Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Jesus! on 28/5/03 10:57 pm, Kim Flint at kflint@loopers-delight.com wrote: > At 11:43 AM 5/27/2003, Geoff Smith wrote: >>> 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. > >> 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. > > Is that because you are listening to only a narrow subset of Loopers, or >do > you actually detect some common characteristics across all of the wildly > different musicians using looping? If your source listenings are what you > list in your paper and mention here, I'm afraid it sounds like the former > to me. More ammo for u..... No my argument is that essentially it doesn't matter how varied the musicians are who use it, the process of Live-looping is so powerful that it transforms what they do. This is true of hip-hop where artists have added everything from classical music to electronic music and everything in between there tracks. It still sounds like Hip-Hop! I would argue it is the musicians personality that makes them distinct within the genre of Live-Looping not the other way around. For example Rick Walker has a personality and so does Mattius however they both sound like Live-Loopers to me. And for the record I have listened to a huge amount of Live-Looping material, my paper simply tries to pick out people I thought were the most significant. If I were to write long lists it would become boring. > >> 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. > > Drum and Bass also doesn't sound the way it does because people use >cubase > and fruity loops to create it. > No but during its early years all people were talking about was the use of their samplers and how much they loved them. Also a sequencer like cubase or fruity loops or a sampler in common use is not played its a tool for off-line composition. Live-Looping just like Turntablism has a different set of parameters. > So why do you think this "Live Looping" genre is defined by the tools, >when > drum and bass is not? Why not by specific musical characteristics as you > just semi-explained d&b is defined? Live-Looping has specific characteristics I believe you yourself had a rant at people who just wanted to use Live-Looping in the Frippertronics sense. Was it the emulation simply of Fripps guitar style you were talking about? Or the emulation of his Live-Looping style? > >> 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. > > that goes back to the Trumpet players are in the Trumpeter genre > example.... I still don't see how the tools used to create can define a > genre. If somebody tells me to come to their Trumpet concert I don't know > if they are going to be playing mariachi or bebop or marching band. I >would > be really annoyed if I stayed home because I was fearing marching band >and > it turned out to be mariachi. If they said "mariachi" right from the >start, > I'd be there. > > second point: the problem is not that we need to restrict things to say > this is a music that only makes "heavy use of the Live-Looper" >(presumably > meaning the device in this case rather than the musician). The problem is > that even once you have made that restriction, the music that results >still > covers such a wide range as to be impossible to categorize together. It >is > too broad a term to be of useful meaning to the listener. > > And as Rick claims, what is is. "Looping" and even "Live Looping" have >used > for a long time to refer to a set of tools, instruments, and techniques > employed by many musicians creating many types of music. It's already >done. > To suddenly try to call one style of music "Live Looping" today causes > confusion and conflict. > Think Turntabilsm as opposed to DJing. Both use the same equipment however the bias or focus of turntabism is different to that of DJing. Taking the trumpet example, if I sang a song and for the last 8 bars I played the trumpet, I would be a singer first and foremost who did a bit of trumpet playing. Same as a musician who sings a song and uses looping for the last 8bars is not a Live-Looper they are someone who uses Live-Looping i.e. its not their main focus so I wouldn't label them with that. you said "It is > too broad a term to be of useful meaning to the listener." I really don't believe this is true as I have played about 15 people a selection of Live-Looping music and they have all seen it as the same kind of thing. Indeed my friends who went to see Bjork non musicians and musicians alike said to me Geoff u would have loved it, Layla Arab came on and did some Live-Looping of Bjork voice just like you did with Blah blah blah. So if theatre students art students and music students can say that.... > >> 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. > > (By the way, I'm really looking forward to hearing the collaborations > between them myself.) > > The tracks on that particular site do seem a little similar, which again > leads me to wonder if you have relied on too few sources to support your > thesis. It seems like a rather small subset of all the things I've heard > done with looping. (it is a sample of only 3....) However, in many other > ways these three seem quite different. So, I'm curious. What >specifically, > are the similarities you hear that lead you to your conclusion? What are the differences you hear apart from the instrument they play. I hear similarities