As a side note. If you are playing music you must be able to listen WHILE you are soloing otherwise you are not an improviser. In the clip above at :40 sec the bassist played a little figure. I heard it and tried to play it back at :43 but I messed it up. However he heard what I was attempting and we both hit it together at :45 and then it was used as a theme for the rest of the solo section. When you hear the term "Big Ears" or "playing with ears" this is exactly the kind of stuff people are talking about it.
Interesting post Buddha. Thanks. Just one thing though, I know you train killer dogs, but the dog on the video clip above looks like he's wearing his gonads around his neck. Could be the start of a new craze;) ----------
Hey Buddha man that's funny I just nipped downstairs and get something out of the studio and my pc still on I saw the loop loop loop and it certainly got my attention ha ha.
Your right it should be a seperate thread I was heading off in an unknown direction may be SSW who knows anyway;
If you play in the present and loop something then when you play over it your then reacting to something which is not in the present.It is in the past. You know man, when youv'e done commercial stuff in the studio it's all down individually.
In jazz blues or whatever to me everyone should play at the same time.In the present and react off the present.Otherwise your creating some kind of quantum leap where one side is fixed and totally predictable which can't connect with the other side. One way traffic.
So if you place that in a live band with others playing everything has to work from the loop, playing canned music.So the time is fixed so the musos can't be a unit as one. Time has to be able to move in the present.To me it creates a kind of stilted time with loops.
I agree that you meaning you use it to shall I say to very interesting effect.
Hey man can that dog sing Blues ,no actually it looks more like a jazz singer.
Last Edited by on Jun 26, 2009 2:16 PM
loops stations are the best thing for the oneman archestra.check this whip cream out. also look at the other tunes of dub fx(love someone).no drum machines or samples,just sax,vocals,fx and loops. (thanx to Ronnie S for passing this on) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8p5GB_jasc&feature=channel_page
Here's the original (well, OK, maybe Stockhausen or the BBC radiophonic workshop did it earlier). A guitarist friend and I did it ourselves on a Revox A77 and a B77 in 1978. It's probably a lot cheaper to buy a digital delay nowadays tho! Oh, and you can't avoid gradual deterioration of the sound using tape machines.
Just don't play a bum note!
Last Edited by on Jun 27, 2009 2:43 AM
I couldn't disagree with you more strongly. I'd never heard of Driscoll, but I think his rhythm playing is terrific and his loop-conception is even better. What he's doing couldn't be MORE historically valid. He's doing the equivalent in our day of what train songs and fox chases were for an earlier time. He's taking tried-and-tested harp technique and reaching out for something new that sounds like the year 2007 (with a little of 1987 thrown in). This stuff excites me, frankly. I'd have to hear more to know exactly what Driscoll is about as a blues player, but I applaud this particular video and would certainly be interested in seeing more.
I've got to agree with Tryharp on this one. I've listened to a few of these type of beatbox stuff (there's someone called Yurilane doing it too) and in my opinion it's crap. He might have a good sense of timing but to be honest he should use a kazoo instead of a harmonica , at least it would sound more melodic.
I so Hope this stuff isn't the saviour or future of the blues harp.
It seems to me Driscoll uses the harp because it allows him to breathe IN while he does he's beat box stuff. I doubt he takes the harp seriously, it's a gimmick and appears just a tool to make more sound.
I don't think it's fair for any of us to even include him in harmonica who's who talk.
The problem with harmonica is it's like the Bongo or Congas wherein it's very easy to make noise and even make simple rhythms with ZERO knowledge of the instrument. Instruments like that attract people who want the easy path..the awesome duality is, the harmonica is one of the hardest instruments to master. Howard Levy says it's THE hardest instrument to play at a master level and he's an elite musician who has mastered 14-15 instruments. I believe him.
I totally agree with that Chris. When I learnt to play "Oh Susanna" I thought I was shit hot. After about 8 years of that and "When the saints.." my missus MADE me take some lessons and after 10 seconds of hearing someone play properly I was the most deflated and depressed person on earth. He actually made that quote to me...easiest to play hardest to master. One other thing he said which I think relates to the thread about the guy who plays like little walter was to get your own sound. He said your sound is like your accent or voice. You can try and immatate other people but at the end of the day you can't do that all ther time and eventaully you'll need to use your own voice.And everyone has a different voice and thank Buddha for that!
