------------------------------ Loopers-Delight-d Digest Volume 98 : Issue 21 Today's Topics: Re: Kundun [ "Samuel D. Burns" ] RE: Lexicon not known for MIDI know- [ "Hogan, Greg (Exchange)" ] RE: Lexicon not known for MIDI know- [ erich kory ] RE: Lexicon not known for MIDI know- [ erich kory ] RE: Kundun [ "Liebig, Steuart A." ] Re: Kundun (and Steve Reich) [ Jeff Duke ] 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: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:33:38 -0500 From: "Samuel D. Burns" To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: Kundun Message-ID: <34CCACD2.EA8AF8AE@mail.clt.bellsouth.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Actually, Terry Riley composed "In C". TritoneDW wrote: > < respect to looping. The only looping is from the compositional standpoint, > and not because of any technology. To see an orchestra play his work is > something else, I imagine - the Ensemble alone looked like they shed quite a > lot of sweat at the Kitchen, Mr.. Glass playing keyboards also, and > conducting using accentuated nods of his head, which sported a bushy cloud > of hair (then). They were playing it all, man. However, it Wasn't IMHO > 'looping' as most of us on this list know it. More like a compositional > 'repeat', but then I know not much of music composition in the > parochial-classical sense. :) Anyone? Is 'repeat' the correct musical > term? I *know* it's not 'loop'. :)>> > > Ok, I'm sure I'm not the only "classically" trained musician here, but I'm the > one who checked my e-mail three times today, so I guess I get first crack at > the official explanation of all this stuff. Mr. Glass is what's called a > Minimalist composer. Other famous Minimalists are Steve Reich (composed > "Electric Counterpoint", performed by Pat Metheney) and John Adams (composed > "The Death of Klinghoffer", and "Nixon in China", as well as the Minimalist > landmark "In C"). > > The basic idea of Minimalism in music is to compose peices with a minimal > amount of motivic material--just a couple little ideas, or hooks. The interest > from the piece comes from the very gradual and subtle change introduced to the > piece over time. (Make no mistake--these pieces are composed, there is no > improvisation involved.) Glass, for example, tends to create change in his > pieces through additive and subtractive processes--adding a note to a motive, > or taking one away. (If this idea doesn't make sense in print, just listen to > his music--you'll know what I mean.) Listening to these pieces is very much > like watching clouds move across the sky, in a good way. > > Minimalism, by it's very nature, involves a LOT of repetition (repetition is > certainly a viable term here). In this way it is sort of like looping. > Certainly people who can listen to looped music and think it's interesting > would probably relate to Minimalist work, at least on some level. > > The movies Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqatsi (I'm pretty sure on the spelling of the > two) are excellent introductions to the work of Philip Glass, as there are > really stunning visual accompaniments to the music. Other pieces to check out > would be "In C" by John Adams (a piece in which several players play different > little fragments of music in the key of C), and "Piano Phase" by Steve Reich. > "Piano Phase" is pretty cool. Basically, two pianists play the same 12 note > repeated pattern, starting in unison. One player then speeds up ever-so- > slightly, until their pattern has shifted one note ahead of the other > player's. This goes on until the faster player has come all the way around the > pattern to play in unison again. You can imagine that it's pretty hard for the > "steady" player to keep an even tempo. Anyway, the piece takes around twenty > minutes to play all the way through, and it's really cool. When played well, > you can hear all these crazy sub-patterns and cross rhythms in the "in > between" parts. I've been trying to play it on guitar, with the old JamPig > playing the steady, but the pattern is a bit un-guitaristic (poor me! I'll > have to practice...). > > Drew W. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:44:54 -0500 From: "Hogan, Greg (Exchange)" To: "'Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com'" Subject: RE: New to looping/processing Message-Id: <215C1D5A0FFDD011B3CC00805FC18C291F6B54@NTSRV2.LEXICON.COM> Content-Type: text/plain > Michael asked: "Lex people, what are the feedback levels for Fade?" > Short fade=43%, medium fade=61%, and long fade=86%. Please let me know if you have any questions or if there is anything that I can do for you. Best regards, Greg Hogan Lexicon Customer Service Phone +781-280-0372 FAX +781-280-0499 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:48:56 -0600 (CST) From: Todd Madson To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Buckethead, Plex Sighting Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Re: Death Cube K: it's very good, dark ambient stuff, almost quiet in a way. The tune "maggot dream" is even pretty, in a sort of doomy, ominous kind of way. He doesn't play wild stuff on this one, it's very reflective and introspective. Highly recommended for those who want this kind of thing. Also, got the latest Thoroughbred Music catalog in the mail and sure enough they have the Oberheim Echoplex and controller. Drool drool. I want. -Todd. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 11:06:04 -0500 From: "Hogan, Greg (Exchange)" To: "'Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com'" Subject: RE: Lexicon not known for MIDI know-how?!? Message-Id: <215C1D5A0FFDD011B3CC00805FC18C291F6B58@NTSRV2.LEXICON.COM> Content-Type: text/plain > erich kory wrote:"I can do this with the Jamman from Lexicon (a > company not known for it's MIDI know-how)." > I am sorry erich but the Lexicon PCM70 was the first processor to give you complete control over all of its functions! This feature has been included in most of our processors since. I do not see how you can justify your statement! Best regards, Greg Hogan Lexicon Customer Service Phone +781-280-0372 FAX +781-280-0499 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 11:37:30 -0500 From: "Claude Lassonde" To: Subject: Encyclopedia of musical links- is now located to: Message-ID: <005501bd2a78$b26be720$b3c8c80a@classonde.psbgm.qc.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; boundary="----------------------------" Sorry for the intrusion. Some of you had interests in my homepage in the past. The page -Encyclopedia of musical links- is now located to: http://members.tripod.com/~Lassonde/index.html Regards, Claude Lassonde ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:24:16 EST From: TritoneDW@aol.com To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: Kundun Message-ID: Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-26 06:35:21 EST, you write: << Terry Riley is the composer of "In C", not John Adams >> Oops! You're absolutely right. Drew W. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:53:33 -0800 From: Kim Flint To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: RE: Lexicon not known for MIDI know-how?!? Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:06 AM -0500 1/26/98, Hogan, Greg (Exchange) wrote: >> erich kory wrote:"I can do this with the Jamman from Lexicon (a >> company not known for it's MIDI know-how)." >> > I am sorry erich but the Lexicon PCM70 was the first processor >to give you complete control over all of its functions! This feature >has been included in most of our processors since. I do not see how you >can justify your statement! If you look at the midi manufacturer numbers, you'll see that Lexicon's is in the first 10. They were using midi long before most..... 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, 26 Jan 1998 13:53:49 GMT From: erich kory To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: RE: Lexicon not known for MIDI know-how?!? Message-Id: <199801261353.NAA15607@phyleus.interlinx.qc.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I remember having a lot of trouble with the LXP1 and it's control module. Maybe that was just a fluke. There are things like Jamman not having a MIDI thru and not being able to choose which MIDI channel to use that bother me, in general though it works very well, sorry for the negative comments, it seems that every machine has it's faults and good points, i'm just tired of spending money on unfinished machines. ek At 11:06 AM 1/26/98 -0500, you wrote: >> erich kory wrote:"I can do this with the Jamman from Lexicon (a >> company not known for it's MIDI know-how)." >> > I am sorry erich but the Lexicon PCM70 was the first processor >to give you complete control over all of its functions! This feature >has been included in most of our processors since. I do not see how you >can justify your statement! > > Best regards, > > Greg Hogan > Lexicon Customer Service > Phone +781-280-0372 > FAX +781-280-0499 > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:58:25 GMT From: erich kory To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: RE: Lexicon not known for MIDI know-how?!? Message-Id: <199801261358.NAA15829@phyleus.interlinx.qc.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:53 AM 1/26/98 -0800, you wrote: >At 11:06 AM -0500 1/26/98, Hogan, Greg (Exchange) wrote: >>> erich kory wrote:"I can do this with the Jamman from Lexicon (a >>> company not known for it's MIDI know-how)." >>> >> I am sorry erich but the Lexicon PCM70 was the first processor >>to give you complete control over all of its functions! This feature >>has been included in most of our processors since. I do not see how you >>can justify your statement! > >If you look at the midi manufacturer numbers, you'll see that Lexicon's is >in the first 10. They were using midi long before most..... > >kim > That must be why I can do next loop function with it. Anyway, I'm sure all you people working on these machines are doing the best you can. I don't mean to be mean, excuse me. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 11:39:49 -0600 From: "Liebig, Steuart A." To: "Liebig, Steuart A." , "'Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com'" Subject: RE: Kundun Message-ID: <2148EC143F29D1118BE000805FC13CD014CBEE@migarexch01.maritz.com> Terry Riley, not John Adams, wrote in C. He and Lamont Young are considered to be the "fathers" of Minimalism. Other Minimalist composers would be Michael Nyman (English composer of the Piano score and scores for the films of Peter Greenaway) and Dutch composer (ready for the misspelling?) Lois Andriesson. steuart liebig > ---------- > From: TritoneDW > Reply To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com > Sent: Sunday, January 25, 1998 11:12 PM > To: LiebigSA@maritz.com > Subject: Re: Kundun > > < with > respect to looping. The only looping is from the compositional > standpoint, > and not because of any technology. To see an orchestra play his work > is > something else, I imagine - the Ensemble alone looked like they shed > quite a > lot of sweat at the Kitchen, Mr.. Glass playing keyboards also, and > conducting using accentuated nods of his head, which sported a bushy > cloud > of hair (then). They