Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
> 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. Okay I'm a bit tired as I handed my paper in this morning! This is a huge question.... So this is going to be messy! I understand your point of view, However its not mine, here is how I see things When i listen to the music of Live-Looping (there I am calling it that right from the start) I genuinely here huge similarities between the artists I have talked about. For this to work I only consider artists who use a Live-Looping device as a major part of what they do. To illustrate why... drum and bass doesn't sound the way it does simply because someone adds a speed up drum beat, its a full engagement with a form of music. This is true of Live-Looping for someone to be considered part of the genre they must make heavy use of the Live-Looper, i.e. it can not be just an arbitory addition or effect. Okay so considering people who do this... If I went to http://www.looproom.com/index_engl.php and downloaded music by Rick, Matthius, and Per Boysen (which I have done incidently) I would argue that the music has a lot in common as a listening experience. The very function of looping a live instrumentalist has such a powerful aesthetic effect that I would argue that this in most cases creates a feeling of similarity between individual pieces or artists. Looping creates form that is clear, ... and I believe it creates such a specific form that it ties music together. In the same way hip-hop covers so many different musicians etc. So Live-Looping can do the same, because there is a basic form that is popular. Compare Terry Riley's 'Poppy No good etc' to Per Boysen's Saxophone pieces and the similarities are obvious. It is perhaps harder to perceive when u compare music made on different types of instruments, but i believe the form is still very clear. Take Eno and Fripp's 'No Pussyfooting' and listen to that and imagine it was played on a saxophone.... you must see it!!!!! Live-Looping like all music genres has progressed this can be heard on Amy X Neuburg' s 'tattoo' however the roots of the music can still be perceived i.e. I can still hear the same fascination with looped live recorded audio. The form is just more fragmented now (thanks to new functions on the EDP. People more often than not choose a loop-length that fits a specific feeling of repetition just the same as a hip-hop drum beat has a specific character. This is true even in Andre Lafosse's work the difference is he has found a way to transform this particular loop by a process other than overdub. So although the process is different certain feelings are the same. Live-Looping music is characterized by the looping of live instruments in recorded form, obvious yes but hugely significant as no other form of music does this. If you play samples of music that aren't created live they have a totally different feel....etc. Sequenced music is looping but is characterised by looping synth sounds or sampled sounds and therefor has a very different aesthetic effect. One of the few people who is maybe unrecognisable as a Live-Looper is David Torn on his recent work. This I believe is because of the huge range of processing he uses, I talk about this in my paper. So I set you the challenge name 5-10 prominent Live-Looping pieces that you feel cannot be characterised together. And I will respond. Anyway I must go or my partner will kill me!! Sorry about the rough way this is written I aim to clarify this later. Geoff on 27/5/03 9:26 am, Kim Flint at kflint@loopers-delight.com wrote: > 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 >