Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Excellent write-up! :-) Per On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:59 AM, andy butler <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > Way back long ago Looper's Delight folk were happy > to talk about "looping". > > LD was set up as as place to share *all kinds of loop music*. > As far as I know it still is that, there's a lot of live loop > people here but in a decade or so I only read one or two posts > that said canned loops were not music ( and not for many years now). > > So when the community started organising "Festivals of Looping" > and didn't invite anyone that used pre-recorded loop it was firmly > pointed > out that this was a misrepresentation > of the term "looping". > > After that the term "live looping" started to be used for events, > open to anyone as long as live looping technology played a significant > part in their performance. > > So the whole point of the term was to distinguish between different > looping > approaches, and it was adopted because > there were objections to the use of the term "looping" in that context. > > > A few years down the line it became apparent that the new technology > was giving rise to some interesting new musics, stuff that just wouldn't > happen without the technology. > Some of us call that "livelooping music", or simply use the term > "livelooping" > in the context of describing the music. > There isn't any intention to define what the technique of live looping is > hidden in that, why on earth would there there be? > (and some may notice a typographic clue to confirm that). > > > > There plainly isn't any authoritative body that's going to tell you what > to > call your music, or to say whether you "do live looping". > > There's no division between insiders who "do live looping" and outsiders > who don't. > > There's just free individuals who can call their music whatever they > like, play it with whatever technology they like, and have any opinion > they > fancy about the music they hear. > > andy butler > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >