thing. I play tapes for people of the live looping stuff I've done, and they think it's four or five people playing--they may like the music, but the "magic trick" nature of looping is invisible on tape. If you have a musician show another musician how to use one of the Big Three, I'd say your chance of selling them a box goes up five-fold. This requires someone who can adequately demo the product (which consists of more than playing some riff haphazardly into the loop and hitting "hold" and then saying "Now you can solo over it!") and answer questions. This isn't going to happen unless the manufacturer pays someone to go on a tour of dealers doing clinics. Perhaps an instructional video tape, for $5 to interested parties? Travis Hartnett ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 12:20:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Frank Gerace To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: questions for one and all Message-Id: <199706101620.MAA13496@user1.channel1.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:41 PM 6/6/97 +0200, you wrote: >On 6/4/97 you wrote: >> >>and now for the big kahuna- what is it that all of us are trying to achieve >>by looping? i'm really interested in the sounds coming out of this group. >>Atmospheres? Textures? "Sound Carpets"? Precision Pointillism? Industrial >>Indigestion? or more of the compositional types of multiple loops created on >>the fly and then swapped between? in other words a way to build traditional >>sections of composition to be arranged. i realize this predates the looper's >>cd, but i think it would be cool for us to get an idea of what's going on >>with all this equipment and talent and ... >> I'm new to this list so this seems an appropriate opportunity for an introduction. I play guitar through a VG-8 into a Roland RPS-10 into a JamMan into an AC30. My partner, Cheryl Wanner, runs her voice through a JamMan (sometimes) and plays bass and wire strung harp. We do sort of tone poems and sound paintings, any other categoies and labels we leave to whoever wants to saddle themselves with them. Some samples of our stuff are on our website, . Our use of loops came from filling in the spaces that not having other players opened up. We don't use drums or drum machines, so loops help create a nice percolating rhythm when needed. I find, that like the person who just expanded his memory on his JamMan, I also use the loop function to lay down a backing track and play 'live' parts over it for a live multitracking approach, on some material. As time passes, we are using more of the JamMan's capabilities in our material. Cheryl now samples vocal lines on the fly and inserts them backwards and forwards in harmony (sung live) as the mood moves her. Initially, she was just creating and layering a few loops. While a lot of this stuff is fairly elementary useage of looping technology, it fills the bill for our needs and is providing new avenues of exploration for us. Although I can't see us becoming an all loop experience, we are certainly enjoying exploring the different possibilities. I found the main revelation of the Torn videos to be the use of a mixer in his setup. I thoroughly enjoyed the rest of the video and while I knew and utilised a lot of the ideas he mentioned already about using the various sounds your equipment generates, I found it a very inspiring two hours that made me want to create some new noises and loops (always a good thing). Given the future (or lack thereof) of the JamMan, we have been considering buying a spare and upgrading it for those emergency situations where your main toy suddenly stops working. Of course, having said that, and seeing the Oberheim Echoplexes are actually still in production (and shipping, it seems), the thought of buying one and switching over to that has crossed my mind, too. Mainly for the 'undo' function. The ability to create mini-loops on the VG-8 with its delay and layer them into the JamMan's main loops is key for a few of the pieces we do, but I'd love to be able to remove them as well as the song progresses. As it stands now, I can create them 'live' on the VG-8 and not add them to the Jam Man loops, so I drop them out of the mix by switching patches. The problem is, sometimes I'd like to switch patches and leave the loop there and remove it later. By the way, what's the loopers CD referenced above? Frank Gerace Dreamchild ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:34:45 -0500 From: "Mikell D. Nelson" To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: fun with retriggering and anti-guitar diatribes Message-ID: <339D8225.11AA@crystalball.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit BlkSwan03@aol.com wrote: > > Geez Kim, is that Klein already old hat? I was just getting very interested! > But yes, this is true about the almost 100% nature of guitar talk here. ( > Altho, I love them too) I'm just kind of wondering, where are all the > synth and sampler characters? Looping on midi instruments using the loop > function on the sequencer is quite the experience. You don't have to worry > about length at all and the fidelity is extraordinary. Stereo is a given. > Set your synth or sampler to multimode and roll. Just change midi channels > for desired sounds and..........well, there it is. I always find > interesting places this way. Volume, panning, and even sounds can be changed > at any time. For those who haven't experienced this, go commandeer a synth > with the aforementioned sequencer option and > go mad. Also, what about vocal compositions? Chants and all, with lots of > effects? > > Jim Ahh, but try and play that passage in reverse. The envelopes don't reverse even if you can. Motley ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 12:14:35 EDT From: zenchi@juno.com (Robert L Williams) To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Opinions (was: questions for one and all) Message-ID: <19970610.101129.8438.0.zenchi@juno.com> On Thu, 5 Jun 1997 18:15:28 -0400 (EDT) MiqSk8@aol.com writes: >has anyone here on the list seen the david torn instructional videos? >i'm still pretty new at looping but have a fairly firm grasp on signal >processing; would these be of worth ($69+) to me? what do they cover, >and are they more theory based or just the "look what cool sound i get out of >this cool box" type thing? Seen em, own em, dig em. The first tape covers DTs guitar, pedal and amp setup. He spends a little time discussing the beauty of the TransTrem as a fairly concise overview of how to mutate amp tones. Tape two is a cool intro to looping from both an improv/compositional basis as well as hardware. Both tapes begin and end with loop performance, so there's kind of a bonus. Well worth the investment. >on to more real loopy stuff... has anyone here ever seen the Joni >Mitchell concert video Shadows and Light? Her band at the time was michael >brecker, don elias, lyle mays, pat metheny, and the monster known as jaco >pastorious. jaco's solo takes advantage of the lexicon(judging by the blue on the >box) delay to build a quick loop to blow over. it's really cool, >grooving(of course), and jaco just has the technology dialed in. warning:this solo >does not appear on the cd! Seen it, own it, dig it. Jaco was using an MXR Delay and Pitch Transposer around that time. Yeah, the solo is cool because you can hear not only a Hendrix tune, but what was to become "Teen town". Metheny was the one using Lexicon stuff. (snip of zoom stuff. nothing to add) >and now for the big kahuna- what is it that all of us are trying to >achieve by looping? i'm really interested in the sounds coming out of this >group. Atmospheres? Textures? "Sound Carpets"? Precision Pointillism? >Industrial Indigestion? or more of the compositional types of multiple loops >created on the fly and then swapped between? in other words a way to build >traditional sections of composition to be arranged. i realize this predates the >looper's cd, but i think it would be cool for us to get an idea of what's going >on with all this equipment and talent and ... Seeking, Doing, Digging. Not having tried enough aspects, its hard to know or say where I'm headed. By the same token I don't think I'll want to narrow my focus, it seems too limiting. Like when people ask what I play, I don't say guitar or bass, etc., I tell them music. The genre classification stuff is better done by journalists. Just amuse yourself and let someone else decide what is. Robert Williams DERISION --------------------------------