Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
>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?
do you really want to ask this? Or say all this:
>These are two very different aims, and my suspicion is that they're very
>close to being mutually exclusive.
well, its not *my* choice, thats why we are discussing it!
of course it would be nice to promote the work of all of us, but how?
> > 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.
good! How would you "subdivide"?
>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.
right! Please do the "so forth", too, what more?
>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.
so thats not it.
my thinking was that concentrating on the main thing would make it
clearer and thus attract more public, or at least, animate them more.
>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.
right, thats a problem. Its hard to select the right samples and even
harder to say who has the competency to it.
Thats why I am looking for other ways to pass the idea, more instant,
more englobing.
>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...
hm... interesting you name almost noone of this list
do any of those guys play somehow similar to you, Steve,,, what I
addressed in "the loop movement"?
>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.
I dont think "how exactly..." would be very interesting for the
public, but there may also be space for such...
>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.
yes!
>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.
perfect. Links to the musicians pages.
I was writing a project with this information and felt the lack of a
title, so thats why I started that discussion. Then I would have
posted it. But now that we are already in the middle of it, here are
more points to complete:
- Documentation of the loop festivals and meetings of the past
- Shows, festivals, clinics and workshops of the future, also "open
registery"
- List of favorable performance places with links, so the musicians
can offer their work there. (this could actually happen on LD, just
as well)
- maybe an expansion to looping of non audio
- maybe scientific works about the psychology, chemistry and mystery
of repetion (brain research, religion, curing...)
>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.
right
>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.
thats it
>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.
ok, you brought me down to ground. I dont know enough about it really.
>If you, or anyone else, choose to follow through on this sort of path,
I was not going to "follow through". I just wanted to figure out some
bases to then be able to find the form and persons to do it right.
>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.
oh... :-)
I am experiencing what it means to say too much on a list.
people create long projects before they understand what for and then
ask that in the end. Missunderstandings creat huge waves.
And I still dont know whether I play loop music or whether looping is
an art form.
I will stop here for a while here and then see how I go on.
--
---> http://Matthias.Grob.org