RE: Please lets all sit together now and define what we do!

["omjn" <eightohm@iinet.net.au>]

hi,

matthias writes

> 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...

yes, i somewhat realised the dismissive tone of my post half way through
writing it.  I mean no disrespect.

you have made me think a little about why my reactions were so knee jerk 
and
I think it has a lot to do with what attracted me to looping in the first
place.  one of the main things is that it is still relatively undefined and
as such allows us to create definitions as we go along.  also, the relative
obscurity of alot of musicians utilising looping has allowed them, to my
reckoning, more creative freedom.  that and the fact that I never felt that
most looping artists belonged to that apparent industry based "thrust 
things
down your throat until you give in" approach to music distribution.  all
this talk about definitions and marketing and direct involvement of
multi-national corporations scares me.  looping seems more about subtelty,
which I pine for in this bowling ball kind of world.

i think somewhere in there though is actually a really strong selling point
about looping.  a catchy slogan like "create the undefined", "make your
music more" or "change the way you think about music" ...something like
that.  seriously though, if this is about marketing looping, then I don't
think a definition is really necessary, but moreso a bunch of selling
points.  definitely the opinions put forward so far seem to reflect the 
idea
that looping provides "a radical paradigm shift in music making", but
phrases like that would appeal to a select group of people.  perhaps apple
computer's approach to the mac could provide a model.  without knowing the
desired demographics, though, it would be hard to pitch any sort of looping
marketing.  which brings me to a couple of questions:

firstly, who is the intended focus of this marketing drive?  what kind of
people are you trying to attract to the sport of looping?  musicians of any
genre?

secondly, are there particular reasons why you feel the gibson efforts
should take place separate to kim's?  what can this new site offer that LD
can't?  is there any possibility for kim to extend LD with the help of
gibson?  I certainly feel that there is space for more than one looping
site, and your point about kim receiving more linked traffic is well
received.  does kim want more traffic though?  would this end up costing 
him
more money?  i don't know, I'm just speculating.  nor do I know kim from a
bar of soap really so what right do I have to speak for his interests, but
there you go. kim, any thoughts?

if your looking for votes, I personally would go with mark's high horse
coupled with andre's very pragmatic response.  in the end though, if your
looking for a catch-all or as-many-as-possible type method, perhaps jon's
"loop-ular synthesis" angle is actually right on the ticket. after all,
there is barely a genre of music that hasn't been touched by synthesis
technologies, and much of what a looper does is about using loops real-time
to synthesise new music or new compositions or new sounds or new textures
or...

well, I've posted more in two days than I have in two years nearly so I
think I need to rest again.

-michael