Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
At 01:21 PM 2/5/98 -0600, Liebig, Steuart A. wrote:
>FYI
>
>Apparently, I wasn't very clear in what I wanted to say.
>
>Solo Looping wasn't NECESSARILY the problem in my view:
>
>If music is creative, it's creative . . . however if the MACHINE is
>dictating the "music" ("playing IC chips"), and NOT the player. Then I
>do have a problem. If the machine HINDERS or LIMITS flexibility or
>musical decision-making I believe the tool is in charge and not the
>operator. (Of course it is cool to react to what is being spit back at
>you . . . lots of grey area here to be sure.)
My guitar limits my flexibility because I can't play it perfectly. Even if
I
could I wouldn't be able to decide to play a chord with 13 notes in it. I
can't do a lot of things with it, actually. My flexibility is very limited
by this instrument that I managed to enjoy playing for the last 21 years.
So
the tool is in charge? Doesn't seem so. It just has a boundary of
possibility within which I use it. I own a hammer which does a terrible job
of cutting wood. But it sure is good at hammering. Should I hate my hammer
for controlling me like this? Or should I accept it as a hammer, use my saw
for cutting, and just get on with it?
I'm reasonably certain that infinitely-capable tools are still a few years
away, so you might expect to be subjegated to machines for a while. Or you
might accept the limitation of a given tool and use it for whatever it does
do, and have it serve your needs. In any event, the limits of the tools
used
will always dictate the music to some extent, as will the limits of the
musician using them. How could you possibly avoid that?
kim
________________________________________________________
Kim Flint 408-752-9284
Mpact System Engineering kflint@chromatic.com
Chromatic Research http://www.chromatic.com