Re: a general question

["Lance Chance" <lrc8918@louisiana.edu>]

>
> ---"Greg House" <ghunicycle@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > whoever cares to reply.   you consider your loop work:
> >
> > 1 totally ambient, atonal, arrhythmic
> > 2
> > 3 a little of both, some of both (rhythmic, but atonal) (tonal, but
> > arrhythmic)
> > 4
> > 5 song oriented, rhythmic, tonal

> The problem is that there's a LOT of space between 3 and 5. Things that
are
> harmonic and rhythemic, and yet, not "song oriented". Most of my looping
fits
> somewhere in there. I don't plan out songs, it's freely improvised, yet,
it's not
> atonal, and it generally develops a rhythm, but it never ends up sounding
like a
> pop song, ABABCAB, or whatever.
>
> Greg
>
i see your point.   i think that i skewed the scale towards "ambient" due 
to
accidental prejudices based on my own use of loop tools.  what i consider 
my
"tonal" and "rhythmic" work is similar to what you described.  i guess that
i would consider anything with identifiable (if shifting) meters and
harmonic structures "musical" in nature.   "song oriented" perhaps was a
weak descriptive term.   or, i suppose, it is possible that i hadn't really
considered how "song oriented" loopers could get.   these tools seem to
suggest improvisation to me.   however, they could be used in a completely
arraigned set.  so, how about this:

1 totally ambient, atonal, arrhythmic
2 a little of both, some of both (rhythmic, but atonal) (tonal, but
arrhythmic)
3 freely improvised, but primarily tonal and rhythmic
4 arraigned to the note or bar and/or could be transcribed using 
traditional
musical notation

lance