Re: R: "Loop" interacting with the rest of the music.

[Alex Stahl <alex@pixar.com>]

At 3:47 PM -0800 3/23/00, Tim Nelson wrote:

>       2) Many of us find ourselves using loops in the same sort of
>context over
>and over. (Kim has spoken of one aspect of the phenomenon as being "hung 
>up
>on the textural guitar thing.")

Disclaimer: the following is an OT response to an out-of-context quote by
someone who never read the original post. (isn't that what email lists are
all about?:)

Sometimes I think there are two kinds of looping and it is worth
distinguishing them.

a) looping in order to build up a more or less complete piece of music
using fewer people or tracks than might be otherwise needed.

b) looping where a circular recording device is considered an integral part
of a musical instrument, and the performance practice on the instrument
reflects the opportunities and constraints of  repetition and layering.

a is perhaps a little more result oriented, and b is perhaps a little more
process oriented. Or not.
a is perhaps more of an application for sequencer/DAW/sampling technology,
and b is perhaps more of an application for DSP/tape-loop/stompbox
technology.

imho, b includes "the textural guitar thing". Being hung up on doing that
over and over is no worse than a sax player being hung up on breathing.
It's an instrument in its own right and can be practiced indefinitely like
any other instrument, which is not to say unpracticed music isn't some of
the best music. I don't play guitar at all, but I am certainly hung up on
my "textural harmonized-distorted surround-sound bowed-bass thing", and
proud of it.

But of course, the real truth is this: there are two kinds of people, those
who divide things into two kinds and those who don't.

And of course, there are n kinds of looping where n > the number of people
on this list... (duck)

-Alex S.