Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Not if you're talking about the importance of family names. Unless you mean in the Linnean classification sense. Then I start to feel the guilt. Until I suddenly feel uncertain. -----Original Message----- From: Matthias Grob [mailto:matthias@grob.org] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 8:59 PM To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com Cc: PeBi Subject: Please lets all sit together now and define what we do! It may seem useless for you to define things academically, but to give a name to a thing is fundamental. And to associate it to some bigger family in universe is maybe even more fundamental not just for comunication, but for our perception of what we do and want and how things work! We have discussed such issues a lot, but somehow did not conclude. So please lets do this now, to get rid of the question and form a position in society, for the benefit of all! Somehow the name for what we do has come and all agreed on it: Looping. To define it we have a little harder time. The most important for this may be its class: Looping is a subset of what? We discussed it a lot and found it is not a Style, not a Tool, not a Religion, not a way of life... but maybe an Artform? Recently Kevin of Gibson suggested to create a site about the Artform Looping. So we need to know whether its an artform and what we want to include in that site. While LD is completely open and can include anyone who is interested, the new sites content and aim shall be defined in order to make evident to press and public what they can expect as Looping. By this we gain a lot more attention as several citations express below. Is it an ARTFORM? If Music, Painting, Dancing are artforms, can looping be another one? Or some kind of a sub-artform for music, like Concert, Recording, Composition, Improvisation... or even Guitarplaying as someone suggest below? There is some essence which is not limited to music and sound. I always tried to be at least open for those other ranges, but so far not much happened, I havent heard much talk about picture-looping, for example. So I tend to simplify to "looping is a way to create and perform music". As you see below, I even tend to exclude some other "art forms" that may use looping tools, but use their own label, like Minimal Music and Rap for example. This is in general only, because those stiles can still be executed the loop way, and then maybe called Loop-Rap or so, but if any repetitive music is loop music, we probably dont get anywhere. In other words: We naturally show connections to Mantras, for example, but we dont say Mantras = Loop Music, because the public may become confused and the Indians may disagree ;-) And if it is an Artform, what is the caracteristic of it? As Andre points out, not even Repetition seems to be a characteristic any more? Or could it be that Andre+co discovered another artform? -------------------- I just made a search at LD for "artform" and "art form" and it seems that Andre LaFosse was the first one to use the term Jan 97 in: " loopers meet @namm" ...there are plenty of people like myself whose introduction to looping came primarily via Fripp's work, so there's a bit of a tendency to think that looping as a serious improvisational form began with _No Pussyfooting_ and the live application thereof with the _Exposure_ "non-tour;" I've been guilty of this sort of thinking myself. Thanks to this list, I'm becoming more and more aware of the history behind the art form all the time. -------------------- LD veteran Bryan Helm in "the proof of the pudding....", 4 Feb 1997 4-Will this group of players feel the need to congregate together at some point in the future to share performances and information, and to solcit industry to makes it's pitch and contribute to the cost of such an event? 5- Should we be telling anyone about this kind of music in that they are already listening to loops in many aspects of modern audio production and could care less about the artform. Is there a collective sense that loop oriented music deserves a better fate than most work made available for sale in this pop culture. -------------------- Brian Helm again made a strong point April 98 in : "Truth via Doubt" ...Any artist who wrestles with an "alternative" material,style, or media does so first and foremost as a personal crusade. The need to bring this work to a public forum as a measure of it's congruency with commerce, is the chief bastardization of all artisitc intent related to the honest evolution of an art form. The availability and functionality of the electronic devices we use to loop are defined by activities and motives,that favor the corporate rational over the artistic whim in the long run (with all due respect to the industry brains,cogs & moguls who populate this list). So the tools of the trade are few and far between, widely varied in capabilities, and mostly not in current production....the listening public doesn't know the difference between a constantly triggered sample or a closed loop, unless you lip synch poorly to it...and you have to figure out how much personal sacrifice (economical,emotional,etc.) you can really stand