Re: WHERE ARE THE OTHER LOOPERS?

["Jesse Ray Lucas" <jlucas@neoprimitive.net>]

I almost didn't reply to the loop equipment poll because I figured it was
just creating a bunch of mostly empty mail messages that most people
wouldn't care about.

Also, because not everyone here has the same definition of "looping" (as
evidenced by the fact that some listed their delays, and even samplers and
sequencing software as their looping devices) I figured there would be an
inevitable slew of emails debating what constitutes a looper and what the
definition of looping is.

I think it's good that I don't see some of the equipment people listed as
looping devices.  It means that there is no ideological box around the
technology/technique quite yet, despite some peoples' misguided attempts to
create one.

Once you can define it and put it in a box, then it's dead.  Take it to
academia and be done with it.  Wait for the next wave of innovation to
happen and then box it up and take it to academia, too.

-J




----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Cox" <dougcox@pdq.net>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: WHERE ARE THE OTHER LOOPERS?

> I agree with your comments.  It was interesting to only find <100
responses.
> Kim will tell you that the LD website gets thousands of unique visitors a
> day, but those don't seem to translate into mailing list subscribers, or
if
> they do, they don't translate into people who respond to surveys.
>
> Personally, I know a few loopers here in Houston, and they aren't members
of
> the mailing list.  They do know about the LD site and list, but I'd
classify
> them in the "a) don't want to" category.   I'm recalling something about
> "talking about music is like dancing about architecture" :)
>
> Dig
>