What is being promoted? (was: define what we do!)

[Andre LaFosse <altruist@earthlink.net>]

Good Evening Matthias,

Matthias Grob wrote:

> The situation is: some surfer hits some site which is called
> something like looping and now you have some seconds of his curiosity
> and atention to give him an impression of what it is that we do. If
> you manage, he will go to the CD and agenda page and maybe become a
> customer of some of us.

Well, I think a choice needs to be made in terms of what the purpose of
the web site is.  Are you trying to promote looping as a vast,
encompassing tool?  Or are you trying to promote a narrowly-defined
stylistic and aesthetic group of artists, who happen to use looping in a
particular manner?

These are two very different aims, and my suspicion is that they're very
close to being mutually exclusive.

> I am a bit overwhelmed by all you are contributing.
> Much of it is on the negative side: Its not... Dont define, it may 
>exclude... 
> Its not possible to do it balanced and including all options...

It depends on what exactly you want to do.  Setting up a website
showcasing all the different known styles where looping is used would be
a relatively clear objective - subdivide each section according to
genres, and include noteworthy artists/recordings/events in each one.  

So people who've never heard of Robert Fripp but really like Chet Atkins
could be drawn in by his Grammy-award winning use of a JamMan in a song
of the same name.  Jazz fans who don't want to hear about Ritchie
Hawtin's Repeater exploits could be intrigued by Bill Frisell or John
Scofield's stuff.  And so forth.

If you genuinely want to showcase the diversity of the
technique/technology/instrument of looping as a whole, it seems pretty
clear that this is the way you would need to go.

If, on the other hand, you want to showcase a specific and narrow focus
of some of the people who use looping, and who use it in a particular
kind of way and/or with a particular aesthetic in mind, then you're
going to be reducing the potential appeal of the site to the general
public.  That means fewer visitors will be inclined to find out about
it.  

It also means that people who visit the site and hear the select artists
who are represented there will start associating "looping" with the
material they heard there.  If they don't like what they heard, they
might pass on some other artist they WOULD have liked simply because
that other person uses looping, but the listener now has a negative
stylistic preconception about it in their minds.  And they might not be
inclined to buy a looper for themselves, because they assume it's
supposed to be used for a type of music they don't want to play, or
fundamentally imposes a structure they don't like.

So: this is what I personally would like to see in such a website:

1) A list of lots of different musical styles where looping is used,
with some well-known names in each one.  A "Looping in Jazz" section
with Scofield, Frisell, Josh Redman, etc.  A "Jamband" section with Trey
Anastasio, Keller Williams, et al.  An "ambient" section with Fripp,
Steve Roach, and others.  An "electronica" section with Torn, Hawtin,
and so forth.  An "avant garde" page with Eliot Sharp and Henry Kaiser.  
Etc...

2) Some clear audio (and ideally, video) examples of this stuff in
action.  Hear exactly how Scofield uses his looper.  Listen to Trey
setting up his woo-woo Boomerang loops.  Etc.

3) Some interviews with artists talking specifically about how they use
the technology in their music.  What does it mean to them, how does it
change their music, and so forth.

4) An "open registery" similar to the "profiles" page on Looper's
Delight, except that it can be searched according to style and genre. 
And let artists put a "sounds like" thing into the search engine,
according to who they're closely associated with.  So someone who wants
to discover looping a la LTJ Bukem or Drum and Bass could do a search
and discover Jump/Cut.  Search for "instrumental pop" and you get Steve
Lawson.  Search for "modern classical" and meet Paul Dresher and Todd
Reynolds.  Search for "Aphex Twin" and I come up.

To me, this is the best option, because it showcases the wide diversity
of possible stylistic and technical applications available.  Lots of
artists can get exposure, and lots of different types of listeners will
be inclined to poke around, because the wider the range of musics on
display, the wider the pool of potential traffic (and potential
customers/listeners) you'll be generating.

If, on the other hand, you want to narrow the music down to a specific
genre range, a specific focus of how the looper is used, and/or a
specific structure/form that it imposes on the music, then you're
basically creating the looping equivalent of the Joe Satriani/Steve
Vai/token opening act G3 instrumental rock tour.  There'll be more
similarity amongst the artists involved, and you'll have an easier time
"marketing those artists" to a particular audience.  But you'll be
promoting those particular artists at the expense of leaving out other
looping artists who don't fit that mold, and losing the ears of
listeners who don't dig that particular niche.  

Matthias, I mean all of this with a great deal of respect for you (and
for Kevin, certainly), and I'm not trying to be negative in any of this.
 But I think the huge response posted today, and the almost unanimous
nature of that response, gives some indication as to what the general
feelings are amidst those of us already in the know about looping.  

If you, or anyone else, choose to follow through on this sort of path,
it's crucial that all of the various sides have been heard, and that a
clear objective be determined with exactly what, or who, such a web site
is supposed to promote.

Enough outta me...

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