to make in the pursuit of some esoteric, ethereal, and estranging art form. ... -------------------- Paul Mimlitsch said 8 Jan 1999 in "Looping Catching on?": The main problem, as I see it, is the perception that "Loopers" (and Looping) are viewed a lot of times as "effects" as opposed to "instruments". The viewing/listening audience sees a guitar so they expect "guitar" playing, a lot of guitar player/loopers set up collages of sound then just wank the same stuff over top of it that they would if they weren't "Looping" (before any body goes balistic, think about it, then fess up - we've all done it at some point in the growth cycle). When "Looping" devices and signal processors start getting played as instruments instead of something to tack on to an already established "technique" then "Looping" might "catch on". But then again why does "Looping" have to "catch on". The listener should ideally only be taken in by the resulting music and not how it was produced. The musician should be utilizing the instruments needed to realize his vision. Limiting titles such as Loopist, Guitarist, Stick Player etc., while fine for targeting an audience, can become constricting. For the listener they raise expectations which may not be realized, for the musician they can be real detriments to growth. I think that "Looping" (as it pertains to the use of electronic looping devices) is in its infancy and will only become a stand alone art form when the devices themselves are approached by those not hampered by previous "instrumental experience" (or as done by the present masters, such as DT, RF etc., of the art that can transcend the history of their own sound generating device so that the "Looper" becomes *the* instrument.) - Paul -------------------- 4 Feb 1999 some Aaron thanks Kim in: "I think we have a winner here!": I was too concerned with the possibility of drowning in email about how cool Robert Fripp is too realize how important to this artform your information has been. -------------------- Andre LaFosse 12 Oct 2000 in: "New Interview & The Infamous Guitar-Loop Paradigm" : >My main purpose in posting this is to see if people think >that "looping" as a technique/practiced art form/what-have-you has >actually changed significantly within the last four years, particularly >in terms of the whole "guitar loop" thing. What do you think? well, this is not the question here. -------------------- A real publication: journalist Toby Gray, in a revew that Stu posted in Jan 01, speaking about the Ricks 1st Solo Bass Looping Festival - which probably was an important beggining for a lot: >such a show again. It was obvious from Steve's performance that he has spent >a good bit of effort into musically exploring and expanding this art form. >Check it out with open minds if you can. -------------------- Few days later, Rick Walker in "Answering Matthias' letter and a quip from BASS LOOPIST Max Valentino of Tehachipi": >What I've realized about this 'artform' and I'm going to unabashedly refer >to it as an artform because "what is, IS" (if you catch my drift) is >that we need to promote the hell out of it because it is artistic >life blood to do so. In the U.S. (and I really don't want to >appear to be culturally miopic, but here is where I live) >there is so little support for the 'new' and creative. Consequently, >I've >decided to dedicate the rest of my life to both my art and to being >a 'cheerleader' for other peoples' art, merely because not many >people seem to be doing it. strong paragraph, Rick! Rick also started: "LOOPERS NETWORK and a renewed LOOPING FESTIVAL CALL TO ARMS!!!" in Jul 2001 -------------------- Rick again in "Open Letter to the General Looping Community" in March 02: >I demand a high wage when I tour or make recording or >soundtracks.................I also will play damn near any looping event >that I can (when scheduling permits) for free or expenses just because I >love this community and this 'artform' (I know, I know, Kim, it is not , >technically, an artform) so much. Did I miss those mails? Why is it not, Kim? -------------------- In "An Oxymoron Replies", 10 Apr 2002 Rick promissed: >Learning how to play to loops in real time is a minor artform and I would be >happy to address this issue (maybe in a thread) at some point a little later >when I am not so overwhelmed with gigs and tour preparations (the next month >or so of my life). And we did talk about it since... -------------------- 4 Jun 2002, Rick started a great thread: "Why I produce LOOPING FESTIVALS: is looping a valid musical artform?" that I only read now: >Calling ourselves loopers creates a sense of family and belonging. >This feeling was very palpable, as I'm sure anyone who was there would >agree, at Hans LIndauers' LOOPSTOCK in San Luis >Obispo............enough so that >Larry O graciously wrote us up in Electronic Musician last month. > > 2) Journalists and Radio DJs are sick of the status quo................we > have not been in such a horrible static slump in mainstream > pop music in almost 30 years. Calling attention to the new technology, > Looping, both educates and gives journalists and radio/televison dj/vjs a > handle................it makes them feel