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: wikipedia page on livelooping

Actually, it *is* difficult to fix. Wikipedia is basically at this point a shitty nomic where the editors make up arbitrary and ever changing rules. I've tried editing a few random, obviously wrong things in the past, and been shouted down by a gaggle of nerds who have nothing to do than bone up on procedures with arcane abbreviations. It's a massive waste of effort to get anything done on there, and I'd rather spend the time goofing off and making music.


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Matthias Grob <matilists@gmail.com> wrote:

I just read all of this thread, rather quickly, and here some thougths that came:

I do not remember having contributed to the wikipedia page for livelooping
Its easy to loop up the old versions in the history tab

I did contribute the real story about the Echoplex page and the removed it since I did not have references
It made me understand the absurd situation. someone who tells his own experience does not have a reference to it
so someone wouldhave to inteview that person, write an article somewhere and then reference to that in wikipedia, right?
I just looked it up, the EDP is very shortly mentioned on the Echoplex and on the Oberheim page, linking to each other, but no explanation about it at all! :-(

I am not sure whether Livelooping.org or youtube/livelooping are valid references
yes we have scientific articles, unfortunately the best I know is written in german, by Frederike Holste

On 24.Mar, 2014, at 3:36 PM, mark francombe <mark@markfrancombe.com> wrote:
> I still don't see the problem of just linking up the Live Looping page to the more general Loop music page. Its got everything we want there, Terry Riley, Fripp /Eno, even a line about Santa Cruz festivals…

its not bad, but WE are not there. I did not fight to be on wikipedia, I do not need the fame. but I find absurd that neither my technical nor musical work is mentioned anywhere, just for the sake of information which is the aim of wikipedia.

its not so dificult to fix that situation: one of you guys who writes well english and is not involved (or whatever the rules are) would have to gather a few sentences and put them up on the wiki, you can discuss them here

since the main members of the movement after 20 years still discuss whether there is a livelooping artform of music, maybe we do not deserve any pages anywhere.

I hear a lot of musicians using livelooping tools to create non livelooping music, for example music that sounds like a band exept that some musicians play amazingly acurate the same thing.
but I hear a lot of music that would never have developped without a livelooping tool. thats livelooping music for me. but since you cannot agree on that, I better go back to develop the Evoloop

thank you