] [Thread Prev
Well, it was interesting to see all the age checks. I guess I was
laboring under some misconceptions.
I found Kim's comment interesting:
> The discussion about "What do we call it" is certainly interesting,
> but I
> think the "it" in question is not the whole of "loop music" but just
> "ambient-experimental improvisations employing loops" category. "Loop
> music" includes a lot of other music, some of which even has well
> recognized names and well known and populated venues for its
Fair enough. I was basically talking about non-danceable loop music in
an abstract vein.
All I was trying to do was make a couple of small points, but I see that
my general tongue-in-cheekness muddied the message for some. Here's the
careful summary of my assertions (note from legal dept: any of which may
1. Dance music is functionally (in terms of societal function) different
than other types of music (and rock music is nothing new in that
2. In today's market and general musical consciousness, most of the
opportunities for having music heard and appreciated go to danceable
3. If you're not making dance music, and you still want an audience,
then you must accept #2 or find the courage to change it.
(Here's where it gets dicey...)
4. Most people who go out to clubs are younger people, because most old
fogies like myself have a lot of trouble getting the families (or even
ourselves) out of the house in the evening - we're too busy, too tired,
too lazy, too jaded, too whatever.
5. Maybe there's hope for us (note from legal dept: people like *me*,
not necessarily people like "us", whoever "we" are) yet and something
can be done about #4, like creating and publicizing something new that
might get us out of the house once in a while. Probably not, though.
Anyway, it's good to be reminded that you don't have to be an aging
techno-hippie to be into this stuff.
And congratulations, Kim, Matthias, et. al. on your latest achievement!
Many wishes for success.
Windows musicians: learn songs and solos from any audio CD: