Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
> Is one looper's music less (or more) legitimately "live-looping" music > than another's because it might be a blues . . . or pop song cover . . . > or a polka? Ask Michael Klob > > If such a thought were (or had ever been) a part of this community I > would not have stuck around for 16 years. > > If it ever gets to that point, I'd feel ashamed to have been a part of > it for so long. > > Just my 2 cents. > > If the criteria for a particular piece of music being somehow more > legitimate as "live-looping" music is a consideration of whether or not > it could have existed in any other way or form or category . . . and > that its existance and form was especially and neccessarily dictated and > dependent on a pirece of hardware instead of a musician's mind, then > we've already crossed some sort of line somewhere methinks. > > Think very carefully about what you are saying. > > These ideas could have implications you don't intend. > > Best, > > Ted Jokes apart, I deeply resonate with you, Ted. -f > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 9:02 AM, andy butler wrote: > >> essentially yes....need to work on the definition. >> >> With livelooping the form can take on unique features >> which take the music out of any regular genre classification. >> >> "any musician who owns a looping device" is likely to produce music >> where the effect of the looping device is secondary to other >> considerations of musical classification. >> >> The 12 bar blues is loopable, but you wouldn't want to call >> it livelooping. >> >> Let's have another go....... >> >> Music in which the sounds are the result of an interaction >> between a musician and an instrument, while the form is uniquely the >> result of the interaction of a musician with a looping device. >> >> andy >