LOOPING PHILOSOPHY (Part 4)

[The Man Himself <altruist@shoko.calarts.edu>]

On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, Kim Flint wrote:

> It seems rather biased to decide that this is the "classical" approach to
> looping, as opposed to analog arpeggiators or turntable manipulations or
> tape-and-razors or whatever. They were all developing in roughly the same
> period. 

I coined that phrase in order to illustrate what I percieve to be the
ancestral development of the current crop of real-time loopers.  I
absolutely think that Riley/Eno/Fripp-derived tape-loop methodology
provides a more direct and significant historical link to the "Big Three" 
than does an arpeggiator on a synth, or even splicing a reel of analog
tape with tape and a razor blade. 

I would go on to say that tape-and-razors looping is the "classical" 
precursor to MIDI-based sequencer editing.  Just look at where the term
"cut and paste" comes from!  I've already gone on at length as to how and
why I draw distinctions between real-time and step-time looping; my
reference to live tape-loops as the "classical" precedent for real-time
electronic loopers is likely an extension of this as well. 

> But why do you feel so compelled to draw
> divisions between them and "us" whoever we are? 

I honestly don't think I'm drawing a division.  I started off speculating
as to why this list was so dominated by guitar-wielding Fripp-spawned
real-time loopists.  When I refer to "we," I'm referring to the majority
of the people on this list, and more specifically to the majority of those
people who contribute to the list on a regular basis.  Look through the
back-issue archives, or check the profiles page.  Do you *really*  think
that I'm making an unrealistic assesment of the membership of the list? 

At this point, of course, we've abandoned speculation about Looper's
Delight demographics and delved headlong into far deeper and more
ambiguous philosophical issues.  I for one do not regret this...  :) And
as you'll see below, I don't personally feel that I'm purveying a
particuarly provincial attitude... 

> It would seem more useful
> to communicate with whoever "them" is and discover the ways in which we 
>are
> really doing the same thing.

I agree with the first part of the sentence, though I am unconvinced that 
we are indeed all doing the same thing.

> And I haven't noticed that electronica artists don't feel they have much 
>in
> common with "us". In fact, many of us seem to be them, and many of us are
> actively exploring one side or the other. 

I've got half a year's worth of jungle and techno beats stored in my
computer, waiting for my feeble hands to get in shape to the point where I
can record some decent guitar parts.  (That's the problem with jungle --
it's so damned FAST.  No wonder Buckethead did a drum n' bass album.)  I've
actually been using sequencers and drum machines for nine years -- that's
longer than I've been playing guitar! 

But even if I make a whole album of jungle-driven tunes (which I seem to 
be well on my way to doing), I'll have a hard time thinking of myself as 
a "drum 'n bass musician."  I've been checking out a lot of the 
publications made by and for the whole electronic dance music scene, 
reading what they have to say about themselves and how they make their 
music.  I've come to the conclusion that if you want to talk about people 
who are truly involved in what's being referred to a "electronica," then 
you're dealing with more than just what sorts of beats and samples 
they're using.  It has to do with a whole lifestyle -- philosophy, 
clothing, social behavior, language, spelling, et al.  

And it's produced some fabulous music.  But I know that I'll never be a
part of that culture.  So I guess I do have a tendency to view that music
as "something other," in the sense that the most devoted and
highly-regarded members of that culture seem to approach life in general
and music in particular in a way that is very different from my own.  I'm
speaking strictly for myself here, and won't assume that the rest of the
list feels this way.  Based upon the aforementioned demographics, however,
I would *hypothesize* that a lot of the rest of the bulk of this list is
in a somewhat similar position in terms of not having an immediate link to
that culture.  Whether or not they feel that this is a barrier towards
their being able to operate in those musical areas in a manner which truly
connects to the essence of the music is a whole other issue (and probably
a whole other thread). 

> Many of the more noteworthy
> artists of your "classical aproach" seem to be collaborating with
> electronica artists, with promising results. 

I agree.  In saying this, however, you yourself are acknowledging that 
there is in fact a distinction to be made in terms of the methodology 
involved...

Frankly, I'm hoping that the "Electronic jam session" idea at Lumpy Gravy
takes off for just this very reason; I'd like to MIDI my Echoplex up to
some DJ's sequencer and see what happens.  Better yet, slave the sequencer
to the Echoplex! 

> And I seem to get along fine
> with the electornica folks I meet. Maybe they just don't like you,
> Andre....:-)

They can join the ever-growing club. 8-{  But just wait -- they're gonna
*hate* me once they hear how I've bastardized their music... 

> Again, any lacking in the LD genre-demographics probably has a lot more 
>to
> do with a lower profile in some net communities than in others. When more
> electronica artists know we exist, more will show up. 

I hope so.  In the meantime, I hope the last four posts or so have been 
of some food for thought.  And as always, no flames intended!

Best,

--Andre