in the building blocks of each persons music that relates to a similar structural feel. Its like if 4 pianos, 4 cellos, a string quartet, 2 thumb pianos and two nose blown flutes each play a different piece by the same composer, the music will have a personality, but will in one sense sound different. > > >> 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. > > ok, so go ahead and state the arguments you would make then. What are >those > similarities that create this "powerful aesthetic effect"? > The very ones Andre talks about trying to break away from, the very ones that make him such a stand out artist. Would Andre Lafosse sound so new and interesting if there weren't for the fact that there was such an established sound to Live-looping. I think not. I think it is because there has been a particular sound that has characterized Live-Looping that Andre stands as such a breath of fresh air. I also predict that we will now see a lot of Andre sound a likes. As I think he has genuinely discovered a new form or sound of Live-Looping. Would you say that Andre has simply found a new style of guitar playing and if so how come if I took the essence of Andre's ideas and applied it to my Hammond organ playing (which is quite bad) or my saxophone playing (which is doggy) then it would sound very similar and people would be able to say I was ripping off his ideas and sound. > Maybe I'm an imbecile, but when I think of all the Live Loopers I've seen > perform or listened to recordings of, I can't figure out how the >resulting > music all goes together in the same bin. They can be grouped together by > the tools and techniques used to create, in the way Percussionists or > Trumpeters can be grouped, but that's a musician thing. I don't see how >the > resulting music all goes together for the listener. I agree that all the music doesn't go together that is the beauty of diversity, however a significant amount does that makes (in my mind) it worth stating the case for a genre. > >> Looping creates form that is clear, >> ... and I believe it creates such a specific form that it ties music >> together. > > If it is so specific, it should be easy to explain. Can you describe what > that form is for me? It definitely isn't easy to explain, definitions are the hardest things to write in the world, in my opinion! Its like Eric Tamm stated in his Brian Eno book the process of tape delay system is hard to describe but once you have heard it it all makes sense very quickly. >> In the same way hip-hop covers so many different musicians etc. > > but it is pretty easy to describe the musical characteristics of hip hop > music and its various sub genres, such that someone unfamiliar with it >can > recognize it and understand a bit of what is going on. That is because >"hip > hop music" refers to the audible characteristics in the result. Okay so if someone had not heard instrumental hip-hop do u think this would be easy to describe to someone? I think it would really diffucult. for instance take DJ shadow entroducing album I think that would be hugely difficult to describe, without mentioning the tools it was created with. >> So Live-Looping can do the same, because there is a basic form that is >> popular. > > is there? > >> Compare Terry Riley's 'Poppy No good etc' to Per Boysen's Saxophone >pieces >> and the similarities are obvious. > > Yes, remarkably so. Maybe a little too much so. :-) Terry Riley usually > falls into the "Minimalist" genre, and even refers to himself as a > Minimalist composer. Is there some reason that wasn't working? Why not >just > continue to say he is a minimalist, since it already seems to be a clear > term that is reasonably understood. Perhaps we might say Per is a > Minimalist also? Or perhaps Ambient? Listening to his music, those are >the > terms that come to mind. Ahh but I would argue that Riley's Poppy No-Good, Dorian Reeds etc. has very little in common with the work of Lamonte Young also a Minimalist in the same way you argue against Live-Looping. > > >> 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!!!!! > > Again, you are talking about only one type of music that is often made >with > looping. You also refer to music made with very rudimentary looping > techniques, from a time when the looping instruments themselves were too > limited to be useful for a wide range of applications. Following your > paper, this obviously causes you quite some difficulty in supporting your > thesis when you get to later musicians using newer looping tools, and > presumably would cause you even more difficulty if you considered a wider > range of loopers covering different styles. who should I look at, I considered max/msp loopers (i sat on the discussion forum for 4months! checking out peoples work) it doesn't get much more far out than those mother freakers. > > Fripp and Eno's thing usually gets called "Ambient", which seems to work > fine for most people. Is there something wrong with continuing to use >that > reasonably well understood term? It describes the musical result rather > than the tools used, which is usually what listeners are after in a > descriptive term about music. Eno invented the term Ambient and didn't apply it to his collorations with Fripp. > > Both "Ambient" and "Minimalism" are types of music where the musicians >have > found looping techniques to be