were playing it all, man. However, it Wasn't > IMHO > 'looping' as most of us on this list know it. More like a > compositional > 'repeat', but then I know not much of music composition in the > parochial-classical sense. :) Anyone? Is 'repeat' the correct > musical > term? I *know* it's not 'loop'. :)>> > > Ok, I'm sure I'm not the only "classically" trained musician here, but > I'm the > one who checked my e-mail three times today, so I guess I get first > crack at > the official explanation of all this stuff. Mr. Glass is what's called > a > Minimalist composer. Other famous Minimalists are Steve Reich > (composed > "Electric Counterpoint", performed by Pat Metheney) and John Adams > (composed > "The Death of Klinghoffer", and "Nixon in China", as well as the > Minimalist > landmark "In C"). > > The basic idea of Minimalism in music is to compose peices with a > minimal > amount of motivic material--just a couple little ideas, or hooks. The > interest > from the piece comes from the very gradual and subtle change > introduced to the > piece over time. (Make no mistake--these pieces are composed, there is > no > improvisation involved.) Glass, for example, tends to create change in > his > pieces through additive and subtractive processes--adding a note to a > motive, > or taking one away. (If this idea doesn't make sense in print, just > listen to > his music--you'll know what I mean.) Listening to these pieces is very > much > like watching clouds move across the sky, in a good way. > > Minimalism, by it's very nature, involves a LOT of repetition > (repetition is > certainly a viable term here). In this way it is sort of like looping. > Certainly people who can listen to looped music and think it's > interesting > would probably relate to Minimalist work, at least on some level. > > The movies Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqatsi (I'm pretty sure on the > spelling of the > two) are excellent introductions to the work of Philip Glass, as there > are > really stunning visual accompaniments to the music. Other pieces to > check out > would be "In C" by John Adams (a piece in which several players play > different > little fragments of music in the key of C), and "Piano Phase" by Steve > Reich. > "Piano Phase" is pretty cool. Basically, two pianists play the same 12 > note > repeated pattern, starting in unison. One player then speeds up > ever-so- > slightly, until their pattern has shifted one note ahead of the other > player's. This goes on until the faster player has come all the way > around the > pattern to play in unison again. You can imagine that it's pretty hard > for the > "steady" player to keep an even tempo. Anyway, the piece takes around > twenty > minutes to play all the way through, and it's really cool. When played > well, > you can hear all these crazy sub-patterns and cross rhythms in the "in > between" parts. I've been trying to play it on guitar, with the old > JamPig > playing the steady, but the pattern is a bit un-guitaristic (poor me! > I'll > have to practice...). > > Drew W. > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:07:09 -0500 From: "Hogan, Greg (Exchange)" To: "'Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com'" Subject: RE: Setting a MIDI channel on your JAMMAN. Message-Id: <215C1D5A0FFDD011B3CC00805FC18C291F6B6A@NTSRV2.LEXICON.COM> Content-Type: text/plain Erich wrote:"I remember having a lot of trouble with the LXP1 and it's control module. Maybe that was just a fluke. There are things like Jamman not having a MIDI thru and not being able to choose which MIDI channel to use that bother me, in general though it works very well, sorry for the negative comments, it seems that every machine has it's faults and good points, i'm just tired of spending money on unfinished machines." As far as your problems with the LXP-1 and the MRC, I can't say that it was a fluke, but it must have been some type of failure on one of them. They do work together very well. The JAMMAN does not have MIDI THRU, I can't help you with that. You can change what MIDI channel it responds to as follows:Press and hold the RESET/BYPASS and FUNCTION buttons and turn the machine on. You will get a "d" in the display. Release the buttons and press and release the RESET/BYPASS button. You will now have a number in the display corresponding with the position of the MODE knob. Turn the mode knob until the display reads "15." Press and release the RESET/BYPASS button again and you will have a "1" in the display. Turn the SELECT knob to select the MIDI channel that you want the JAMMAN to respond to. Press and release the RESET/BYPASS button and turn the mode knob until you have "9" in the display. Press and release the RESET/BYPASS button one more time and normal operation will resume. This is explained on page 26 of the JAMMAN owners manual. Unfortunately the channel selection will not be stored when you power the machine down so you will have to do this each time you power the machine on. I hope this helps! Please let me know if you have any questions or if there is anything that I can do for you. Best regards, Greg Hogan Lexicon Customer Service Phone +781-280-0372 FAX +781-280-0499 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:26:36 -0500 From: R & T Cummings To: Loopers Delight Subject: Re: Kundun (and Steve Reich) Message-ID: <199801261726_MC2-30BC-E4E0@compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Some interesting ideas with the minimal music approaches, I think. One of favorite pieces is Steve Reich's _Drumming_ which at 1 1/2 hours length involves "changes of phase position, pitch and timbre" (liner