Re: Popularity/influence/etc.

[Andre LaFosse <altruist@earthlink.net>]

Hey there Ernesto,

ernesto schnack wrote:
> 
> This isn't a direct response to this post, but i was thinking about the
> relationship between improv and looping.  To me real-time looping and
> improvising go hand in hand.  I don't know how everybody else feels
> about it, to recreate a composition w/ a looper takes all the fun out
> of it for me. Something feels weird about it.  

For my own personal music-making, I feel the same way.  But at the same
time, my favorite real-time loopist is probably Amy Neuberg, whose music
is 100% pre-composed, and (at least in her solo work) is built on the
foundation of stuff she does with the EDP.

To me, her music is everything that real-time looping usually ISN'T:
it's dynamic, it's extremely performative, it's meticulously composed,
and it grabs audiences VERY strongly.

Check her out:

http://www.isproductions.com/amy

> And improvisitional
> music by default isn't mainstream.  

With all due respect, I absolutely cannot understand this idea at all. 
Jam Bands play improvised music, and Phish is playing Madison Square
Garden on New Year's Eve.  The Grateful Dead played improvisational
music and consistently grossed some of the highest-earning tours around.

Jazz is improvised music, and while it certainly doesn't burn up the
sales charts, there's nothing "non-mainstream" about it - you can walk
into any Starbucks in the world and buy their name-brand jazz
compilations.  Keith Jarrett and Bobby McFerrin would improvise entire
solo concerts, and these are some of the most widely-heard,
biggest-selling (relatively speaking) musicians around.

So to me, the whole "improv=avant-garde" equation makes no more sense
than the infamous "looping=avant-garde fringe music" one... I just
cannot see the notion reflected in the real world at all.

Oh well...

--Andre