Re: livelooping. Ambient.

[tEd ® kiLLiAn <tedkillian@charter.net>]

Sorry Andy,

I didn't mean to injure feelings.

I only meant to point out something I seem to see happening with the 
conversation.

I am not asserting that an identifyable "polka" musician (per se) wold 
want this sort of categorization.

But one can easily imagine an eclectic multi-stylist who uses 
live-loping to perform a set of music that could easily contain a 
variety of things...a blues, a country tune, a pop ballad, a rock 
anthem, and a Reggae cover, and a short piece of classical music...all 
using the same simple pedal.

I have seen such (or something very close).

What would be wrong for **that** sort of performer to call him or 
herself a "live-looper?"

His or her "styles" are too ecclectic and too many, but the common 
thread is solo live-looping.

Sure, there are a lot of us who do amorphous, ambienty, jimmy-jammy, 
wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey, odd-ball music because looping divices 
**can** exert a sort of heavy influence in that particular direction 
(when we let them).

I tend to be more like that than not myself, truth to tell.

But I admire those who impose enough "will" on these devices to make 
them do other things -- if that's what they have a mind to do.

It sort of irks me a little to see the possibility of potentially 
setting up exclusionary parameters on who is a live-looping musician or 
what is live-looping music.

All this attempt to be "correct" about our terms actually (to me at 
least) seems somehow wrong.

I will submerge back into my shell now.

I seem to have spoken out of turn and have perhaps caused more harm than 
good.

Onward and downward.

Cheers,

Ted

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:17 AM, andy butler wrote:

> hi Ted,
>
> that's a bit harsh, and actually rather hurtful.
>
>
> A small minority has been using the term 'livelooping'
> to describe their music for several years now,
> and not tried to impose notions of 'legitimacy'
> on anyone.
>
>
> Why on earth would a Polka player with a
> loop device want to refer to their music as "livelooping"?
> I honestly don't believe they would, they already have a perfect and 
> informative label
> to use...............'Polka'.
>
> ...but let's say they did, do you really
> think there's anyone going to insist they
> aren't 'legitimate' to do that?
>
>
>
> The monsters you imagine simply don't exist.
>
>
>
> andy
>
>
>
>
> tEd ® kiLLiAn wrote:
> > Hmmmm,
> >
> > Sounds like we might be a little on our way to perhaps defining 
> > "live-looping" as a particular "style" of music a little too much for 
> > my taste.
> >
> > Next stop, bring on the live-looping "nazis" -- y'all better make 
> > sure your live-looping musical cred isn't tainted with any other 
> > mongrel musical form bloodlines . . . eh?
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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