Re: what a loop has to say

["Kris Hartung" <khartung@cableone.net>]

You don't have to read this philosophical drivel.....BUT...the nice thing 
with this thread, I think, is that most everyone on this list has to some 
extent integrated technology into the identify of their sound, whether 
that 
be a looping device or a complicated array of effects processors, whether 
it 
is to completely redefine their sound or merely enhance it. We are amongst 
friends in that respect.  There is another school of thought, a purist 
one, 
probably not fostered in this group, that would suggest that we are all 
guilty of masking talent with gimmicks and gadgetry. And I would openly 
admit that this group has a valid argument, given the set of assumptions 
and 
values upon which their argument rests. All of our viewpoints here rest on 
a 
set of assumptions and personal or community based values. So we're not 
touting the Truth here, merely investigating and exploring what we can 
infer 
from a common set of assumptions, or reconsile different assumptions. I 
like 
this sort of activity. It stimulates my brain, and also makes me aware 
that 
we can be contradicted at any point in time with a parallel set of 
assumptions and arguments.

In this above light, I don't really think his is a debate (in the strict 
term), as it is a comparison and contrast of assumptions and the 
inferences 
we can draw from them. No one can dispute a subjective value, like liking 
the color red, but we can question the logic involved in inferring things 
from those values. I go back to the famous analytic and linguistic 
philosopher Wittgenstein's concept that there are really no legitimate 
arguments once you get clear on the assumptions and meanings of the terms 
we 
use.  This is all language games, an interesting cluster fuck of 
complementary and/or contradictory assumptions and their respective 
inferences. Have you ever seen two people argue endlessly about whether 
something they see is actually denoted by one term or another? That's a 
language game, based on different assumptions. The argument wouldn't even 
start until they agreed on the terms and then started making inferences 
from 
that point onward.  In my experience, 99% of the arguments I hear or read 
in 
the area of music and art, are language games.  They never begin with a 
clarification of the assumptions, which lay the foundation for discussion 
and prevent unnecessary bantering.

Kris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Todd Howell" <ransacker@earthlink.net>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: what a loop has to say


To add to the current debate, I would say there are varying levels of 
hiding 
behind technology and to see what the true motivation is. That gets you on 
a 
slippery slope one you start the debate. Personally, I realize my own set 
of 
limitations when I play. I am not particularly fast, but can be fluent 
when 
I take my time with things. I guess that looping allows me to build in 
small 
micro-steps sometimes, avoiding the need to make "the big statement now" 
kind of thing. I also realize that when I've tried to be some manner of 
shredder (trust that I was unimpressive) that I've done things that 
sounded 
completely unreal for me. I am not a blues, straight into the amp kind of 
cat and I realize that when I've tried to play like that, it is just not 
that interesting. So hence, I have a big board on the floor with all 
manner 
of processing goodies. Whatever gives you your true voice is what I would 
say. Whatever, that is go with that and celebrate it. It is a big world 
and 
someone will appreciate your uniqueness be you Fripp, Frissell or just 
plain 
me doodling to my border collie and cats.

That is how I see it. I of course could very well be wrong.

