Re: Branding: Live Looping

["James Lanpheer" <jlanpheer@earthlink.net>]

Speaking of "live loopers", i saw Summit on Saturday night in Boulder and 
it
struck me the other night that Ustad Zakir Hussein could be considered a
"live looper"...without the gear.  That man is freakin' amazin!  Sometimes 
i
wonder if my interest in looping might be partially to compensate for my
inadequacies (comparatively, at least) and inabilities to play live at the
level that i imagine inside my head/heart.
cheers,
jim.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Hamburg" <mark_hamburg@baymoon.com>
To: "Looper's Delight" <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 8:38 PM
Subject: Branding: Live Looping


> To Rick and the rest of the "Live Looping" crowd:
>
> I've been assuming that "Live Looping" was an effort to establish a brand
> for some set of music. 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"? 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.
>
> Frippertronics is an example of an overly successful brand. Robert Fripp
> would probably have defined it as what you get when you plug Robert Fripp
> into a looping system. The overly successful part came from people trying
to
> apply the term to music not involving Robert Fripp. That being said, it
> remained descriptive for music sharing the general stylistic elements 
>that
> Fripp established. If someone describes something as being 
>Frippertronics,
I
> have a general notion of what it is going to sound like.
>
> 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.
>
> On the other hand, I think Windham Hill first tried to position their
music
> as "New Acoustic Music" and though descriptive the term never caught on,
so
> not all efforts at broad branding are successful.
>
> 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 yes, then how much value does the term have -- outside perhaps of 
>Santa
> Cruz -- for audiences? If yes, does this mean that the only real audience
> for a live looping event is more or less other people using looopers 
>since
> all that you can predict is use of looping devices (and technical
> difficulties)?
>
> 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. What is it that distinguishes "live looping" 
>from
> music involving the use of looping devices in a live context? Is it
> something that an audience can recognize?
>
> Can you do live looping in the studio or is the live experience an
essential
> part and recording CDs is pointless?
>
> Fundamentally, what is it that the "Live Looping" brand represents? 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?
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. This is written as someone who suspects that what he is doing is
"Live
> Looping".
>
>