Re: why do people think looping is just for guitar?

[Andre LaFosse <altruist@earthlink.net>]

I won't quote Kim's third attempt at explaining himself, since I think I
got the point a while ago (as did we all by now, hopefully).  I'll try
to address the points raised by him and Tom Spaulding.

At the risk of being criticized for trying to ostracize other musicians
or draw lines in the proverbial sand (neither of which is in any way my
interest or intent), I do think there's a difference between real-time
and step-time looping in terms of how it lends itself to being used.  I
thnk most of us, both here and in the general world outside this list,
associate the term "looper"  -- if we even have an association with it
at all -- with a real-time device a la the JamMan, Echoplex, Boomerang,
etc.  The people doing dance and hip-hop music generally make very
loop-oriented music, but it doesn't get done on gear that's thought of
as "a looper" per so.  I mean, of course, that's *exactly* what they're
doing.  But they're almost always doing it in step-time, with a sampler,
sequencer, computer, and multitrack studio setup.  

And in a way, the very cross-stylistic nature of looping that Kim so
rightly brings up on occasion may actually be something of a hindrance
in terms of people coming to terms with a "looper," because if someone
makes hip-hop, or techno, or house, I'd dare say a significant number of
them take the looping aspect for granted, to the point where they don't
even think of it as being a distinct or defining handle for the music,
any more that a jazz saxophonist would think of what he does as "reed
music" or an Indian percussionist would identify his niche as "drum
music."  I can see the skeptical comments now: "Oh, a looper?  What do I
need *that* for?  I already do that!"

No, of course not everyone is going to respond this way.  But I think
it's reasonable to think that at least some of them might.

So a "looper" is, at least at this point in time, going to be thought of
in a different sort of light, because when you make that sort of
distinction distinction of terminology, there's a different set of
associations that shows up.

And who tends to come to mind when the idea of a looper comes up? 
People like Robert Fripp and David Torn.  Why?  Because they've got the
most high profile of any "loopists" I can think of.

Kim, this helps to answer your question from a week or so ago with
regards to what it was exectly that Fripp did with looping that made him
such an icon in the field.  I would say it has less to do with the
actual musical content of his looping, and more to do with the
circumstantial element: He's one of the few people I can think of (maybe
the *only* one at his level of visibility) who's consistently gone out
there in front of people and looped live, in a manner that makes very
clear and obvious display of the tools and methodology he's using.  Most
of the people, musicians or otherwise, who are familiar with real-time
looping as a performance concept probably associate Fripp with it first
and foremost, because of his high profile in general and his high
looping profile in particular.  When you look at the scarcity of live
real-time loopists in the world, and then consider that Fripp's been
looping live for about 20 years, you start to understand why it has this
sort of guitaristic association.

You also have to keep in mind that the sorts of synchronization and
multiple loop features that would make current-generation loopers like
the EDP or JamMan so well-suited to other musical areas are still very
new ideas that not a lot of people are hip to.  Previous to the advent
of these kinds of devices, you were basically looking at electronic
glorifications of a tape-loop-type of system.  Not quite the same thing
as what we have access to now.  Even most of the people who *already
own* these newer units tend to not delve into them all that heavilly, if
the traffic I've read on this list is much of an indication.  I
attribute this largely to the fact that we tend to be creatures who
follow example, and there aren't any readilly visible people out there
who are exploiting the unique features endemic to current loopers in a
way that we can easilly latch on to and emulate.  I'd love to hear what
Matthias Grob is doing, but I don't live in Brazil and I haven't yet
tried to get a trans-continental mail order placed with him, so my
options are limited.  

If you want to change this, you've got to target artists in
non-guitaristic circles and find ways of publicising their use of the
tools: for example, DJ/remix artist Junior Vazquez talking about how he
uses a JamMan live, and running ads and testimonials in DJ and dance
magazines.  In order to follow through on this, and in order to make
sure that your average uninformed consumer can get some real-world idea
of how this can work for them, you've got to get clinicians to stage
demonstrations and live performances via store tours or conventions like
NAMM: people who know the tools, who know what they're doing, who can
demonstrate and communicate the depth and breadth of these tools for the
uninitiated.  (It would help if at least some of them weren't
guitarists.)  