There are guitar players who play harmonica at the same time, and the harmonica usually doesn't sound as good as if they were just focusing on the harp. Instead of thinking of this guy as a harp player who is beatboxing think of him as a beatboxer who is using a harp. If you want to prove how bad he sucks, lets here you beatbox harmonica. As for whether this is blues or not, who cares, if it isn't it at least is showing something that could be adapted for blues.
I saw some beatbox harmonica on YouTube a while back. There wasn't much of it online. There seems to be more of it now, and better stuff. I have to agree with Adam on this one. This is one way that music stays modern.
If the consensus here is these guys aren't great harmonica players, lets hear some great harmonica players do this. (Of course, then the beatboxers will complain that the harmonica was good but the beatboxing wasn't.) Who will be the first person to take it to the next level?
Last Edited by on Jun 27, 2009 12:59 PM
I know not everyone is a fan but I really found this quite enjoyable to listen to. Maybe its just a bit of fluff not to be taken to seriously, but what’s wrong with that?
Man, I think it is really strange everyone digging this loop thing.Iv'e attempted on previous posts to put forward reasons why looping is not TRUTH so this MAY help cement some folks understandingof things.
It is not tricky in any way but this truely great Artist gives the answer. If blues is to be taken seriously as an "art form" then I say there is really little place for loops.(Before jumping on the band wagon with your opinions watch BBC I player)
Put in BBC I player go to programe called Imagine. This is a profile on Artist David Hockney to me the artist is telling you straight if you are willing to accept it.
(The principle of moving focus)
Last Edited by on Jul 01, 2009 3:36 AM
Mr verylonguser: Very funny and I expected those kind of responses. Are well that's your opinion but at least I am aiming to show substance and foundation to an art form.
Reminds me of the brick layer that goes into one of the famous art galleries and sees a pile of bricks on show reacts as you have just done.
Amusing very amusing. Let us see if anyone can come up with perhaps a little more intellectual response. One that has substance behind , thats the challenge.
Do not patronise me. You know nothing about me. Do not imply that I am a Neanderthal philistine.
I dislike it when someone tries to bulldoze their opinion on everyone and in doing so imply that the rest of us are not educated or are somehow not as 'artistic' as them. You don't like loops - fine. I can happily live with that; it doesn't mean I am wrong.
I respect David Hockney as an artist and I understand his personal motivation. What you might notice however is that he does not go on to demolish the whole of Western art on the basis of his personal philosophy. It is what guides him and him alone.
I'm a neanderthal and I like loops. I think of if it as music in a bottle. I understand the playing and being in the moment but loops are like memories and there is nothing wrong with thinking about things from the past as it may alter your immediate future for the better.
As to whether looping is 'truth'... your assuming everyone is listening to music to judge it on it's technical skill. Most people listen to music because they enjoy listening to the sound. If building loops, or even going into the studio to create the sound you are trying to create makes it sound better, more power to you. The last few Beatles albums couldn't be performed live the way they were recorded. If you rule out technology you risk becoming a historical footnote. A lot of good musicians refuse to use technology that lets a mediocre performer sound like a good musician. What I think they are missing is they can make a good musician sound brilliant (for example the Beatles).
Exactly - Sop's whole argument is flawed because it assumes the only value in art is in the act of its creation. Hockney's take on this was from a purely personal point of view - he was talking about the value of HIS art to HIM, (which is understandable).
Also, as I've pointed out and he has failed to address, the logical conclusion of his argument that 'true' music only exists in the present, is that recorded music is not valid art. I personally will never accept that.
Mr verylongusername: ha ha you may actually look like paxman for all I care
Blues Music when recording should all play at the same time. No over dubs nothing. It should be done working off each other in the present.
Now that is quite funny your question on recorded music.
I was just going to leave it because I was advised many many years ago by a great jazz player when I first got the bug for it to hang with the converted and don't engage with anything else. There was no point. Very sound advice of which I have never adopted apart from on gigs where the golden rule is never talk music with an audience in between playing. (Laugh and joke ,talk about anything but that)In fact unless you have to when you get to the gig it should not really be discussed at all even with the band until the point of execution.
Ok to try and answer this question which I really shouldn't be answering is that once music is recorded it is captured all together in one container let us say. Everytime it is then played the listener experiences something NEW. Whatever that is.Each individual experiences something different.
I did this when I was very young some never come to It which is drawing parrallells with all the arts.
Hockney in that programe is giving us the artistic musos the answer. As he points out and totally accepts that lots will not see it.He is very comfortable with that.
Last Edited by on Jul 02, 2009 3:42 AM
