Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Hello Mark, Trying to clarify here... sine@zerocrossing.net wrote: > > For instance, he said that Rap > > music that used a real-time looper wouldn't fit in. > > Did he say this? I read his posts and got nothing like that from them, >but I could > have missed them. >From Matthias' original post yesterday: "As you see below, I even tend to exclude some other "art forms" that may use looping tools, but use their own label, like Minimal Music and Rap for example. This is in general only, because those stiles can still be executed the loop way, and then maybe called Loop-Rap or so, but if any repetitive music is loop music, we probably dont get anywhere." and "It does not look like the Hip-hop will be part of the loop festivals, nor do I feel that they join the comunity much or call themselves loopers. So why would we force them? It may be a different comunity, even if they use the same machines as we do - sometimes." I'd like to leave it open to Matthias to comment further on this angle, if he's so inclined. I may have misinterpreted his comments above, and would be happy to be corrected, if so. > Dude, are you reading my posts? Very much so. > What I was saying was > that the word looper was from an old paradigm and maybe wasn't the right >word to > descrive what we're doing. Strictly speaking, the notion of a dedicated "looper" is probably no more than 10 years old. Indeed, "looper" suggests a specific device designed to perform a function. Practically speaking, the general public very likely associates "loops" with digital samples much more readily than with tape loops, given the overwhelming prevalence of the former in popular music. Your comment from yesterday: "So if a loop is a phrase repeated, and you manipulate the playback so it no longer is a representation of the original phrase, is it a loop? Isn't a true loop is a repeating phrase? When we say "loop" what we're talking about really is "tape loop." And my response is that, no, when I personally say "loop" I'm not talking about a tape loop at all, which is part of the point I'm trying to make. I have a very different point of reference, and I absolutely think most other people do as well. > If you had read on, you would have seen that > in the end I believe that looper is the best term we have for ourselves >(even you!) > even though it's an oversimplification. I did indeed read on, and this is what you said: "A physical object. But that physical object is now gone (usually), replaced by another physical object, a big ol' memory buffer. Iron oxide replace by silicon RAM chips. Since the RAM doesn't have the limitations of the loop of tape, people like Matthais created software that let's you do all sorts of minipulation of this buffer... to the point where it's just so far away from the "tape loop" that it no longer is described by that word. Or... you can use it in a way that's exactly like a tape loop. I do know one thing, you can't take a chunk out of a tape and edit it back in somewhere else in real time." So then: my interpretation of what you're saying, based upon my having read what you've said several times, is that you yourself keep making references to tape loops as the common point of reference to what "we're all doing." You keep comparing the idea of looping to what happens when you run a reel of oxide tape over a record head, and seem to be suggesting that this is what most other people will think of when they hear about "looping," which I don't believe is accurate. What I'm trying to say here is that I don't believe a reel-to-reel tape loop is what the general public will associate with the idea of "loops." I think they'll associate the term with digital samples more than anything else. Breakbeats, or DJ's, or that sort of thing. > Right, I've been a professional teacher. I know all about it. My >father was one, > and my father... I was saying DEMO, not teaching. I never once said >teaching. Just > a demo to show the possibilites, and a small clinic where people could >try it out for > 5 min or so with the guidence of the person who gave the demo. To me they're all intertwined; if a person wants a hands-on demo and suddenly starts asking questions, isn't that a lesson? Isn't a clinic basically a lesson given to several people at the same time? What if you start opening a clinic up to questions? I honestly think the basic skills involved in doing a good clinic are not substantially different from those involved with teaching. I think they go hand in hand. > I'm obviously not being understood. Perhaps it's my writing style, > I don't know. I do know that I'm spending a lot of time doing it > and I'm not sure why anymore. Well, Mark, I'm trying my darndest to read your posts carefully and give them the consideration they deserve in my replies. It could be that I'm not understanding you. Or it could be that we simply have different opinions, and nothing either of us says is sufficiently compelling to change the other one's mind. That's not a bad thing, I don't think; it just means we've got different perspectives. Take a break if you like, but please don't take a difference of opinion personally. Best wishes, --Andre LaFosse http://www.altruistmusic.com