notes). In this piece they start on tuned bongos and gradually introduce voice, marimbas and glockenspiels while all basically using the same rhythmic figure (with gradual changes of relative phase). Another approach that he used on some pieces (e.g. _Six Pianos), was changing phase in discrete steps of eigths etc. combined with addition/ subtraction/ replacement of notes. This latter technique seems to me to be simpler and maybe a more feasible way of getting started (Although, I personally have not really tried this to any depth). Any of you have some ideas on these sorts of techniques, as applied to machine-aided looping. Machine-aided looping (especially the 95% echo feedback type of looping) basically uses similar concepts, doesn't it? Thanks for the posts in this direction - this induces some new (well, actually old - let's say recycled) ideas! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:12:37 -0800 From: Kim Flint To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: ANYONE KNOW THE MIDI PEDAL SCHEME FOR THE ECHOPLEX? Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:46 AM -0500 1/26/98, ENAT21213 wrote: >Hello everyone, > >Thanks to Kim for his time and patience with me. > >How about if the echoplex pedalboard was designed to contain 9 extra buttons >that would access loops 1 thru 9.I believe this would solve this tap up or >down to get to a desired loop problem. I'd really like to encourage you to try the way the echoplex interface does work, first. The tapping "problem" really isn't a problem at all when you are familiar with how it works. In some respects, it actually turns out to be far more powerful than the simple triggering method you are using now. And it uses a lot less stage area than you are currently using, which was a design goal for it. The whole point of that part of the interface design is to allow easy and reasonably fast access to any loop while only requiring one extra button instead of nine, basically to take care of people with situations like yours. This is possible because we can take advantage of the other switches, briefly giving them new functions when the user wants to switch loops. With the "confirm" mode on, you don't listen to the loops you don't want, you just go directly to the one you do. In my experience, I usually know what loop I'm going to in advance of when I actually need to switch, and I can usually have it ready to jump there in less than a second without really needing to concentrate on it much. Personally, I find this much better than having a whole other pedal taking up space in front of me, and I find it works just as well. The thing that makes it incredibly useable, which you can't do with simple triggering, is I can dictate what happens when I jump to the new loop. In addition to just playing the new loop, I can switch and have it immediately recording something new, or overdubbing onto an existing loop, or copying the loop I left into the new one while I add new things to it, or just copy the length of the previous one. All of this I can control very quickly, with a minimum of tapping. We did spend a huge amount of time thinking about this, trying it out, and bouncing the ideas of a lot of other musicians to make sure it would come out nicely. Again, I encourage you to first try the way it DOES work rather than trying to force it into a less useful model, and then make up your mind. >You could have buttons 1 thru 9 on the >top row and the record,undo ect. buttons on the bottom row(or vice versa)of >the pedalboard.This would save alot of stage space.I really would love to get >an echoplex but its looking like I will have to spend around $885 >bucks(echoplex,pedalboard and a$100 for a midi pedal that will work) to get >the echoplex to work for me the way I need it to. Well thanks for the suggestion, we do appreciate them and much of what we do is derived from feedback we get from users. This would make the pedal significantly larger and more expensive, which most people would not like very much. It also would not be compatible with the existing echoplex hardware and require some special cable. And unfortunately, Aurisis is a very small operation, and I'm afraid we simply don't have resources to devote towards making every old thing and every special circumstance work. Especially something that has a readily available solution and is only interesting to a small number of users. And since 99.999% of people who trigger loops do so with midi note commands sent to a sampler, there's not much motivation for us to break out of that midi interface model for something more limited than what we have. (the jamman is the only device I'm aware of that doesn't trigger loops in this way.) We would much prefer to spend our limited time and money developing new features that we hope people will find interesting, rather than endlessly testing and adjusting what we've got to make sure it works with everything that was made in the last 15 years! If you are really into triggering loops, I'd suggest you follow the crowd and find some way to send midi-note commands. That way you will not only be able to trigger loops on the echoplex, but other loop oriented devices you may decide to use, like samplers and such. You'll have a lot more versatility and options if you have more midi commands at your disposal, and if you are going to follow this direction, you will probably want to make this change at some point anyway. There are many controller devices you could choose from: keyboards, drum triggers, more sophisticated midi pedals, etc. As some consolation, the echoplex also supports use of continuous