Looping Catching on?

[PMimlitsch@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/8/99 1:15:32 AM, you wrote:

<<I think that DT is right about 
      looping not catching on yet. I almost have the feeling that people 
see
it
      as a fad >>

The main problem, as I see it, is the perception that "Loopers" (and 
Looping)
are viewed a lot of times as "effects" as opposed to "instruments".  The
viewing/listening audience sees a guitar so they expect "guitar" playing, a
lot of guitar player/loopers set up collages of sound then just wank the 
same
stuff over top of it that they would if they weren't "Looping" (before any
body goes balistic, think about it, then fess up - we've all done it at 
some
point in the growth cycle).   When "Looping" devices and signal processors
start getting played as instruments instead of something to tack on to an
already established "technique" then "Looping" might "catch on".  But then
again why does "Looping" have to "catch on".  The listener should ideally 
only
be taken in by the resulting music and not how it was produced.  The 
musician
should be utilizing the instruments needed to realize his vision.  Limiting
titles such as Loopist, Guitarist, Stick Player etc., while fine for 
targeting
an audience, can become constricting.  For the listener they raise
expectations which may not be realized, for the musician they can be real
detriments to growth. I think that "Looping" (as it pertains to the use of
electronic looping devices) is in its infancy and will only become a stand
alone art form when the devices themselves are approached by those not
hampered by previous "instrumental experience" (or as done by the present
masters, such as DT, RF etc., of the art that can transcend the history of
their own sound generating device so that the "Looper" becomes *the*
instrument.) - Paul