RE: response to Mark Hamburg (live looping brand)

["Chris Roberts" <cpr@musetrap.com>]

i vote for most likely 'possibly misinterpretted in the archive' comment:

"recently departed, Mr. LaFosse"

hehe... :)

peace
-cpr

>-- Original Message --
>From: "loop.pool" <looppool@cruzio.com>
>To: "LOOPERS DELIGHT (posting)" <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
>Subject: response to Mark Hamburg (live looping brand)
>Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:14:12 -0700
>Reply-To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
>
>
>This is a long one, so press delete immediately, but I wanted to respond
>to
>Mark Hamburg's last post in detail
>and then cease and desist on the subject.
>
>Mark wrote:
>
>"I've been assuming that "Live Looping" was an effort to establish a brand
>for some set of music. "
>
>An incorrect assumption as far as my involvement has been, Mark.   "Live
>Looping"  was used as the only common denominator that a bunch of diverse
>musicians (who still were part of a central community and internet forum:
>Loopers Delight) used and,  at the same time, was a catchy term
>that I could get journalists and radio DJs into.  It worked, so I kept
using
>it.
>
>The paradigm of modern concert production since the mid seventies in the
>US
>at least has been one where the promoters have tried to put
>similar acts together on a bill, surmising that everyone wants to hear
the
>same kind of music in an evening.  It has reflected what I consider the
>continued 'ghettoization' of music by the entertainment industry and radio
>infrastructure (that has become increasingly monopolized by people who
are
>more interested in profits than creativity,  but don't get me
>started.................lol).
>
>One of my production heroes, the late and controversial Bill Graham, in
his
>early years tried specifically to mix up the musical styles on a bill
>because he thought that young people were too narrow and uneducated in
their
>tastes in music.   He purposefully would put Duke Ellington and Jimi 
>Hendrix
>on the same bill,  self conciously trying to turn each other's fans onto
>each other.     I loved this concept and learned a lot about music that
I
>didn't know by going to many of his
>concerts...............lol.............my first concert at the age of 16
>was
>my hippy sister taking me to see Canned Heat and Gordon Lightfoot (both
>bands I didn't even know).
>
>When I first started doing these small non-profit concerts,  I was
>personally delighted that a specifically titled Bass Looping Festival 
>would
>have acts
>as diverse as the ambience of a Scott Khunga Drengsen to the however you
>could categorize Steve Lawson's beautiful music to me banging
>away on a prepared bass with martini skewers......lol.
>
>I've noticed in my own artistry that when I am confronted with really
>minimalist constraints that it forces me to be creative in ways that I
would
>not normally be.    Last week list member Jon Wagner, Matt Davignon and
a
>few other artists were given only junk that the audience brought us and
then
>told to do an entire concert using only those found 'instruments'.   It
was
>wonderfully creative and each set of musicians played very differently
(all
>of them with looping devices, coincidentally).     I loved doing these
>festivals for the same reasons:   a common metaphor,  the excitement of
all
>involved that we were doing something with great commonality and the juice
>of creativity from seeing someone use the same kinds of tools you used
in
>completely idiosyncratic ways.   It was really awesome and inspiring to
me
>and still is.
>
>So my intentions were twofold
>1)  Use the catchiest term I could that was both short and also described
>the common denominator of a performance with divergent musical styles.
>2)  Intentionally start to educate the people in my community about this
>mode of technological creation of music that I so loved and believed in:
>looping.
>
>So I have never intended to make the term 'Live Looping"  a brand.    
It
>was merely a commonality.  Hell, it was alliterative.....lol.
>
>And think of it, folks,   what is looping afterall?...................what
>does it specifically define, musically?....................practically
>nothing , if we take into account the musically stylistic diversity of
>everyone reading this.    And yet,  we all know what Loopers Delight is
when
>we log on to read the list.      We know there is a lot of diversity
>musically here but that we are all, for some reason or other, fascinated
>by
>the technology and the things it can allow us to do, expansively, as
>musicians.     Loopers Delight works as a term because
>Kim called it that and we thought it was great to come here.    It's a
>commonality,  not a description.
>
>Let me be obnoxious and write that one final time:       The term LIVE
>LOOPING as I use it, represents a commonality;   not a style;  not a 
>genre;
>not a brand name; not a description.
>
>  It is a term that is freeing in my mind, not constricting.   It is a
term
>that not everybody likes.   I completely understand why some people don't
>respond well to it.  My friend Andre has always been uncomfortable with
it.
>We argued up one side and down the other about it and you know,
>neither of us is right or wrong (though we both love to
>argue...............lol).    If you can't relate,  I have no judgement
and
>I
>doubt that very few people here at Loopers Delight would either.  Call
what
>you do whatever you want.  If you want to successfully promote yourself
to
>the outside world and you are not playing conventional pop, jazz or
>singersongwriter material,  you'll have to call it something or you wont'
>get press.  That's been my experience at least.
>
>I used the term because I knew I could get  a much better response from
>journalists and radio DJs.   It worked where I live and seems to have 
>worked
>in  places as diverse as  San Luis Obispo, Boston, NYC, Cambridge, Berlin
>and Firenze.
>
>Could I have used a different term, instead?    Of course.     I've
>discovered that promoting unusual music or music that the public is not
>familiar with yet  always involves preaching to the converted first.  It's
>a
>necessary evil and then with a small population base you try to expand
the
>best way you can.
>
>I have also found that successful promotion of new or unusual musics has
>at
>it's heart,  people who are
>fanatically in love with the music and who want to promote it furiously
>whether or not it will draw well or make lots of money.
>
>I think specifically of one of the Bay Area's new treasures of new music
>promotion:  our own Matt Davignon.      Matt was really uncomfortable with
>the number of multiple artist theme concerts that I and others produced
>called 'Festivals'.   He thought the term was over used an meaningless.
>I disagreed with him, but he called his wonderful two day  production,
 'The
>Two Day Bay Area Voice and Electronic Thingee".
>
>Hell, I hated that term............lol......and argued with him to try
and
>convince him to change it (do we see a continuing theme
>here......lol)......but it didn't matter, because Matt made it his own
and
>assembled a wonderfully creative lineup of artists
>and the event was a huge success.................not even from an audience
>standpoint, but from an artistic and a communal standpoint.  I think every
>one
>went away from the concert (and we had such luminaries as Amy X Neuburg
and
>Cirque De Soleil's Dina Emerson so it was a hell of great bill) excited
>about the possibilites of solo voice and electronic processing duets.
>Everyone went away wanting to collaborate with artists they hadn't played
>with.   A Voice and Electronics tribe got created at tribe.net and there
>are
>definitely plans to continue this new tradition.   It doesn't really 
>matter
>what it was called in a way (unless people won't write about
>it)..............a few people came......saw a wonderfully creative themed
>show and will bring more people the next time it happens.
>
>Mark also wrote:
>"A number of record labels have successfully defined brands over the 
>years.
>It's reasonably clear what is meant by the ECM sound though ECM's roster
>is
>pretty diverse."
>
>Good point.   What does ECM mean anyway?   Virtually nothing, until a 
>group
>of musicians banded together under a very loose banner
>(and the iron hand of a producer with an aesthetic vision) and took it
to
>the world.    Just because of their committment (to do shows together;
to
>be
>on Manfred's label; to promote the concept as well as their music) and
>Manfred's single mindedness,   ECM meant something for many years.
>He could have called it BAMMA BAMMA with that roster of artists and his
>drive and we would know the term today.
>
>
> Mark then asks:
>"Is anyone who uses a looping device live doing something that would fit
>under the term "Live Looping"?
>
>At one of the shows I put on, yes.    Hans Lindauer or Massimo Liverani
or
>Os might have a different answer, however.   And they wouldn't be wrong.
>
>"If yes, then how much value does the term have -- outside perhaps of 
>Santa
>Cruz -- for audiences?"
>
>As much as you invest in it:    no more, no less.        And a lot of 
>people
>have used this argument with me in the past ,   "Well it works in Santa
Cruz
>only because Santa Cruz is so sociologically anomylous".    I think this
>is
>completely specious argument
>
>.  It worked in Santa Cruz because we worked our asses off to promote it.
>Period. Point. Dot.
>
>Massimo Liverani invested his energy like hell and the Firenze Live 
>Looping
>Festival was a wonderful event as a consequence.   I doubt anyone knew
what
>the term looping meant in Firenze before .
>
>"If yes, does this mean that the only real audience
>for a live looping event is more or less other people using looopers since
>all that you can predict is use of looping devices (and technical
>difficulties)?"
>
>Unfortunately, Mark,  you don't gig very much so your experience is mostly
>of the Y2K3/LOOPSTOCK mode.     I do many, many more live looping gigs
than
>these festivals all the time.  It's how I make a good deal of my living.
>I"ve played for thousands of people who are non loopers.
>
>The Metro ran an article on Amy X Neuburg calling her   'one of the most
>prominent looping artists'.   They didn't (and it was the first time I
ever
>saw this in print) explain what they meant.  They assumed that everyone
>knew.  That's just because we've been really over the top about promoting
>here.
>
>Last years Loopstock had very few people in attendance.    I loved it!!!!
>It was one of the most inspirational gigs of the year for me and I learned
>a
>ton.      So, whether I play for 500 'normals' at First Night on New 
>Year's
>Eve or just to a few of the converted at last years' Loopstock, it doesn't
>matter to me.    It just doesn't change what how I try to promote it.
>
>"If no, then we hit on the issue that seems to bother a number of people
>here
>which is that they feel they are using a looper live but aren't part of
the
>"live looping" movement.
>
>Anyone who uses a looper live who feels left out, needs only to contact
me.
>I'll either invite them to come play with us at the next big event or I'll
>take the time to help them to produce their own event in their own region.
>There are wonderful generous people in this community.  People willing
to
>bend over backwards to educate, to lend a helping hand.  to help newbies
>get
>started.   I"m bowled over by the general service nature of many of the
>loopers here.   It makes me be proud to come here and consider myself a
>community member.
