Re: livelooping. Ambient.

[tEd ® kiLLiAn <tedkillian@charter.net>]

Hmmmm,

Sounds like we might be a little on our way to perhaps defining 
"live-looping" as a particular "style" of music a little too much for my 
taste.

Next stop, bring on the live-looping "nazis" -- y'all better make sure 
your live-looping musical cred isn't tainted with any other mongrel 
musical form bloodlines . . . eh?

Is one looper's music less (or more) legitimately "live-looping" music 
than another's because it might be a blues . . . or pop song cover . . . 
or a polka?

If such a thought were (or had ever been) a part of this community I 
would not have stuck around for 16 years.

If it ever gets to that point, I'd feel ashamed to have been a part of 
it for so long.

Just my 2 cents.

If the criteria for a particular piece of music being somehow more 
legitimate as "live-looping" music is a consideration of whether or not 
it could have existed in any other way or form or category . . . and 
that its existance and form was especially and neccessarily dictated and 
dependent on a pirece of hardware instead of a musician's mind, then 
we've already crossed some sort of line somewhere methinks.

Think very carefully about what you are saying.

These ideas could have implications you don't intend.

Best,

Ted

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 9:02 AM, andy butler wrote:

> essentially yes....need to work on the definition.
>
> With livelooping the form can take on unique features
> which take the music out of any regular genre classification.
>
> "any musician who owns a looping device" is likely to produce music 
> where the effect of the looping device is secondary to other 
> considerations of musical classification.
>
> The 12 bar blues is loopable, but you wouldn't want to call
> it livelooping.
>
> Let's have another go.......
>
> Music in which the sounds are the result of an interaction
> between a musician and an instrument, while the form is uniquely the
> result of the interaction of a musician with a looping device.
>
> andy