RE: looping as sin

["Liebig, Steuart A." <LiebigSA@Maritz.com>]

> >If music is creative, it's creative . . . however if the MACHINE is
> >dictating the "music" ("playing IC chips"), and NOT the player. Then
> I
> >do have a problem. If the machine HINDERS or LIMITS flexibility or
> >musical decision-making I believe the tool is in charge and not the
> >operator. (Of course it is cool to react to what is being spit back
> at
> >you . . . lots of grey area here to be sure.)
> 
> 
> 
I think I agree. 

But at the same time, all instruments limit the musician. The idea is to
work within those limits to generate beauty. Some artists are actually
inspired by that.

But at the same time, there will be those who are more fascinated by the
hardware and by making it jump through as many hoops as possible. We
need
them too. Though we might not want to sit through an evening of it.


Reg




> But whatever tool you're using, from a piano to an Echoplex, is going
> to 
> provide limitations.  I mean a piano has only 88 notes.  Talk about
> the 
> tool being in charge...
> "Limitations" can often just point you in different directions than
> you 
> might have otherwise pursued...
> In a world where people can request 4-bit sampling as an option on the
> 
> EDP, the definition of limitation becomes very elastic indeed.
> 
> Travis Hartnett
> 
> 
> 
My guitar limits my flexibility because I can't play it perfectly. Even
if I
could I wouldn't be able to decide to play a chord with 13 notes in it.
I
can't do a lot of things with it, actually.  My flexibility is very
limited
by this instrument that I managed to enjoy playing for the last 21
years. So
the tool is in charge? Doesn't seem so. It just has a boundary of
possibility within which I use it. I own a hammer which does a terrible
job
of cutting wood. But it sure is good at hammering. Should I hate my
hammer
for controlling me like this? Or should I accept it as a hammer, use my
saw
for cutting, and just get on with it?

I'm reasonably certain that infinitely-capable tools are still a few
years
away, so you might expect to be subjegated to machines for a while. Or
you
might accept the limitation of a given tool and use it for whatever it
does
do, and have it serve your needs. In any event, the limits of the tools
used
will always dictate the music to some extent, as will the limits of the
musician using them. How could you possibly avoid that?

kim



        First off, I'm not the guy who came up with the "sin" angle,
someone else can take credit for that.

        Second, I think it's interesting that this has created some real
annoyance . . .


        I can agree with some of the stuff that's been written back . .
. hence my remark about a grey area. BUT . . . the piano isn't making
sound by itself (at least the acoustic piano isn't . . . John Cage
4'33"???), so I would dispute that it can be in charge as much as one of
our favorite processors can. Electric Guitars/Basses can feedback
without your fingers touching the strings . . . again, there's a lot of
grey area here.

        People are also limited by thgeir own imaginations . . .
(Personally, I'm from the Stravinsky school: I find freedom in small box
[of parameters with which to deal].)



        I think that my original comment was taken somewhat out of
context-it was about a SYNDROME, not the tech or the potential of the
tech:

        IF someone is noodling with a guitar (or any instrument) without
processing, it can be just as annoying (or more so) than any IC chip.
But I have to go back to situations that I've been in where people were
so hung up on their processors that they couldn't react to a group
improv situation. As far as my experience goes, the micro-processors in
these machines can't react as quickly as I can to someone else's
playing, particulary where change of tonality is concerned. I guess I'm
bugged when I feel that people are abdicating their musical flexibilty
or decision-making to whatever tool it is that they use.


        Lastly, with all this talk of the human/instrument interface
also being a "limitation" . . . my question is this: What is more
capable of nuanced performance people or machines? For example, the old
tech of Violins, etc. has been developed for many thousands of years,
try to get a MIDI instrument to be as nuanced both from the hardware
side and the performance practice side. I don't expect machines to
perform as well as people, I use 'em and think that they're great tools,
but I understand what I consider to be their limitations and uses. 

        I've been using looping devices for about 14-15 years now, I
really, really like 'em. I love a lot of processors, but they're no t
the endall or be all.  

        Not condemning tech, just some blind uses of it.