Re: Loop approach: Loop as effect

["Steve Lawson" <steve@steve-lawson.co.uk>]

> Shure, the important is the result and categorizing is less nice than
> the "all is One feeling", but, as Kim points out, its fundamental for
> comunication.
> Names are inherent to things: Just because you sit on a table does
> not make it a chair.
> To sell a CD you need to select one section of the shop.

...but this can also be a limitation. The instrument I play is cursed by
being called a 'bass guitar', due to the perception people have of it. It's
possible to undermine that with my usual response to 'you can't do that on 
a
bass' which is 'then don't call it a bass, call it a baritone banjo' -
labels can help to define things but also be very limiting when they 
ascribe
specific function to a non-specific entity. A bass just makes a noise, what
noise is up to you. It has no inherent sound, leave it alone it won't make 
a
sound (back to the initial discussion) - if Gibson marketed the EDP as a
'guitar looper', would they sell more, or less? would people perceive it
differently. If Lexicon has labelled the MPX-G2 as a guitar and bass
processor, would it have got reviews in all the bass press? of course it
would, but having the words 'and bass' missing from the front panel, 
stopped
them from looking at it. The labelling was more important than what went on
in the box.

So what do we do? well, being a bunch of hard-core post-moderns, we apply a
situational ethic, and pull ranks behind words when it suits us, and ditch
linguistic specificity in favour of poetic license/common useage when it
suits us. And that is the beauty of life in the new millenium! :o)

Steve Lawson (who makes noises with wood, plastic and metal)
www.steve-lawson.co.uk
www.pillowmountainrecords.co.uk