Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
> A tangent, perhaps, but a thought I had just now . . . No, I don't think this is a tangent at all. Consider audio looping as a kind of "automatic instrument." When we "do looping", we function as conductor and performer. If we're improvising, add the composer role, too. We are only able to simultaneously fulfill all these roles because of the technology. In many "primitive" cultures, music, dance, and singing are inseperable. You cannot have music without dancing and singing. As most cultures develop, specialization occurs. Musicians become seperate from dancers. Then composers from performers. Some of this is probably due to awkward technology. It took a specialist to master the idiosyncrasies of old technology. Now technology is so powerful, available, and cheap that we don't need so much specialization. Arguably, the specialization was "artificial." Looping and our looping tools are a natural progression of technology. The "freedom" in looping is the freedom of an individual to create. Your only limitations are within. You have no designated role, not even a designated instrument. * * * Personally, I don't think we will hem in artists by "defining" looping. Frankly, what we say isn't *that* influential (thank God!). A good definition is a good *beginning*. In fact, why not present a different definition each time you visit the website? But to play the devil's advocate, after reading whether looping was an "artform" or not, I had to look up "artform" in the dictionary. Then I had to look up "art." Neither definition helped. Besides, a definition isn't as important as a good demo. I agree with Mark, there. Dennis Leas ------------------- dennis@mail.worldserver.com