Todd

-----Original Message-----
>From: Kris Hartung <khartung@cableone.net>
>Sent: Mar 17, 2006 11:35 AM
>To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
>Subject: Re: what a loop has to say
>
>> I mean, if you follow the logic of 'hiding behind gear', where do you 
>> draw
>> the line?
>
>You don't. It's a spectrum, or a bell curve. No lines, no black and white.
>
>> When you pluck an acoustic guitar, you aren't making the sound- very 
>> basic
>> technology (strings vibrating over a sound hole) creates the sound. Are
>> you
>> then hiding behind the technology of the acoustic guitar? I guess only
>> vocalists would be considered pure musicians then.  ; )
>
>Perhaps. I've seen this argued before, but that would be the extreme end 
>of
>the spectrum and bell curve. With certain assumptions, one could make a
>valid argument for this.
>
>> To me- if I can use it (whether 'it' be a bass, a wood block, a 
>Flanger, 
>> a
>> laptop or a Repeater) to make noise, it's an instrument. From there the
>> only thing that matters is how the artist chooses to use the sound
>> creation
>> device.
>
>I agree with you, philosophically here, but there are still glaring 
>examples
>where not a lot of talent and artistic creativity in producing a piece of
>music, but is relying primarily on processing after the fact. I can't be
>convinced otherwise, because I see it in the flesh frequently.  It is easy
>to say that we are all just using instruments and promote this "I'm Okay,
>You're Okay" approach, but in my opinion this is also an all to convenient
>way to avoid the talent and creativity component, will varies in radical
>degrees in performances.  The fact remains, there are people out there 
>that
>havne't really mastered there instruments or who are intermediate players
>(and who will openly admit this) still struggligg with their main
>instrument, who use gear to compensate for that. It's not right or wrong,
>good or bad...I just see it and think it needs to be recognized.
>
>I'm talking way too much here and getting more acute in my opinions. I
>apologize for that. I'll refrain from responding for a while.
>
>Kris
>
>
>
>
>> Well that got a little more lengthy than I thought I was going to
>> go.....just some Friday morning ramblings.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>             "Kris Hartung"                    To:
>> Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
>>             <khartung@cableone.net>           cc:
>>             03/17/2006 10:46 AM               Subject:  Re: what a loop
>> has to say
>>             Please respond to
>>             Loopers-Delight
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> My wife once told me that when I sit down with my acoustic guitar and 
>> just
>> play freely, that what she hears sound more creative than anything else 
>I
>> do with my gear, looping, etc. I find that sort of interesting 
>(sometimes
>> discouraging)...makes me start to question what is really necessary for 
>> me
>> to express myself artistically, vs. hiding behind the gear. Heck, if I 
>> can
>> sit down at a gig with just my acoustic, and satisfy both myself and
>> others
>> artistically, I'd probably be retired right now with all the money I 
>> would
>> have saved!  :)
>>
>> But I just love the effects, and I openly admit that "sometimes" they do
>> substitute for true, raw creativity. I would be surprised if anyone on
>> this
>> list who uses a lot of gear thought or felt otherwise.  It would take
>> quite
>> a artistic genius to ALWAYS, 100% of the time, have effects acquiesce to
>> one's talent and creativity, rather than the other way around. Either an
>> artistic genius, or a complete liar.
>>
>> Kris
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: daniel stevenson
>> To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
>> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:39 AM
>> Subject: Re: what a loop has to say
>>
>> i do find the clean acoustic guitar to be my muse.yet ill mangle it with
>> reverse and speed control.varible delay times seems to keep the sound
>> pure.maybe just a phase im goin thru but nothing beats a good ole 
>> acoustic
>> source into a looper.
>>                                     my best regards,
>>                                                               scary
>> visionary.
>>
>> Kris Hartung <khartung@cableone.net> wrote:
>>  > Yep, to me a loop says, "Freedom."
>>  > G
>>
>>  Speaking of which, does anyone find it easier to freely improvise when
>>  you
>>  aren't using layers and layers of effects, tone mangling devices, etc?
>>  I've
>>  found this to be the case with me. I love all the cool effects at my
>>  disposal - the Boss VF-1, hundreds of VST effects, LXP5, etc - but they
>>  sometimes produce artificial restrictions or boundaries on my 
>> creativity.
>>  I
>>  tend to be more intentionally and genuinely creative, and less enamored
>>  and
>>  influenced by technology, when I just play with a clean guitar sound 
>> with
>>
>>  just a touch of reverb and delay for ambiance. You have nothing but the
>>  notes, basically, no window dressing to distract the creative process.
>>  I'm
>>  sure this is quite subjective and relative, but I'd be curious what
>>  others
>>  think of this. I guess just the simple sound of the guitar forces me to
>>  think more out of the box, rather than relying on the box. For example,
>>  you
>>  have a effect patch that has two octaves and panning delays that go on
>>  forrrrrrrever....you play one "note"...just one human data-point of
>>  interaction, and the gear takes credit for the rest of the interesting
>>  sound
>>  for the next minute. And I start to think to myself, what is really
>>  creative
>>  about that? I could play 10 notes in 3 minutes and produce a song that
>>  requires very little creative energy. It would be interesting to take 
>> all
>>
>>  of our looping songs and strip every single cool effect from them,
>>  resulting
>>  in just the initially, humanly generated notes and natural sound of the
>>  instrument...what might we discover? How much of the intrigue of the 
>> song
>>  is
>>  generated by the gear vs. human creative energy? These are just open
>>  questions for discussion. I'm not necessarily making any categorical
>>  point
>>  here.
>>
>>  And in this regard, I really respect a lot of the work of Derek Bailey,
>>  where its just him and his hollowbody guitar...quite amazing what a guy
>>  can
>>  do with just a guitar and amp.
>>
>>  ...I'm off to bed now. It's been a long day.
>>
>>  Kris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Mail
>> Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the
>> use
>> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
>> information that is privileged, proprietary , confidential and exempt 
>> from
>> disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified 
>that
>> any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
>> strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error,
>> please notify the sender and erase this e-mail message immediately.
>> 
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>
>