controller messages for loop triggering, in addition to its use of midi notes. >Or mabey you and Oberheim >could design a program change friendly echoplex?Now this would be cool then I >could use my ancient ada midi pedals.Till then I gess I'l keep looping with my >jamman. An Echoplex controlled by program change messages from two ADA pedals like you have it would not be able to do a lot of it's functions. An Echoplex controlled by a single simple program change pedal (like the DMC Ground Control) would do even less. Even worse to me, the interface which makes the Loop software elegant and simple to use disappears and it becomes much less musically intuitive. You really wouldn't have much reason to upgrade this setup to an Echoplex, since you wouldn't have access to many of the interesting advanced features in Loop and the musicality that people seem to enjoy so much would be less available. If we released a version of Loop that somehow made every feature in your Echoplex controllable by program change messages, you would need to add one or two more ADA pedals to use it! And that would be so impossible to use that you'd hardly find it satisfying. On the other hand, if you were to learn to use the echoplex's carefully designed pedal (or get one of several midi pedal that are capable of emulating it, or even build your own plex pedal, it's not hard) you would have one less pedal on stage than you do now and a much nicer musical experience.... This is a frustrating situation to deal with, because some people using looping devices have unfortunately been given the expectation that looping can be controlled via midi in a ridiculously simple fashion. As more powerful looping devices become available, this approach breaks down very quickly. What happens when there are 32 or 64 loops available instead of 9? And many more functions to use on them? And 128 different patches to select between? Do you still want to control that completely with a single midi command? It'll be impossible! Now, if you were to buy any synthesizer, or a sampler, or recording system with midi-based transport control, or even a very simple drum machine, you would never assume that it could be totally controlled by just midi program change messages. So why would you expect the echoplex or any other looping device to operate that way? Midi is a sort of language, and when you use a device that can only speak a very small subset of the words you have to accept that you can only communicate to other devices in a very limited fashion. It's as if someone were to open up your vocabulary and remove everything but the prepositions. No nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, or even gerunds. Your ability to communicate with the world would then be impossibly limited, and you would not be able to do most of the things you can normally do. You wouldn't even be able to form thoughts about what you might do. That's the sort of box you would stick your echoplex in if you limit it completely to midi program change....I find that appalling, and would rather not disappoint people with something like that, which would be way below our standards for a good interface. That is why I remain unconvinced about the whole idea. (That and my opinion that this use would violate the midi standard's definition of program change.) My opinion is that we would rather not introduce it at all if it will just cause more inconsistencies and problems later. In this case, it will already cause a lot of conflicts with other features likely to be in the next versions of Loop based products. And for the versions after that, we would just have to remove it again, which would just be a bigger hassle than never introducing it in the first place. Our goal is to do what we can now to maintain consistency with the future, so that we don't end up with even worse legacy problems down the road. In this case, we will most probably be reserving midi program change for it's intended purpose of changing programs. 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, 26 Jan 1998 18:26:31 -0500 From: Jeff Duke To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: Kundun (and Steve Reich) Message-ID: <34CD1BA7.BBE3D7AB@bellsouth.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey ya'll, R&T, or anybody, could you explain what gradual changes in phase means,I am going to look for Reich.It sounds cool and I have been wanting to do some looping with real and analog drums. thanks much,Jeff R & T Cummings wrote: > Some interesting ideas with the minimal music approaches, I think. > One of favorite pieces is Steve Reich's _Drumming_ which at > 1 1/2 hours length involves "changes of phase position, pitch and > timbre" (liner notes). In this piece they start on tuned bongos and > gradually introduce voice, marimbas and glockenspiels while all > basically using the same rhythmic figure (with gradual changes of > relative phase). Another approach that he used on some pieces (e.g. _Six > Pianos), was changing phase in discrete steps of eigths etc. combined > with addition/ subtraction/ replacement of notes. > > This latter technique seems to me to be simpler and maybe a more > feasible way of getting started (Although, I personally have not > really tried this to any depth). Any of you have some ideas on these > sorts of techniques, as applied to machine-aided looping. > Machine-aided looping (especially the 95% echo feedback type > of looping) basically uses similar concepts, doesn't it? > > Thanks for the posts in this direction - this induces some new (well, > actually old - let's say recycled) ideas! --------------------------------