Offer the unit to high-profile artists in non-guitaristic fields who
have an inclination towards an experimental or real-time approach
(Laurie Anderson comes to mind immediately, as does Ani DiFranco, who's
actually been doing some primitive real time looping by sampling her
voice in concert and then having the sound man play it back in order to
generate virtual vocial harmonies) and have them endorse the products. 
Make up an Oberheim-produced demo CD featuring music made exclusively on
the Echoplex, and offer it at a marginal price by mail or in stores to
pique people's curiosity.  Gear specific musical examples to specific
features on the unit, which are obvious enough to demonstrate the
technical process that's going on and musical enough to make people want
to tap into it.  Last, though certainly not least, organize the
instruction manual in a way that encourages a guided tour approach so
that people are led through the increasing levels of depth in a unit,
rather than being plopped down in the middle of nowehere with a Thomas
Guide.

To add a quick aside to the recent debate regarding pricing, you should
also consider exactly what you can afford to sell the unit for, and how
much you're willing to trade a lower per-unit profit margin for a more
enticing price point.  Part of the reason I picked up my Echoplex at the
end of 1995 was because I was able to get the unit plus the footswitch
(both new) for about $540, from a dealer anxious to sell the thing. 
That's a very different story from the current $999 list price someone
here quoted recently for the unit alone.

Then you've got to hope that non-guitarists are able to make the
translation.  Keep in mind that the electric guitar is a fundamentally
electronic instrument, so putting it through an electronic processor
like a looper works very much in harmony with the fundamental nature of
the instrument, and doesn't take anything away from it in a significant
sense (audiophile debates regarding minutae such as gain stages and
converters notwithstanding).  An instrument like a saxophone, a human
voice, a drumset, or any other purely acoustic instrument, on the other
hand, has to take the rather serious and often compromising plunge into
the electronic realm, which is a tradeoff many people will need a
compelling reason to make.  

And finally, you've got to hope that these potential non-guitaristic
loopists will *want* to make the translation.  Real-time looping
requires just that: real-time thought.  Yes, I realize that most of the
current crop of loopers that we have can work very effectively in a
step-time/studio environment.  But if somebody simply wants to do
studio-based cut-and-paste looping in a standard step-time sense, why
should they delve into a dedicated looper when a cheap sampler and
sequencer can do the same thing (including some features very
fundamental to sample-and-loop music that units like the JamMan and
Echoplex can't do)?   

Tom Spaulding's idea about promoting the EDP as a sort of "real-time
interactive personal multitrack" isn't a bad idea at all, but my main
concern in taking that tactic is that it would slant the unit as a
studio-based thing, which for the reasons I've already mentioned doesn't
really embrace the unit's utmost potential.  If I read a description of
a unit like that, I'd associate it with some sort of actual recording
system like a Roland VS-880 or a MiniDisc system, which could be an
extremely misleading slant, not least of all because the EDP isn't
really a "recorder" in the sense of storing something for reference
later in the future (unless you consider MIDI data dump as exclusive
storage medium to be a viable recording option).  

I personally usually describe the EDP as a very specialized form of
sampler designed to work and operate spontaneoulsy, in real time.  Tom
gave a mammoth list of EDP users, and was wondering who should be the
first main representative.  Why choose?  List them all, if only to
demonstrate how wide-ranging the thing is and how many serious people
use it.  I would play up the real-time aspect, the multiple loop aspect,
the MIDI sync features, the cut-and-paste methodology, and the
pedalboard.  These are things that set the unit apart.  I'd take
advantage of the hype over electronic music that's currently gripping
the industry, and try to slant the EDP as a way to use the electronic
side of things in a very organic, spontaneous, natural, real-time
setting, but also underscore the applicability of these in a step-time
context.  (And I'd definitely include a URL for Looper's Delight in any
print ad which was run, preferably linking it to a special page written
and constructed with the specific intent of introducing people to what
the unit has to offer.)

And therein may lie the biggest challenge: real-time looping requires
that you can (and *want to*) embrace the spontaneous, in-the-moment,
improvisational aspect of music making that it lends itself to.  And I
just don't know how many people want to take that plunge.  Look at the
Yamaha VL-1: It was a breakthrough technological development, in that it
required a real investment of skill and performance practice in order to
harness some new sounds.  But I'm not sure that a generation of music
makers weaned on MIDI sequencing and sound modules and samples know how
to use a live, spontaneous approach when they can get their music out
much more easilly by pushing the start key on a sequencer.  It's a
different way of thinking and operating.  So you've got to present an
aspect of real-time looping that offers possibilities that wouldn't
exist in the step-time realm.  Otherwise, a lot of them aren't going to
see a good reason to go for it.

This isn't a criticism, or a ghettoization, or a manifesto of division. 
It's simply an observation and speculation on differences that I feel
are already present.  I apologize if anyone takes offense at my
assumptions or conclusions, and welcome any alternative points of view.  

--Andre