Re: Live Looping(TM?)

[SoundFNR@aol.com]

> I've been assuming that "Live Looping" was an effort to establish a brand
>  for some set of music.

well, it's certainly been used as a descriptive term to
promote events at which "live looping devices" have been used

>  I think branding is useful because it gives an
>  audience points of reference. If they like some music associated with 
>the
>  brand, they can have a reasonable expectation to like other music 
associated
>  with the brand. But what is the brand promise of "Live Looping"? 

Personally, I'd say the brand promise is
"The music you hear tonight is produced live, with no pre-recorded 
samples."

To me , that makes a lot of difference, 
 the sound that is heard could even be the same,
(theoretically, you could tape any live performance and
then play it back as your "gig"),
but the experience of the audience is very different. 

"Looping" is usually considered to be a studio technique,
or so it seems. The taking of a piece of music and repeating it.

"Live Looping" then is some kind of impossibility(apparently),
"livelooping" is what I call my music.


>  Once that's
>  resolved, then it's a separate issue to decide whether or not "Live 
Looping"
>  is the best label for that brand promise.

Surely the issue is 
1) whether someone wants to use a term to describe their music.
2) whether this somehow detracts from someone else's efforts  

>  
>  Frippertronics is an example of an overly successful brand. 
>  
>  A number of record labels have successfully defined brands over the 
>years.
>  It's reasonably clear what is meant by the ECM sound though ECM's 
>roster is
>  pretty diverse. Windham Hill had a fairly distinctive sound before 
>William
>  Ackerman sold out.


> 4AD has or had a fair degree of consistency as well.

oh, that was "Reverb music" wasn't it :-)

>  
>  Returning to the "Live Looping" brand, I pose the following questions:
>  
>  Is anyone who uses a looping device live doing something that would fit
>  under the term "Live Looping"?

if they want to describe their music as "Live Looping",
then all they have to do is start using the term.

...maybe they wouldn't want to do that.

>  If yes, then how much value does the term have -- outside perhaps of 
>Santa
>  Cruz -- for audiences? 

Value? as description?
probably more than
"Acoustic Music"
and less than
"Death Metal"

one day, it may mean as much as
"fingerpickin' guitar"

>  If no, then we hit on the issue that seems to bother a number of people 
here
>  which is that they feel they are using a looper live but aren't part of 
>the
>  "live looping" movement.

well you'd think that judging from the amount of
feeling generated by this question , but somehow I never heard 
anyone complain that they were excluded.


>   What is it that distinguishes "live looping" from
>  music involving the use of looping devices in a live context? 

perhaps that the music could not exist without a live looping device

>  Is it
>  something that an audience can recognize?

audiences have a variable capacity for perception

>  
>  Can you do live looping in the studio 

yes, just like 
"live in the studio"
...I like these easy questions

>  
>  Fundamentally, what is it that the "Live Looping" brand represents? 

hopefully, "something new and interesting"

>  Is it
>  something that is useful to audiences and if so how? If I didn't loop
>  myself, what is it that would make me want to go to a Live Looping 
>event or
>  buy music identified as Live Looping? If it isn't useful to audiences 
>why
>  use it as a brand?

So really, my point is that this debate could go round for ever,
because essentially someone just used some words, and someone
else said " why are you using those words". 

There isn't really a deep satisfying answer to be had here,
just a matter of observing :-

1) A few people say they're part of a "Live Looping Movement", 
2) Someone called their music Live Looping.
3) There was serious concern at one time that the term "Looping" was
       being used to describe a particular type of music, and that this
      might be bad for "Looping" in general.

and what somewhat added to the confusion

4) Someone else once wrote that "live looping" was a genre of music.
  
>  Mark

Hope this clarifies in some way.


>  
>  P.S. This is written as someone who suspects that what he is doing is 
>"Live
>  Looping".

..and this is written as someone whose music is largely unclassifyable.
However bad "livelooping" might be as a term for the 
music I produce using a looping setup , it's about as
good as I'll find. 

andy butler
www.andybutler.com