Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
>At 03:54 AM 5/31/2003, Stuart Wyatt wrote: >>>Kim knows this. We know this. BUT..... >>> >>>http://www.livelooping.com/ >>> >>>this seems to say something different. >> >>To quote the site: ok, I wrote this page, so: >> >>>Welcome to Live Looping Music! >>> Here we will show to public, press and artists: > >It's been explained to me many times, and stated right up on top >there, that this site is mainly for promoting to the public. Is that >right? Every time I've heard it explained, it was somehow about >promoting to non-loopers/non-musicians to get them listening to >looping and not about the musician part of it. artists are not necessarily musicians, but I can easily eliminate the word if that resolves a problem. > >>>- what this new music is like >> >>It is a relatively new style of music... so this is fine. They are >>going to give examples of the diversity of live looping. > >it is a style, it isn't a style. I think that contradiction there >was pointed out already.... Its not a style (typo of the pot head :-), but its new music (or not even? se other mail) >>>- why its so different to create loops in real time >> >>Creating loops in realtime is what live looping is all about... >>what is the problem here? > >Isn't the site for the listening public? Why do they care what it is >like to create the loops? they definitally do, you dont have the experience in relating to them. In fact they always wonder how music is made, it seems a miracle to many, you can also observe that in music mags interviews and such. >They might care about what it is like listen to them be created. But >this statement appears to be about the musician's experience, not >the listeners. So it is again confusing what the purpose of >livelooping.com is. Are you directing it to musicians or listeners? Listeners. But there may appear some musicians. Do you think they will end up not coming to LD if we give them some info here? Rather the opposite, no? >>>- how you can learn it >> >>We/they want to share their tricks and ideas.... again, what is the >problem? > >same problem as above. Is it for listeners or musicians? This seems >to contradict the idea that it is for the listening public. here I mainly saw some encouraging paragraph in the sense that its easier to create "listenable" music when using loops, ie someone that has little instrument skills can dive a profound experience with music - and then the link to LD for details about equipment and technique and such. >>>- where such events took and will take place >> >>Great. A gig list... again - is this bad? > >no, it's great if people use it. There's a gig calendar on Looper's >Delight, which thousands of people visit each month to look for >upcoming events only to discover almost no gigs listed there. (There >is only gig listed on there now.) It will take you guys years to get >that much traffic on your site. You have a widely viewed place to >put gigs on LD and you don't even use it! well, maybe it is not used because its not quite ideal in some sense. Something to be investigated, but I see no harm in trying it here. >It's sort of comical really, how often people post gigs to this list >where only a few hundred people see it instead of putting it on the >LD website where thousands see it. You guys scratch your heads over >how to promote yourselves, and you don't even use the resources >right in front of you! agreed. post your gigs comrades! Now, actually the main intention here was not a dry gig list but a extended documentation about the festivals of the past and the future (a page for each or so, with pictures and sound), mainly to impress the press and others about the power of the movement. >>>If you think you may be interested, please come back here in a month or >two >>>or go to Loopers-Delight.com , the meeting point of such musicians. >> >>A reference to loopers delight. Live looping wants to live in >>harmony with LD. Is there anything bad in this? > >no, except the statements directed at musicians like "how you can >learn it" seem to contradict that. > >I don't really care actually; some people seem to think I'm worried >about competition for LD but I'm not. Mainly because I don't run LD >to gain directly from it, it's there to benefit looping as a whole >and is really more of a burden for me. But also, even if you guys >really did want to make a site that directly competed with Looper's >Delight I just don't think it would matter. LD is so widely known >and so huge and so popular that it is really impossible for a new >web site to make any dent in that momentum. Hundreds of thousands of >people would be showing up at Looper's Delight each month anyway. and LiveLooping will bring more... >In fact, it seems kind of insane to me to make a new site and spend >years of work developing traffic patterns for it rather than just >putting the same stuff on LD where the traffic is already there. Actually, we imagined you would put a link from LD to LL, once you see what it is and understand its benefit. And Kevin had promissed to make a good visible link on Gibson.com. >I dunno, I guess you guys have a lot of time on your hands or something. no, thats why its going slow :-) But the time to create it for LD or on a separate site is about the same. So I wonder why you say that? >>>Geoff Smith's LiveLooping Research Paper >> >>I really cannot see what is wrong with this? Maybe someone can enlighten >me. > >Well, the main thesis of Geoff's paper is that "Live Looping" is a genre. > >It is a genre, it isn't a genre, more confusion.... > >Part of the point here is to get you guys to think about what you >are doing and get a clear foundation under it. It seems really fuzzy >right now. > Thats because its not done. You say you dont mind, but anyone can feel that you are not supporting but holding back the idea. Sometimes you say that you say all that just to alert us to do it better, but... I dont feel that... I just can repeat what Stuart mentioned: if you are going to pick on every word we are going to put on that site, we either cannot do it or will have to stop comunicating about it on LD. Both solutions dont seem to be in the interest of anyone. -- ---> http://Matthias.Grob.org