Re: a general question

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

thank you, all that answered, for your answers.  particularly to mike and
steve for their in-depth replies.   i think i learned some of what i wanted
to know.   i think that the total "tweeker" percentage of this list is
somewhat smaller than i had originally surmised.   however, i'm not
disappointed, somehow.   it seems that whether or not one is looper with 
all
"1"s or "5"s, listener accessibility is still an issue.
i am constantly torn between trying to create something as innovative as
possible and trying to reach people with my art.  now that i am getting 
more
proficient with the bouzouki, i find avenues opening for me that were 
closed
with the guitar.   the exotic nature of the instrument lowers the incidence
of preconceived notions on the part of the listener, and i am able to do
more of what i want to do without confusing everyone.   the best response
that i get is from my most traditional project, which features bouzouki and
dulcimer on plate, no frills, nothing fancy.
at the same time, i'm doing "live vocal capture, manipulation, and remix"
with a poet named skip fox.  this is a much older guy talking about death
and madness and nature.   my buddy and i twist his voice up on loopers and
delays and what comes out definitely does not NOT have a good beat and you
CANNOT dance to it.   i feel so much more creative and artistically 
powerful
when i'm working on this project.   if i ever make a penny on it, i will be
the most surprised man on the face of this earth.   more importantly, i 
once
heard art described as necessarily having an element of communication.   i
am sure that i will only be communicating with a very limited number of
people out there with my favorite but troubled work.
how this all comes back to looping is i have begun to wonder if my 
different
projects are defined by more than just the medium that i am working in.   i
have what i consider are my "electronic dance" project, my "acoustic"
project, and my "poetry remix" project.  i'm beginning to wonder if i 
should
even bother to try to mix these elements at all. ars gratis ars. loop 
gratis
loop. i should only bother to put out the tip jar for the bouzouki 
jamboree.
i should loop for myself and grow hair on my palms.
mike barrs mentioned mainly being compelled to put the looper in a
traditional context.   i wish that was what the looper wanted me to do with
it.   i starting to make money with a few hundred dollars of string and 
wood
and i have five grand sunk in crap that will never sell an album.
ah well, the rant sets in.  thank you again for your responses, they were
invariably varied.
lance


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Goodman" <spgoodman@earthlight.net>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: a general question


> "Lance Chance" <lrc8918@louisiana.edu> inquired:
>
> > whoever cares to reply.   you consider your loop work:
> >
> > 1 totally ambient, atonal, arrhythmic
>
> At times any of the above.  I consider my work 'situational' at times, in
> that it is more attuned to soundtrack work - and this can be 'ambient',
> atonal, AND/OR arrhythmic.
>
> > 2
>
> I get it, "there is no number 2", right? :)
>
> > 3 a little of both, some of both (rhythmic, but atonal) (atonal, but
> > rhythmic)
>
> At times, that too.
>
> > 4
>
> Whither "4"? :)
>
> > 5 song oriented, rhythmic, tonal
>
> Like I said, whatever comes out comes out.  I am fairly committed to the
> idea of combining the mode of a 'pop' song with 'ambient', looping,
atonal,
> and/or arrhythmic material.  My favorite examples of this would be Peter
> Gabriel's first three solo albums, and of course the beautiful "Sacred
> Songs" by Daryl Hall and Robert Fripp.  I'd love to play with folks who
have
> that same concept at heart.  If they exist.
>
> One of the nice side effects of the ambient-pop mixture (or its variants)
is
> that 'regular' folks who would otherwise turn their noses up at stuff
minus
> the 'pop' element find themselves listening (and with interest!) to
> non-'pop' material.  I have always thought that Bowie's negative attitude
> towards the "Let's Dance" period left out this very important factor.  It
> was great fun and not a little satisfying to introduce 'normal' folks to
> Bowie's older material, such that their attitudes would be like the
> following:
>
> 1974: "BOWIE?!?  Ewwwww!" (leaves party)
> 1982: "Wow!" (add to this singing along with "Let's Dance" etc.")
> 1982: "This is GREAT!  Who is it?" (while listening to "Diamond Dogs",
etc.)
>
> I could say the same for Pink Floyd, which so revolted a friend of mine 
>in
> the late 70s that she'd start saying things like "Ooooh, the WALLS are
> BREATHING..." before leaving the room.  Come "The Wall", and her wedding
> reception, what was on the play list for dancing?  "We don't neeeed noooo
> education...."
>
> Go figure.
>
> I went through a series of insecure stages where I was trying to compose
> material "that people would like".  It's all pretty disappointing stuff 
>to
> me.  I played it for a few friends at various times while apologizing for
> the content and sound quality, only to be told that they liked it.
Perhaps
> if I'd have had the looping material done years later, it would have been
> more fun for me.  I did find however that it was quite capable of being
> combined with ambient concepts/elements.  So when "Sacred Songs" was
finally
> allowed to be released, I had a huge "eureka" effect myself.  But the
> pop-ambient combo thing is about as close as I come to trying to classify
my
> work.
>
> Now that I've been able to scare my wife into letting me compose in the
> front room of the house - we've not moved upstairs yet as it's not
> finished! - this week I'm working on material for submission to a
> body-building film called "No Pain, No Gain".  I turned down a gig years
ago
> that was to be for a Japanese porn film, because they couldn't guarantee
> that abuse of women wouldn't occur to my music.  Then I came across the
bit
> in "Emmanuelle" where "Larks' Tongues in Aspic" is used - however
> unauthorizedly - during a rape scene.  I've now lowered my bar of
contention
> on this, to the effect that I won't do work for snuff films.  That's 
>about
> it.
>
> Did anyone see aurora last night?
>
> Steve Goodman
> * EarthLight Productions
> * http://www.earthlight.net
>