Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
At 08:18 PM 5/26/2003, Matthias Grob wrote: >Wow, here we have a beautiful colection of definition points! > >>- The most common use of Live-Looping is where a player records a phrase >>that is then fed back to them, this process is then repeated to create a >>layering effect. >>- The feedback loop gives the player the opportunity to learn and >>capitalise upon the subtle nuances of their expression. >>- One person's personality is being layered as opposed to many >>personalities being combined. >>- The relationship between the looping device and the musician also >>allows for a large amount of improvisation. The player is unrestricted >>from having to communicate their intentions to other ensemble members. >>- Live-Looping provides the user with the opportunity to take chaos and >>achieve order from it. When a series of random events are >>selected and then repeated they cease to be random events because they >>then can be learnt and order can be perceived. t >>- Meaning is created from repetition. In this way Looping can also be >>said to display detail or magnify a situation. these are all statements defining the process and techniques employed by the musician on the creation side. None of them explain for a listener what the result sounds like. That's what you need to do if you are describing a genre of music, you need to explain the characteristics of the result from the listener's perspective. Reading this from a listener standpoint, I have no understanding at all of what I might expect to hear when listening to this "genre" of live looping. On the other hand, I have plenty of understanding from this of what I might experience as the musician employing these techniques and devices. If Looping is a genre, then what specific characteristics will the listener expect to hear in the result? >The most amazing one, just in this moment: >> >>I believe that there is a strong case for Live-Looping to exist as a >>musical genre and for history to relate its unfolding story. On >listening >>to a large range of music produced by the process of Live-Looping I have >>found that pieces from contrasting musical genres have remarkably >similar >>qualities. >>I think it is fair to say that in some respects these works seem to be >more >>related to each other than the music of the genre each artist has been >>positioned in. I have difficulty understanding that also. I have been in this looping stuff for 10 years now. In the process of developing the Echoplex and running Looper's Delight, I have received countless cd's and tapes from loopers all over the world. I've downloaded hundreds (or maybe thousands) of mp3 files that loopers have posted or told me to check out. I've been to numerous performances and looping festivals. I've bought albums by famous loopers. Yet, when somebody hands me their cd and tells me they are a looper and they want me to hear their looping music, I still have absolutely no idea what it will sound like! The stylistic results people come up with when using looping are all over the map. So when you try to claim Live Looping as a genre, I'm still lost as to what you are talking about. I really don't see how regular music listeners can understand it either. Certainly you can explain to them about the looping techniques and devices the musicians are using, and maybe they will find that a bit interesting in an educational way. But that isn't describing the music, and ultimately people go to listen to music not the musician's technique. kim ______________________________________________________________________ Kim Flint | Looper's Delight kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com