Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
>the relative obscurity of alot of musicians utilising looping has
>allowed them, to my
>reckoning, more creative freedom.
I dont understand that... obscurity in the music, or by the hidden
way they work?
>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.
me too, actually. Maybe thats the process I am going through.
>looping seems more about subtelty, which I pine for in this bowling
>ball kind of world.
yes! do you think its not possible to preserve that subtelty?
I find Steves music and his way to act extremely subtle, for example,
and it seems to break through never the less...
>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.
yes, thats maybe what we need... but exactly to avoid an immediate
spoil of our fundaments, I wanted to make sure that we know what we
are and want and what terms we use first amongst us and let the
marketing people and journalists less space to phantasize.
>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?
yes, and more so: PUBLIC for them (us)!
>secondly, are there particular reasons why you feel the gibson efforts
>should take place separate to kim's?
- its not technical
- its for the public and the not (yet) looping musicians
>what can this new site offer that LD can't?
A (selected) collection of loop music. It should be more artistic,
seductive. As we are discovering, it can crystalize some main
characteristics of looping, to make it more understandable.
>is there any possibility for kim to extend LD with the help of
>gibson?
There might be, but he has not even time to talk to me, much less to
talk to the list or become creative.
Also, maybe the most important point:
The new site shall not be owned by anyone involved with the
production of the loop tools! Gibson only sponsores it, and I only
bring up the ideas for a starting point.
Its a cultural meeting point, maybe even an association, I dont see
that clearly yet...
>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?
he certainly want more people to become interested in looping and
buying EDPs ;-)
>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.
I understood he was only naming a specific loop technique, as created
by Kim/Andre and named "granual looping" by Kim so far and "glitches"
by Andre... is that right?
>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...
sorry, I think one of the strongest marketing arguments we have is
that loop music is mostly created by naturaly vibrating instruments,
controlled by a competent expressive musician, as it was in the
passed, though combined with the technology of exact repetition. To
bring the word Syth into it would be rather a damage.
>well, I've posted more in two days than I have in two years nearly so I
>think I need to rest again.
Thank you!
Maybe you can go on helping us with your marketing experience?
--
---> http://Matthias.Grob.org