Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
At 11:01 PM 10/31/99 -0000, you wrote: >This is all just missing the point. It's like that old ridiculous >argument >that used to say that synthesizers and drum machines were putting >musicians >out of business. Uh, what point would that be? Way back when the Mellotron came out, sure, the musicians' unions were pretty ticked off, but unlike the horse-drawn buggy makers' beef with Henry Ford (i.e. newer tech superceding the old), we're not talking about mutually incompatible things. Television may have forced radio to change, but I still don't watch it while driving and, as you point out, synths and drum machines didn't render "real" musicians obsolete. The availability of technology merely increases our options. In my example I was speaking mainly of how annoying it is in an amateur or part-time semi-professional context (most of us, really) to have to cancel or postpone a get-together because the (fill in an instrument) player doesn't show up, or to attempt to carry on with an integral instrument absent. Looping in this regard offers us more possibilities. While many of us may indeed be surly SOB's or self-admittedly pedigreed arseholes, I don't think the main reason we're looping is because we can't play nicely with others, nor is it because we're stingy and want to cut costs. However, the increased flexibility and lower overhead of taking advantage of looping technology and of having fewer people involved are not bad things. And, like I said, it's easier for a smaller group to agree on things. >For example, using loopage , one percussionist in a band could set up >some >wicked grooves for other players in the band to jam with. That's what >I'll >be using it for when I finally get hold of an Echoplex. Absolutely. That's what I mean when I say technology increases our options. My current situation involves two looping multi-instrumentalists and a percussionist (who's also intrigued by looping, but isn't doing any yet); by mutual agreement, any two of us constitute a quorum capable of playing, as it's largely improvised anyway. Contrast that with a non-looping trio who would either have to cancel or limp by with great holes in their sound. We're not putting anyone out of work; it just allows us to play together a little more often. I haven't even mentioned the obvious point that looping allows our music to develop in directions that wouldn't be possible otherwise, but in a forum such as this one, that's generally understood. >There are of course, times when use of loops gets you around the financial >constraints of a project, like when there's only money for one musician. >But it's not always about lone-loopers vs bands. Agreed, but that wasn't really the point, either. Colin, not only do I respect your opinion, I completely agree with everything you've said, except for that first sentence. For me to have been missing the point as you described it, we'd have needed to have been in disagreement. I wasn't speaking for everybody. I was talking about how difficult it can be for part-time musicians with daytime jobs to synch up their busy lives to play on a regular basis, and how looping helps in this regard; my comments about the profitability of small-time gigs were secondary, as the meager amount of money cited in my example (with a math error, no less! :^I) would indicate! Tim