Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: What looping is, is not, or might be (Was: Please lets all sit together now and define what we do!)



> A tangent, perhaps, but a thought I had just now . . .

No, I don't think this is a tangent at all.

Consider audio looping as a kind of "automatic instrument."  When we "do
looping", we function as conductor and performer.  If we're improvising, 
add
the composer role, too.  We are only able to simultaneously fulfill all
these roles because of the technology.

In many "primitive" cultures, music, dance, and singing are inseperable.
You cannot have music without dancing and singing.  As most cultures
develop, specialization occurs.  Musicians become seperate from dancers.
Then composers from performers.  Some of this is probably due to awkward
technology.  It took a specialist to master the idiosyncrasies of old
technology.

Now technology is so powerful, available, and cheap that we don't need so
much specialization.  Arguably, the specialization was "artificial."
Looping and our looping tools are a natural progression of technology.

The "freedom" in looping is the freedom of an individual to create.  Your
only limitations are within.  You have no designated role, not even a
designated instrument.

* * *
Personally, I don't think we will hem in artists by "defining" looping.
Frankly, what we say isn't *that* influential (thank God!).  A good
definition is a good *beginning*.  In fact, why not present a different
definition each time you visit the website?

But to play the devil's advocate, after reading whether looping was an
"artform" or not, I had to look up "artform" in the dictionary.  Then I had
to look up "art."  Neither definition helped.

Besides, a definition isn't as important as a good demo.  I agree with 
Mark,
there.

Dennis Leas
-------------------
dennis@mail.worldserver.com