>
>"What is it that distinguishes "live looping" from
>music involving the use of looping devices in a live context? Is it
>something that an audience can recognize?"
>
>It really doesn't matter, although I am one who believes that audiences
can
>and should be educated (lol, I think this tendency drives my brother 
>crazy).
>
> What distinguished Sonny Rollins (non ECM member) from Jan Garbarek (ECM
>stable member)?   They both played jazz.
>They both played sax.     Would you have gone to see Jan Garbarek if he
was
>at a jazz festival?    Would you have gone to see him at a specific
>ECM festival.   The answer to both questions would be yes, if you liked
him.
>Is Jan Garbarek better recognized because people assocotiated him
>with the ECM label.  Yes.     Is Andre LaFosse better recongnized because
>of
>his involvement with looping in public at live looping festivals.  Yes.
>The term doesn't negate, limit or define either artist.  It's just more
>people to , hopefully , sell or play your music for.   If, at one point,
>Keith Jarrett
>felt stifled by the term ECM and left the label (with a lot of publicity,
>I
>might add.................<grin>),  that was cool too.   The same goes
for
>the talented and recently departed, Mr. LaFosse.
>
>"Can you do live looping in the studio or is the live experience an
>essential
>part and recording CDs is pointless?"
>
>Lol,  the answer, Mark, is that you can do whatever you want to do.
>Depending on your mental set,   a descriptive labelling or 'brand" term
>can either be constrictive or it can be expansive.  It's all up to you.
>Personally, I have found that approaching looping with an expansive mind
>set
>has led me to learn much more about making music.  It's made me happier
and
>allowed me to play with more and more interesting artists.
>
>A lot of people seem to have fears about being boxed 
>in..........categorized
>and imprisoned.    As an artist,  if you don't let yourself be limited
by
>anything, then you are free to associate yourself with any community you
>want to be a part of.      I, personally, am part of the World music
>community, the Looping community, the Goth community,  the Avante Garde
>community,  the Electronica community,  the Commercial music community,
the
>Acoustic Singer Songwriter community and many others.     Why allow 
>yourself
>to be limited?     Why give this labelling stuff so fucking much power.
>Use Live Looping if it serves you or if you feel a part of it,  Don't if
>you
>don't.
>
>
>" If I didn't loop myself, what is it that would make me want to go to
a
>Live Looping event or
>buy music identified as Live Looping? If it isn't useful to audiences why
>use it as a brand?"
>
>I'm just not with you on this whole brand concept, Mark, but the Y2K2 loop
>festival raised $1,700 for the Cayuga Vault and helped them to
>stay financially solvent as the only remaining inexpensive free music 
>venue
>in Santa Cruz.  We had the cover of the Metro and two hours of radio
>interviews and on air playing to publicize that festival.   Seems like
the
>audience responded to something.
>
>The Y2K3 festival ended up by losing a little  money, but the economy had
>really soured in the interim year in the county.  I also had come back
from
>a 2 1/2 month tour in Europe, was exhausted, broke and didn't have as much
>energy to promote as well as I had the year before.  I'm sure that had
>something to do with the lower turnout.  We alsotried, ambitiously to 
>extend
>the festival to three days.  In retrospect, it was just too much and I
will
>scale Y2K4 down this year (and probably, for the first time in my history,
>be more selective about who plays because of sheer logistics).
>
>You must realize that because I wanted to help create and nurture a 
>looping
>community here in Santa Cruz that I wanted everyone to feel welcome.
>This is not a Western paradigm,  it is more of an African paradigm:
>everyone in the village sings and plays drums if they want.   I like this
>and have fostered it.     Consequently,  the festivals have come under
>attack for lack of professionalism and technical glitches.  In our 
>defense,
>the Y2K2 festival put 48 different artists on and off stage (with NO SET
>CHANGE TIME planned) and the entire festival ran 15 minutes late in two
full
>days.  If you've ever produced a large multi-act festival you will realize
>that this is almost a miracle of excellent production and a huge testament
>to the fact that every single looping performer lent a hand and were
>concious about their set times.
>
> You yourself have complained of these technical glitches Mark, but
>ironically,  you were one of the newbies, originally, who benefited from
>the
>fact that we tried to be all inclusive.
>
>I'm going to continue to be as inclusive as I can.   Financially,  I can't
>afford to lose any more money on these festivals and we may have to become
>more exclusive, just in order to make the festival costs back by drawing
>an
>audience.  We'll see.
>
>    We seem to be in a low energy cycle in the looping community (witness
>the dirth of people who, initially, responded to Hans call to artists for
>Loopstock).   It will change..........just like the economy, I predict.
>
>In the meantime,  anyone who wants to start using a new term (Cycletronica
>or whatever) to describe what it is that we already do and have been doing
>for years has my complete blessings.    I get better publicity and name
>recognition here where I live with the Live Looping moniker so I'll stick
>with it.   If it offends you,  I'm really sorry.       Seriously, and
>without any rancor at all,    get out there and produce your own shows
and
>call them whatever you want.     I'll be there, cheering in the audience
>if
>it has anything remotely to do with using a looping device live.
>
>Rick
>
>
>
>
>