Re: ALL YOU LOOP NEWBIES GET YOUR BUNS TO LOOPSTOCK

["Chris Roberts" <cpr@musetrap.com>]

I guess my answer reflects my viewpoint of 'labels'... like any art genre,
or for that matter 'art' in general... people argue endlessly as to whether
something fits a genre, or if it is even art... as well, am I a 
'distortionist'
if I use a distortion pedal? labels (like most language) are thin because
of thier subjectivity... should we agree on what the terms mean? or should
we accept that these slippery words are just a starting point in 
understanding,
and that 'dialog' is the only way to fully understand... I think he is a
looper, in that he uses looping, and I think that is what you are saying...
but, maybe  Rick suggesting that he is not a looper, because it is not his
intention to 'loop' using singing as part of his looping technique, but
he intends to 'sing' using looping as part of his singing technique... we
are all right, in that we just used the same word to describe different
things, both of which are true... Oh hey, I just figured it out, he is a
looper, but not a Looper... :) Thus, all Loopers are loopers, but not all
loopers are Loopers... :)

peace
-cpr

>-- Original Message --
>Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:55:41 -0800
>From: Andre LaFosse <altruist@earthlink.net>
>To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
>Subject: Re: ALL YOU LOOP NEWBIES GET YOUR BUNS TO LOOPSTOCK
>Reply-To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
>
>
>Chris Roberts wrote:
> 
>> intention?
>
>OK.  So then, if the intention of a typical singer-songwriter with a
>DL-4 is to loop something under his solos, then the intention of a
>"looper" is...?
>
>I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentative here at all - I would
>simply love to have a better understanding of a seemingly arbitrary
>distinction which I've been trying (and failing) to understand for 
>years...
>
>Hmmm,
>
>--Andre
>