Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Looper Moving! - scenes, genres, and distinctions



Hey there again Mr. Z,

Thanks for adding your customarily insightful dialogue herein.  

> I brought up ACF not as a specific example of a "looping scene" but
> as an example of a non-pop "music scene" in Los Angeles. The point I
> was trying to make is that you have to create your own scene by
> working with whatever tools come to hand... I thought the thread had 
> moved past that initial discussion into
> one about the nature of the West Coast scene and some analysis of
> what you have to do to build a community.

OK, I got ya.  I wasn't sure if you were drawing a connection between
the ACF and looping in general, and I can see that's not really the case.
 
> If technique is your main concern then I can see why ACF wouldn't
> appeal to you. Our community is musically pluralistic and our
> techniques are varied. Some people are doing improvisational
> electroacoustic music and some people are writing sacred choral
> music. It's all interesting to me

My use of the word "technique," in this case, refers simply to the
technique of looping audio.  It's by no means the only thing I'm
interested in (whether in looping or in music in general), but to me
that's the core of a "looping scene," such as there is one.  

Again, I seem to have misinterpreted your comments about the ACF as
being specifically geared towards looping.

> I'm not sure I think in terms of "total improvisation" - for me it's
> more like "real-time composition."

Oh, for me too, ideally.  But I've found that not all improv is
approached from that sort of compositional frame of mind.  (To me, one
of the things that seperates good improvising from noodling is how much
the improviser is able to refer back to and build on a core musical idea).

> >The ACF doesn't seem to offer an outlet for these sorts of issues.
> 
> Does that mean our Web site is too fancy?

My conclusions here were drawn after going through some of the pages at
the group's web site, and more specifically looking at some of the
criteria for submitting compositions for the salons.  My impression,
after having read through the information, was that written music
manuscripts (or at least a recording of a fixed musical work) had to be
handed in to a committe, which would then determine whether or not this
was something that was viable for a formal presentation to the group in 
general.

It also struck me that the orientation of the site seemed to point
primarily towards academic work, composition grants, "new music," and
the like.  So to me, there's not a lot in the content and orientation of
the site that would be immediately geared towards people who aren't
already operating in the academic or new music realm.  

I should add that, ultimately, I personally feel a lot of the
distinctions between musical "realms" are increasingly meaningless, and
that there's an ever-expanding amount of cross-pollination between a lot
of wildly divergent areas of musical thought these days.  Particularly
in electronically-oriented realms, the distinctions between new music,
electronica, dance, DJ culture, and contemporary classical seem to be
getting more tenuous by the day.  From what I know of your own
background, and what you've described of the ACF, I'm sure you feel the
same way.

> "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."  

Rhett, Rhett...  :)

> It's both, depending on who
> is doing it and a what moment he/she is doing it. For instance, I
> don't particularly think of myself as "a looper" but I use looping
> tools and techniques in my music.

Well, if that doesn't scare Kevin out of the idea of moving to LA to
take part in the alleged Looping Scene, nothing will!  :()

Your reaction here is, I would say, very similar to my initial reaction
to the ACF web site: in both cases, we seem to be thinking, "Yes, I use
a lot of the relevant tools, but the requirements of entry seem too
specific and strict for me to comfortably fit in."  And in both cases,
I'd say that's clearly not the case, though it might not be immediately 
apparent.

As far as your not thinking of yourself as a looper... I feel the same
way about myself, to a large extent: I don't feel comfortable calling
myself a "looping artist" because I don't want to feel like I'm
obligated to always be using looping in what I do, you know?  I think
there's a danger of putting the cart before the horse in that way...

...which brings us back to the main issue I'm wondering about, which is:
what kind of "looping scene" is there in California?  Yes, we had about
two dozen remarkable music performances in San Luis Obispo, and there
are a lot (relatively speaking) of musicians who use this technique in
their music in this state.  

But is that something that a guy in Chicago would be able to tap into in
an appreciably greater way by living here, rather than just staying
subscribed to this list and flying out for a few looping festivals every
year?  

Scenes are usually defined more by style and content than by technique,
I would venture to say.  Which makes a "looping scene" a prickly
proposition, I think.  (Is there an "experimental guitar scene" in San
Diego just because Allan Holdsworth, Mike Keneally, and Harvey Starr all
live there?)

Oh well.  My hands are sore and I don't know what I'm talking about at
this point, but it's always a pleasure to hear your thoughts on these
matters, Richard.

Best wishes,

--Andre LaFosse
http://www.altruistmusic.com