Re: implied rhythms

[matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias Grob)]

Bryan Helm said a lot of interesting stuff, hard to understand though.
At first I was fascinated reading:
>    The contrast between an
>    acccompanied loop versus a solo loop is really clearly heard if
>    you listen to any "Frippertronics" work with a lead non-loop melody,
>    such as "Evening Star", and compare it to solo-loop work such as
>    "Let The Power Fall", the differences are major.

But then I thought about it and remembered my experiences and started to
doubt. As loops grow longer, melodies enter on top of multiplied bases, and
maybe disapear again, the limits between the live and loop part get lost.
And I think its good. The musician listener will always know what part the
musician is actually playing. But for the simple "liker of music", I feel
it is best to offer one integrated thing and as long as the loop and live
part are as different as you say (or I understand) the loop is not really
part of your playing and maybe not integrated for the listener either. This
is a possible way, but probably not a basic condition.


I maybe must say something of little respect: Its time to go way beyond
Fripp in terms of looping! I said that to himself, too: A part of a long
letter I wrote over a year ago was:

...until I found the Soundscapes CD at the beginning of this year.
Listening to it, I felt the desire to contact you: I learned so much about
guitar playing and music from you, mainly in the 70's, and I am still a
rather limited musician. But now, I have developed the looping way of
playing to a degree, where I could teach you something, too - about the
technology of the machine and its musical applications.

He never answered. Maybe I was not delicate enough or did not understand
his record. Or he and his disciples stick to what has been found, just the
same way as many stick to Strat-Marsh music as developped by Hendrix...

Matthias