like they are part of the cutting > edge.............it gets great publicity: > I'm performed on air to a million people for a total of about 3 1/2 >hours in > the last three years because of my efforts to promote > 'looping'................... > > You just can't get that kind of exposure any > other way as someone who is 'out of the box' (the dominant, major label > paradigm that has strangled creativity for so long). > > 3) I'm so invested, personally (and I think we should all be as >independent > artists) in exiting that box (lawyers, contracts, distributors, labels and > usury in general). Being part of a new 'movement', such as it is, is just > a way of identifying with something that doesn't have a strong > precedent..........It's a way of getting people's attention that something > 'new' is coming. People are starved for new creativity. Mark my words, > the next 3-5 years will see a new musical explosion even in major label pop > because people are so starved for something outside of the Major >Label paradigm. Then Dan Ash: >Fact is art needs no labels in and of itself. They do provide a >convenient way of talking about certain artists or approaches, and >helps identify certain things that artists have in common. In >general I find labels too convenient for non-artists to pigeonhole >works that they feel compelled to comment on... > >The crew on this list probably all transcend the label, though -in one >way or another. Then Andre laFosse: >I think it's important here to draw a distinction between the term "art >form" and "musical style." Is looping an art form? Absolutely, just >like drumming, guitar playing, or any other musical craft is an art >form. But to me, that's a completely different issue than a "musical >style." > >You could put Bill Bruford, Bill Stewart, Terry Bozzio, and Virgil >Donati in a room, and they'd probably have a lot to discuss and compare >notes on. There are common threads between what they do with their >craft, and many commonalities amongst the finer point of their approach >to the art form of drumming. But would any of them say "I play drum >music" in answer to the question of what "kind" of music they play? and >Hip-hop is loop music. Trance is loop music. House is loop music. >Fela Kuti's Afrobeat is loop music. Alanis Morrisette singing over >breakbeats is loop music. "Wild Thing" is loop music. The scads of >third-rate major label bands whose parts are played once and then >cut-and-pasted into Pro Tools is loop music. I start do doubt that. If we try to include all music that repeat, looping ends up defining nothing and is not usefull. It does not look like the Hip-hop will be part of the loop festivals, nor do I feel that they join the comunity much or call themselves loopers. So why would we force them? It may be a different comunity, even if they use the same machines as we do - sometimes. and again Andre: >The dominant point of reference for how looping tends to be approached >as an instrumental craft, even today, is frequently (though certainly >not always) rooted in the tape-loop or long-delay-line paradigms. But >with the tools that are available today, it doesn't have to be that way. > It doesn't have to be hypnotic, it doesn't have to be inward-looking, >it doesn't have to be droney, and it doesn't even have to be repetitive. sure, but then if it has nothing to be, what is it? >It strikes me as thinking that's being driven by preconceptions, which I >think is hugely problematic for any art form that wants to develop. ok, freedom over all, but maybe its not preconceptions, but definitions for the artform "looping", no? Then Mark Hamburg: >When we are talking about having festivals as opposed to say conventions >we >need to start worrying about how to appeal to people who don't themselves >loop. Is "looping" a useful term in that context? > >I think as an advisory to people that they better have a fair amount of >tolerance for repitition, it's useful. Most music, of course, has repitition >but like listening to Glass and Reich -- who don't really loop in anything >after their early pieces -- attending a looping performance probably >requires having a certain interest in things that will evolve from one place >to the next rather than jumping. Obviously this is not always true, but in a >lot of looping music elements repeat but frequently in an evolved form >even >if that evolution is sometimes just fade outs and overdubs. Really >appreciating looping I think requires some interest in how the music comes >together and changes even if one doesn't understand the technology that >makes it possible. > >... >Personally, having gotten the evolving, swirling texture thing down >reasonably well, I've been thinking that perhaps the next challenge ought to >be melody without simply falling into the >make-some-backing-tracks-with-the-looper-and-then-solo mode. Right, Looping has been that texture thing and now evolved. And the minimal music evolved into a different direction and now does not call itselve looping music any more, so we may not include it really. Looping can evolve more in directions we dont know yet, and then still be called looping or gain a new name. -- ---> http://Matthias.Grob.org