] [Thread Prev
Re: Why ask these questions?
i think that a big reason to ask these questions is to inspire dialogue
about this sound design method. it ain't exactly easy to compare notes
about my craft at the local hootenanny. i mean, it can be a little
daunting to try and discuss looping with a guy who thinks you're cheating
you use more than 6 strings and some japanese pressboard. even more
prevalent are listeners who's primary response is "hell, that don't sound
like 'skinnard'" and to whom "you're jes makin that up as you go along" is
negative criticism. while i do not live in a technological mecca, i
that most people on this list have similar problems.
getting a handle on what people are doing here helped me define what else
was being done with the tech. i really don't want to be one of those
people who "invented" a commonly used technique. staying on this list
me humble. one of the coolest "new" techniques i have begun using was
something that someone referred to in that hackneyed old topic "repeater
edp". i just had sort of missed the whole way slowed down repeater thing.
i find the effect like a real-time granular synth.
i have begun to wonder if there is musician's music and music accessible to
the average joe. sometime these types cross, but rarely for long. i
mean, think about taking a poll at the door of a crimson concert asking
attendant if they play some sort of instrument. then do the same thing at
pink floyd concert. then do the same thing at a white stripes concert.
finding people who can access the work that i do is hard enough. finding
reasonable critical evaluation is much more difficult.
the most important reasons to me for asking these basic questions (what do
you use, do, want, ect.) is to help find the like minds, out there. just
recently, this list provided me with a couple of contacts that were
absolutely invaluable in helping me critically evaluate what i was doing.
i cannot overstate the importance of these interactions. while i do not
(could not) read every post on this list, the more philosophical and basic
threads are the ones that i am most likely to open. labyrinthine threads
pursuing the exact settings on a particular footpedal to configure it for
use with a more particular unit; these are the ones that i skip, usually.
i have one for the pot: who here feels that he is trying to reach the
world, and who has just given up and thinks that looping is mainly for
loopers? i had a guy come up to me after my last show and tell me "man,
that sampling stuff is the future!" he liked it but i can't help feel
he missed the whole f-ing point.
what do you think?
----- Original Message -----
From: "loop.pool" <email@example.com>
To: "LOOPERS DELIGHT (posting)" <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 4:05 AM
Subject: Why ask these questions?
> Jesse Ray Lucas wrote...
> "Once you can define it and put it in a box, then it's dead. Take it to
> academia and be done with it. Wait for the next wave of innovation to
> happen and then box it up and take it to academia, too."
> ....in response to the recent polls about what looping gear loopers use
> I can
> surely resonate with his fears about the dangers of definitions and
> All of my adult life
> I've been associated with musical pursuits that were either brand new
> hence, have no categories
> at the record store, let alone academia or were stylistically marginalize
> with the same results.
> I've felt that sting of being hemmed in by intellectual boxes and felt
> sting of closed minds that prevented me
> from reaching people that I knew would like what I was doing.
> At the same time, I've also been very self conciously in a mode of trying
> promote live
> looping with a lot of my work and I wanted to say a couple of things
> where I'm coming
> from to perhaps allay the fears of people who are wary of that approach
> this community:
> One of the things that I"ve noticed is that when communities become
> that they incorporate much more diversity. Even with everyone on this
> list, we are a pretty small
> community. I think it would be great for our community if it expanded
> numbers............more creativity, more knowledge, more diversity.
> One of the things that I have loved so far about the big festivals that
> have had so far is that I have never encountered a group of musicians (in
> the dozen or so musical communities that I"ve actively been part of in my
> life) that are so non-judgemental about each other and accepting and
> supporting of each
> person's attempts to be uniquely creative with there use of the looping
> Their behaviour completely belies the "put things in a box to reduce
> If anything, the reverse is true. I believe that the Y2K3 loopers really
> celebrated differences
> and had no desires to pin people down either with style or with hardware.
> This year it was stunning and very gratifying to me that Wayne Jackson
> made his own proprietary software to loop his circuit bent toy
> and that Joe Balestrini came up with a novel way to use Ableton's Live in
> realtime performance for his multi-instrumentalism................that
> Whooley had two DL-4 set up like holsters on his side like some zen
> clown cowboy
> , using only his mouth as an intrument as he went out on a long chord
> the audience
> wowing people with his really idiosyncratic musical vision........
> There was just a tremendous amount of stylistic and musical diversity and
> incredibly large number of
> different looping devices and strategies being employed. It was
> exhilirating for me to watch and be part
> of it and I only wish that you could have participated here yourself.
> To me, Jesse, knowledge is a positive thing and knowing about who we are
> gives us clues to what potential we can have
> and where we can go.
> That's my intention in asking these questions. I have never intended
> reduce us by categorizing us, but rather to
> expand all of our minds to who we are in the strong hopes that we will
> expand to what we can become.
> Mine is an additive intention and never a subractive intention. I trust
> that you can respect that sentiment.
> yours, respectfully, rick walker