Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
agreed, Andy, well said! rick On 7/22/64 11:59 AM, Per Boysen wrote:
Excellent write-up! :-) Per On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:59 AM, andy butler<akbutler@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:Way back long ago Looper's Delight folk were happy to talk about "looping". LD was set up as as place to share *all kinds of loop music*. As far as I know it still is that, there's a lot of live loop people here but in a decade or so I only read one or two posts that said canned loops were not music ( and not for many years now). So when the community started organising "Festivals of Looping" and didn't invite anyone that used pre-recorded loop it was firmly pointed out that this was a misrepresentation of the term "looping". After that the term "live looping" started to be used for events, open to anyone as long as live looping technology played a significant part in their performance. So the whole point of the term was to distinguish between different looping approaches, and it was adopted because there were objections to the use of the term "looping" in that context. A few years down the line it became apparent that the new technology was giving rise to some interesting new musics, stuff that just wouldn't happen without the technology. Some of us call that "livelooping music", or simply use the term "livelooping" in the context of describing the music. There isn't any intention to define what the technique of live looping is hidden in that, why on earth would there there be? (and some may notice a typographic clue to confirm that). There plainly isn't any authoritative body that's going to tell you what to call your music, or to say whether you "do live looping". There's no division between insiders who "do live looping" and outsiders who don't. There's just free individuals who can call their music whatever they like, play it with whatever technology they like, and have any opinion they fancy about the music they hear. andy butler