Comments on: What do you lose when using loops in worship?

By: Keith Morris

Keith Morris — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:07:05 +0000

I've enjoyed your loop posts–I would have bookmarked you for that alone (but I also enjoy the heart of other things you share). I'm a worship pastor and have thoroughly learned about loops before getting into it. There are a number of approaches, 3 or 4 basic ones that I have seen. Anyway, the one that draws me most is having a human who plays the "instrument" of Ableton, in a DJ style role. For me as a musician, I just find that approach much more attractive, and it's always nice to have another musicians to respond to. If you went that way, it would eliminate any train wrecks, plus maybe put you more at ease (the nagging thoughts thing), plus give you more spontaneity if you ever wanted it. If the band comes out of sync or something goes awry, the Ableton player just pulls it out of the mix temporarily. Easy. You can tap tempo to get back in sync, or just wait until the right moment when the musicians can hear it easily. Personally, I don't think using Ableton as a fancy playback device is the best we can do. Yeah, I plan to use it for click in rehearsals or for rhythm loops. I just don't think we should settle for that. I understand you or I don't have many or any people who know how to play the instrument. Perhaps it's an unusual historical moment. But maybe training and "lessons" is the key. Oh and by the way, maybe the APC 40 is the equivalent of "valves" or a "mouthpiece" for this new instrument. I bet a whole bunch of new valves and mouthpieces will be coming down the pike in the next 10 years. In this area musicians in the secular scenes can be quite inspiring (and way beyond us).

By: Troy

Troy — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:59:26 +0000

Yeah, I guess it would depend a lot on what you have in your loops. We’re trying to learn everything in sections, expressly so we can do an extra lap through any one section as the Spirit moves. Plus, the loops we use are mostly rhythm at this point. So that makes it easier.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:45:03 +0000

Troy,

Thanks for your feedback. As far as the third point goes yes that is certainly possible and handy to build them the way you say. In my case, with the complexity of the arrangement instrumentally it’s not always as feasible to hop around parts. For tags and simple repeats it makes a lot more sense for me (e.g. With Everything). Admittedly I haven’t pursued this direction very intently because as I said, I don’t really desire that amount of flexibility anyway. I like having a set arrangement and getting the band super tight.

I really appreciate your thoughts and insight. Hope we can converse further.

Thanks

By: Troy

Troy — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:25:47 +0000

Hey again,

So, I agree with the first point completely and the community of people sharing loops, especially while I’m learning how to make them (it takes me way longer than 10 hours per) has been a huge blessing.

The second point, I think is a temporary issue. Definitely some adjusting required, but it’s getting better. And I had an idea while reading your post. What it, in addition to the regular song arrangement, there was a separate scene with just the basic rhythm part of the loop…that you could use if you got in trouble. I’m going to try this. I think it could work and really reduce the nervousness.

Re the third point. I don’t feel like this at all. In fact, from the beginning we’ve set up our loops in scenes for all parts of the song–expressly so we could jump to any part and repeat it. Using Live this is really easy. A scene for count-in, one for intro, verse, pre-chorus, chorus, bridge, extro, etc. It’s easier for me to build songs this way, too.