Re: Narrowing the field (Re: Currently available looper music webpage)

[Greg Kucharo <telecaster@mac.com>]

On Sunday, August 31, 2003, at 10:29 AM, Doug Cox wrote:

>
> Right now, the only maintenance that's designed into it, is the 
> "validating"
> of links when they are added.  It would be up to Kim re: keeping it 
> that way
> or not.

   I am really still attached to the idea of a human validating stuff. I 
have the time during the day to sign off on links so I could do it. It 
just seems a surefire way to keep things current.




> But - I think one good round of LD list members looking at these 
> interfaces
> and commenting could be done in parallel with that discussion.  So - 
> what
> say ye, o brethren of the loop?  Ideas on categorization, the standard
> values for "genre" (I remember a recently posted list, that Matthias 
> pointed
> out was lacking?), loopers, instruments, compositional approach, etc.? 
>  Any
> other characteristics to use?  Any desire to drop the live vs. 
> pre-recorded
> designation?  The compositional approach?  Let's hear it :)

Andre had some great suggestions in his post;

- Search by style/genres (ambient, hip-hop, glitch, pop, etc.)
- Search by principal instrument used (guitar, violin, bass, voice, etc)
- Search by princiapl looper used (Echoplex, DL4, Max/MSP, etc)
- Search by "technical category" (i.e. "nothing prerecorded," "some
prerecorded, some live," etc)
- Search by "sounds like such-and-such artist" (i.e. someone puts in
"Laurie Anderson" and gets Amy X Neuburg, "Bill Frissel" gets Steve
Lawson, etc.)
- Search by compositional approach ("free improv," "composed," etc.)
- Search by year released