useful. However, looping is used in many > other places as well. It seems you are lumping Ambient and Minimalism > together because of the frequent use of loopers shared between them and > then ignoring all other types of music made with the same looping tools. Like what? I recognise you know more then me than please tell me. > >> 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 > > they can? Amy's music doesn't sound even remotely like Terry Riley. >Nobody > would say they play the same type of music. She uses tremendous amounts >of > live looping though. Which one gets to be the Live Looper? Both, and it does sound linked to Riley's to me. The difference being she can break the evolving texture thing, because of the more loops multiply functions of the EDP. > >> i.e. I can still hear the same fascination with looped live recorded >audio. > > Yes, you can also hear that same fascination in hip hop. Live hip hop >often > includes dj's live-looping beats by switching back and forth between two > records. That's the classic hip hop sound. It is called Looping there >too, > and as far as I'm concerned it is looping. There are many dj's now doing > this with actual loopers and turntables. I assume you don't consider hip > hop as part of this "Live Looping" genre, even though it can include the > same elements in its creation? I have wanted to see this live name me some names to check out. > >> The form is just more fragmented now (thanks to new functions on the >EDP. > > The tools follow what the musicians request. The EDP didn't cause >anything > to be fragmented (other than loops themselves). Neither did the Repeater >or > the JamMan or whatever. Musicians want to use looping in many ways, and >ask > for different features. The tools evolve to meet those musical needs. I don't agree. Musicians want to use looping but they want to progress and hence their imagination gets involved and they then ask for new features to break common stylistic trends. i think the Live-Looper is gaining a vocabulary of musical devices in the way turntablism has. How you put these together will define personality. And those who show musical use will be remembered as pioneers of this e.g. Lafosse. > >> 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. > > well, hip hop does it also as I just pointed out, so it seems to >contradict > your definition here. Unless we are now declaring hip hop as a sub-genre >of > our Live Looping genre. Live pre-recorded i.e. the record is not recorded there and then. It is therefore significantly different. > >> 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. > > So is "Sequencer Music" another genre then? that seems unlikely. What if >a > piece music made live with a sequencer sounded exactly like another >piece > music made live with a Looper? Are they different genres due to the > different tools used? Or same genre because they sound alike? > >> 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. > > Is that just because his music doesn't fit your thesis? Most people seem >to > see what David does as Looping, and his use of looping techniques is >widely > known. He employs the techniques all over the place quite obviously, and > certainly does a lot of it live. So by your definition he must be a Live > Looper. Yet his music sounds nothing like many other Live Loopers. Not at all his music does fit, his early music fits very well indeed conforming to all of the things I would expect. Its just that his Live-Looper has BECOME part of such a complex rig, as to make the Looper harder to distingish, the effects of which are obvious and I believe I talked about this. I.e. if the Looper ceases to be the major part then it becomes less recognisable because there is so much more going on. > > Why not characterize all these as musicians using the same > tools/instruments, but *not* playing the same type of music? I think your > paper was doing just great when it was following that direction, but you > got into difficulty when you tried to propose it all as a single musical > genre. > > >> So I set you the challenge name 5-10 prominent Live-Looping pieces that >you >> feel cannot be characterised together. And I will respond. > > Chet Atkins - "Jam Man" (Grammy winning tune) > DJ Radar - "Antimatter" (one turntable and a looper, djradar.com) > Andre LaFosse - "Continuous Mix #2" (nu-skool andre) > David Torn - "Busy Cutting Crap" from Splattercell:::Oah > Howie Day - live set at www.kcrw.org > Andre LaFosse - "Disruption Theory" from album of same name (old-skool >andre) > Terry Riley - Poppy Nogood and the Phantom Band > > that's seven, seems good enough. good luck! > > kim Okay give me a while, and I will respond, but for now I need a break! I am just finishing my third year. I have a composition portfolio to do that's recording an album and writing the material, documentation to do, and a four performances to help with play in, a festival to tech for, a partner to spend more time with whose sick of me doing written work. And a pile of stuff to sort out thats been waiting for me to finish my paper. I do very much see your points of view. However to discuss this fully would require person to person and a pile of CDs. Cheers Geoff > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Kim Flint | Looper's Delight > kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com >