Re: what a loop has to say

[Andreas Wetterberg <awetterberg@post.cybercity.dk>]

Well Kris, that very much depends on where you draw the line of 
musicianship, and what you consider music. If it takes ages to set up a 
randomization patch, do the scripting for the post-recording sequencing, 
and handling the massive amounts of data that is sometimes required 
(like in a max/msp patch) is that then still not part of the musical 
process?

I believe mr. LaFosse and others would make great use of that one note, 
and even though it's just technological tom-foolery it is still highly 
musical, and beyond the reach of your average 10-month old.

Most of my looping these days is based on a more-or-less random audio 
input, that does not make it less musical, at least to my ears.
Andreas

Kris Hartung wrote:
> [...]it is about
> being aware of the music, but also who or what is generating the music 
>and
> taking responsibility for this. If I play one note and my gear generates 
>an
> entire 5 minute song by randominzing that note, sequencing,, etc...that's
> hardly a case of me being aware of my own music. That's letting the gear 
>to
> the work for me.  That's not even musicianship in my book. My 10 month 
>old
> kids can do this.  So simply being aware of the music and letting it flow
> through me is not a complete criteria as I see it....but I know what you 
> are
> getting at here and agree with your concept. Again, there are varying
> degrees of what we are talking about here, and all exceptions noted.
> 
> Kris

>>
> 
> 
> 
> .
>