Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
>Another option is being proficient on your instrument, for you instrument >players out there. If you are a badass on that Warr or Stick or Tele or >French Horn, your loops may not be noticed as much, but John and Jane will >have something that they can appreciate I don't want to put words in someone's mouth, but I think this is antithetical to the point Paul made re DT's view of looping being perceived as a fad rather than an autonomous field of discipline... I don't think any of us are (at least intentionally) advocating the use of looping as a substitute for instrumental competency. Paul's point, to which I added my comment, dealt more with folks seeing looping as an "effect", as something added on top of an existing methodology. People see a guitar and half expect to hear BB King licks. Looping is still unfamiliar to the general public, so most people can't be expected to distinguish between "input device as part of a total system" and "instrument as the whole deal." Hoping that our "loops may not be noticed as much" goes against the grain of even doing loops in the first place. It's like when the first guitar synths came out and the sounds of other, existing instruments became available to the guitarist. A lot of lousy sounding stuff was flying around, because people were trying to use preexisting codified GUITAR techniques to sound like trumpets, flutes or what-have-you... It wasn't until people (Fripp comes to mind as a good example) began to approach the guitar synth as a NEW instrument distinct from the guitar that we began hearing truly musical results. There's certainly nothing wrong with being a "badass" on an existing instrument, but what I had in mind, and I think what Paul was saying as well, is that to be a "badass" looper might require a shift in mindset, an application of effort and discipline no less intense than that required for existing instruments, just DIFFERENT as the specific needs of the particular situation might warrant. What'chall think? Tim