Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
At 05:25 AM 5/27/2003, SoundFNR@aol.com wrote: >Kim writes:- > > > 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. > >Well try asking a few people to describe some music genres. >It's quite rare that someone will give you an easy to grasp simple >description of say, "what makes House different to Techno". >...most of the time you'll get a vague phrase that sort of >describes how it might affect them emotionally, or just >a phrase that they heard given as a definition. Sorry, but that is a cop out. "ordinary people often have trouble defining a genre, so we don't have to do it at all." Following your example, knowledgeable listeners and creators of techno and house can indeed give you quite precise definitions of the characteristics of the two and how they are different (or more likely of sub-genres of the two). That is because there are distinctive characteristics between the two that do make them different, and if you put a little effort to it you can articulate what they are. The same holds for all sorts of other genres and sub-genres of music. If you take a music appreciation class about jazz, you would get a whole lot of characteristics about the various sub-genres and eras of jazz, and you would be able to listen to them and hear the differences. You can clearly articulate specifics that make it one thing or another. People always want to resist the idea of categorizing and defining their own music into genres, but humans naturally do this. Our brains find patterns and put things into categories without our even realizing. So your average dance music listener who can't give you a clear definition of the difference between techno and house almost certainly really does know the difference even if they can't spell it out. Their brains have identified the differing patterns and put one in the techno bucket and one in the house bucket. So if "Live-Looping" is a genre as you guys claim, it must have some characteristics that a listener could identify. I'm challenging you to explain the characteristics that make it so. Personally, I don't see how it is a genre, and that is why I don't think you will ever come up with an answer to that challenge. I assume that is also why you are all avoiding giving any answer in every single post. Looping is a set of techniques and instruments used by musicians in creating many kinds of music. There isn't necessarily any in common characteristics between the resulting music. Looping (or Live-Looping or whatever) does not appear to me to be any more a genre then "Sequencing" or "Sampling" or "Fingerpicking" or "Trumpeting". > > 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. > >do "regular music listener's" understand any of the other genre terms >though. >new age >>> very simple harmonic sequence and no dynamics, CD lasts 60mins >blues >>> the same chord sequence all night >punk >>> guitarist does all down strokes > >or do they just associate the term with an enjoyable(or "cool") experience Yes, I think regular listeners definitely understand these differences, as I explained above. If you play a punk track and a blues track, they will know exactly which one is which, because their pattern-recognizing brains can find the differences. If you go into the music store, the punk fans will be browsing in the punk section and the blues fans will be browsing in the blues section. They are not wandering randomly through the store, or only going to the section where the most people seem to be. That is because there are clear characteristics separating those two genres, and people can tell what they are. They prefer one genre or the other because of those characteristics, and so they go to that section. Are there such audible characteristics that ordinary listeners can identify about "Live Looping"? Personally I don't see it. The only way you can reach that conclusion is to draw a line around one small group of similar musicians who use Looping techniques and call their music "Looping", and exclude all the others that don't fit. And that is exactly what I think you guys are trying to do. >Well I don't even know if anybodies "claiming Live Looping as a genre", yes, that's pretty explicitly what some people are trying to do! >some of us use it as a descriptive term for our music. Do you use it as a description of the music or of your role in creating it? >At a "Live Looping" gig you will hear sounds that the musician isn't >currently involved in producing, but neverless they appear to be in >control of the sound, shaping it in some way, and adding >to it by the use of their instrument. with that definition I could be in a dance club watching a dj, or at an experimental noise music concert created by people with laptops, or watching the conductor of a symphony. Or watching you with an EDP. It doesn't define the music I'm hearing. >which is probably as good a definition for a type of >music as "jazz" "classical" "rock", and >at least gives you some idea of what the experience will >be like, if not the audio part of the experience no, it's not as good a definition. Defining characteristics of the audio that the listener can identify is exactly what definitions of those other genres of music do. Those musics are not identified by the techniques the musicians use to play their instruments, or at least not exclusively so. They have specific audible characteristics. >If you could describe a piece of music accurately, would >there be any point in listening to it? We're not trying to describe a "piece of music". It's the characteristics of the supposed genre that we are after. >Well, if I don't give my music a name, I won't >be able to promote it, That I agree with. If you guys think you have a common style you want to name and identify yourself with, that's great. I think you have to do that to promote yourself, because humans need that categorization to understand you. But the word "looping" is already widely used by a huge range of musicians to describe their instruments and techniques used in creating their music, not the music itself. The stylistic variations of their music are too wide to fit together in one genre. Trying to call your music "looping" will just cause frustration with listeners who identify the word "looping" with your particular style of music, then go to another concert of "loopers" and get a shock when it sounds like industrial metal or hip hop or some experimental noise instead of your quiet guitar. On the other side, many musicians who use looping techniques in their music will be really frustrated to see that "looping" is suddenly identified with a specific style that has nothing to do with them, or at least that there is one group trying to claim that. Then you will get all sorts of heated debates on internet mailing lists. >so it's > >andybutler--livelooper And as I asked above, is that a description of your music or your role in it? To me it sounds equivalent to saying "andybutler--guitarist" or "andybutler--synthesist" or "andybutler--vocalist". kim ______________________________________________________________________ Kim Flint | Looper's Delight kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com