RE: Why I said Andrees music may deserve its own name

["altruist@earthlink.net" <altruist@earthlink.net>]

Hi Matthias,

First of all, man, my thanks for your kind words and support at this time, 
and for taking the time to deal with these mails in the middle of the tour.

You said,
>Traditional looping means that a played phrase is repeated more or 
>less as it has been played.

Agreed.

>Sliced looping (give me a better name, as you please) means that 
>portions of phrases or notes are repeated in a sequence different 
>from what they have been played.

Makes sense, and I like the name too!  :)

>the EDP 
>gained a level of functionality that was not intended to it and may 
>turn it into the first tool of a technique other than what came from 
>the Time Lag Generator, rather comparable with the tape slicing of 
>the conrete music, if there is any precedent technique in the past 
>(please correct me here!)

No, I agree with this very much.

>So considering this, you may understand in its totally positve and 
>not at all exclusive way what I said: "Or maybe some new category can 
>arise from the use of looping tools for which we may still find 
>names... (I believe Andre is on such a track)"

OK, I can see your point here, and I appreciate the positive sentiment.  
Let me try and explain my own reservations:

You say above that you feel the "sliced" techniques of the EDP 
represent a new paradigm (for lack of a better word) that breaks from 
the "time lag accumulater" paradigm, and on that basis it might 
represent a new category other than "loop music."

The reason I find this strange and confusing is that the EDP is itself a 
dedicated looper - everything it does involves a foundation of working 
with audio in a loop-based format.

So, if music made entirely with a dedicated looper is placed in a new 
category other than one called "live looping" simply because the sound 
or the process of the music is different from what's traditionally 
expected, then it seems to me that "live looping" as such is basically a  
dead art form.  

In other words, would be trapped in an historical point of view, unable 
to accommodate new developments in its craft, and (most importantly 
for this discussion) stuck with a collection of aesthetic and stylistic 
associations that are there only because of our own expectations.

The alternative, to me, is to NOT treat the concept of "live looping" as a 
category with specific technical or sonic restrictions.  That means that 
looping can encompass all kinds of styles and approaches, and 
shows an ability to grow and expand and be redefined as new 
concepts are introduced.  

That for me is by far the more attractive option.  But, I'm not 
necessarily 
after the same thing as you (though I'm not ruling it out!)

So, it gets back to my previous questions: what are you trying to define 
or promote?

If "live looping" is supposed to be full-phrase repetition, post-Terry
Riley 
sounding music, then the "sliced" school of looping doesn't fit.  And it 
means that "live looping" as a concept is clinging to a paradigm that's 
close to 40 years old, unable to grow or evolve.

>In other words: For Gods sake stop this stupid exclusion paranoya, I 
>am not at all like that and I dont see why I would have the slightest 
>interest in that!

Sorry for the stress, Matthias - hopefully now we both understand 
where we're coming from on this.  And hopefully you already 
understand how deeply I appreciate all of the time and work you've put 
in to create the tool that can make the music we're now losing sleep 
talking about.  :)

Best wishes,

--Andre

-- 


          ---> http://Matthias.Grob.org


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .