Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Hi Kim
> 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."
It would be a cop out if I said that,
............................which I didn't ;-)
>
> 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).
Yes, I've heard this done and was amazed how closely defined
those dance genres are, and how one genre can change into another
just by shifting up a notch on the BPM.
(although the same person reckoned that "Goa Trance" was more
about lifestyle (living part of the year in India) than musical
specifics.)
> 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.
but with jazz, you'd end up with sub-genres that
only had one guy in them!
>
> 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.
Well, those dance music genres(+subs) are v.well defined, and
the people who make the music often work intentionally within those
genres and are happy to have the label.
For me, that's a "definition" of "dance music" that tells me a lot
about it.
>
> 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.
I don't claim
(not that it isn't tempting to take up the challenge:-)
>
> 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".
hang on there, no-ones claiming "Looping" as a genre
>
> 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.
punk = Ian Dury and the Blockheads,
Elvis Costello
XTC
......and even, though you might not believe "The Police"
they all appeared under the banner of punk
it was more down to non-musical considerations like
"which record label they were on"
...but no-ones saying there's no such thing as a genre
called punk.
> Are there such audible characteristics that ordinary listeners can
identify
> about "Live Looping"?
well to me the "live" use of looping technology has a certain feel
to the rhythm, so I'd expect that any listener might or might
not be aware of that
> 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.
Is someone trying to do this with "Looping"? if so then
I agree that it's a bad choice of label.
Was not the term "Live-Looping" coined deliberately as a descriptive
label. In which case surely the person/persons who thought up the term
is/are
entitled to use it as they wish.
When the term "Be-Bop" was coined it included
Thelonius Monk, an artist who in no way conformed
to the tempos or harmonic structures that are usually
taken to define that sub-genre.
...but the term was used to promote Monk's music,
............and no-one complained.
Anyone feel excluded?
As far as I see it, Rick Walker's way of excluding people
is to organise brilliant tours for them!!!
> >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!
OK
>
> >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?
a label, otherwise I'll get called "ambient" or "experimental"
>
>
> >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.
That's right, it's not an accurate definition, and relies on an
antiquated notion of what an "instrument" might be in order
to have any chance of making what little sense it does.
>
> no, it's not as good a definition.
quite so!
> Defining characteristics of the audio
> that the listener can identify is exactly what definitions of those
>other
> genres of music do.
It's what the dance music genres do, but doesn't hold for
other types of music.
jazz - punk - even classical
If you think you can can define any of those by
audible characteristics then you've got a point.
> >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.
hence "Live Looping", it's kind of a different term to "Looping" ;-)
...it's that extra word
...........Live
> 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.
my quiet guitar?
ouch, that hurts
> 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.
or reasoned discussions??
doesn't the "Live-Looping" term avoid that problem, by
being significantly different to "Looping"?
> >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
just a label, there isn't an existing genre I can aspire towards.
When someone asks "what kind of music do you do", and seems
to expect a short answer, then I need something to say.
andybutler--bloodyloudguitaristbassistdrummerwhenhehasamindtobeicantellyou