Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: "Repetition defines music"

To me music is what's left beyond pattern, repetition, and tonality. I need them to build music over, and that's where live-looping takes place. The process of looping makes boundaries between that primordial layer and the music more clear cut, as if it where the noise on which I build a signal. That noise isn't neutral however, it is the clay from which the music will emerge, thus imposes it's distinctive granularity and structural characteristics to the whole musical construction that will emerge.
Well it's a view..

Le 25 mars 2014 à 22:06, kelly maxwell <apacheci5@hotmail.com> a écrit :

Pattern, repetition and tonality define music fir me. Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 25, 2014, at 2:25 PM, "Kris" <krispen.hartung@gmail.com> wrote:

It's the subject heading that starts things off on the wrong foot and sets the wrong context.

On Mar 25, 2014 11:40 AM, "David Gans" <david@trufun.com> wrote:

I don’t see anything “absolutist” here. Nowhere was it started that repetition is the only thing that defines music.

On Mar 24, 2014, at 8:27 PM, Kris Hartung <krispen.hartung@gmail.com> wrote:

I’m so behind on this thread, but the whole title makes me want to vomit.  What’s the basis for forwarding such absolutist based questions or statements? Have we not learned anything about the history and philosophy of art? Since when can art be confined and constrained by absolutist principles?  Seems to me that repetition is neither sufficient nor necessary in defining music.