[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: Dig if u will my research paper(liveloopinggenre)
At 05:25 AM 5/27/2003, SoundFNR@aol.com wrote:
>Kim writes:-
>
> > these are all statements defining the process and techniques employed
>by
> > the musician on the creation side. None of them explain for a listener
>what
> > the result sounds like. That's what you need to do if you are
> describing a
> > genre of music, you need to explain the characteristics of the result
> from
> > the listener's perspective.
>
>Well try asking a few people to describe some music genres.
>It's quite rare that someone will give you an easy to grasp simple
>description of say, "what makes House different to Techno".
>...most of the time you'll get a vague phrase that sort of
>describes how it might affect them emotionally, or just
>a phrase that they heard given as a definition.
Sorry, but that is a cop out. "ordinary people often have trouble defining
a genre, so we don't have to do it at all."
Following your example, knowledgeable listeners and creators of techno and
house can indeed give you quite precise definitions of the characteristics
of the two and how they are different (or more likely of sub-genres of the
two). That is because there are distinctive characteristics between the
two
that do make them different, and if you put a little effort to it you can
articulate what they are. The same holds for all sorts of other genres and
sub-genres of music. If you take a music appreciation class about jazz,
you
would get a whole lot of characteristics about the various sub-genres and
eras of jazz, and you would be able to listen to them and hear the
differences. You can clearly articulate specifics that make it one thing
or
another.
People always want to resist the idea of categorizing and defining their
own music into genres, but humans naturally do this. Our brains find
patterns and put things into categories without our even realizing. So
your
average dance music listener who can't give you a clear definition of the
difference between techno and house almost certainly really does know the
difference even if they can't spell it out. Their brains have identified
the differing patterns and put one in the techno bucket and one in the
house bucket.
So if "Live-Looping" is a genre as you guys claim, it must have some
characteristics that a listener could identify. I'm challenging you to
explain the characteristics that make it so.
Personally, I don't see how it is a genre, and that is why I don't think
you will ever come up with an answer to that challenge. I assume that is
also why you are all avoiding giving any answer in every single post.
Looping is a set of techniques and instruments used by musicians in
creating many kinds of music. There isn't necessarily any in common
characteristics between the resulting music. Looping (or Live-Looping or
whatever) does not appear to me to be any more a genre then "Sequencing"
or
"Sampling" or "Fingerpicking" or "Trumpeting".
> > So when you try to claim Live Looping as a genre, I'm still lost as
>to
> what
> > you are talking about. I really don't see how regular music listeners
>can
> > understand it either.
>
>do "regular music listener's" understand any of the other genre terms
>though.
>new age >>> very simple harmonic sequence and no dynamics, CD lasts 60mins
>blues >>> the same chord sequence all night
>punk >>> guitarist does all down strokes
>
>or do they just associate the term with an enjoyable(or "cool") experience
Yes, I think regular listeners definitely understand these differences, as
I explained above. If you play a punk track and a blues track, they will
know exactly which one is which, because their pattern-recognizing brains
can find the differences. If you go into the music store, the punk fans
will be browsing in the punk section and the blues fans will be browsing
in
the blues section. They are not wandering randomly through the store, or
only going to the section where the most people seem to be. That is
because
there are clear characteristics separating those two genres, and people
can
tell what they are. They prefer one genre or the other because of those
characteristics, and so they go to that section.
Are there such audible characteristics that ordinary listeners can
identify
about "Live Looping"?
Personally I don't see it. The only way you can reach that conclusion is
to
draw a line around one small group of similar musicians who use Looping
techniques and call their music "Looping", and exclude all the others that
don't fit. And that is exactly what I think you guys are trying to do.
>Well I don't even know if anybodies "claiming Live Looping as a genre",
yes, that's pretty explicitly what some people are trying to do!
>some of us use it as a descriptive term for our music.
Do you use it as a description of the music or of your role in creating it?
>At a "Live Looping" gig you will hear sounds that the musician isn't
>currently involved in producing, but neverless they appear to be in
>control of the sound, shaping it in some way, and adding
>to it by the use of their instrument.
with that definition I could be in a dance club watching a dj, or at an
experimental noise music concert created by people with laptops, or
watching the conductor of a symphony. Or watching you with an EDP. It
doesn't define the music I'm hearing.
>which is probably as good a definition for a type of
>music as "jazz" "classical" "rock", and
>at least gives you some idea of what the experience will
>be like, if not the audio part of the experience
no, it's not as good a definition. Defining characteristics of the audio
that the listener can identify is exactly what definitions of those other
genres of music do. Those musics are not identified by the techniques the
musicians use to play their instruments, or at least not exclusively so.
They have specific audible characteristics.
>If you could describe a piece of music accurately, would
>there be any point in listening to it?
We're not trying to describe a "piece of music". It's the characteristics
of the supposed genre that we are after.
>Well, if I don't give my music a name, I won't
>be able to promote it,
That I agree with. If you guys think you have a common style you want to
name and identify yourself with, that's great. I think you have to do that
to promote yourself, because humans need that categorization to understand
you.
But the word "looping" is already widely used by a huge range of musicians
to describe their instruments and techniques used in creating their music,
not the music itself. The stylistic variations of their music are too wide
to fit together in one genre. Trying to call your music "looping" will
just
cause frustration with listeners who identify the word "looping" with your
particular style of music, then go to another concert of "loopers" and get
a shock when it sounds like industrial metal or hip hop or some
experimental noise instead of your quiet guitar.
On the other side, many musicians who use looping techniques in their
music
will be really frustrated to see that "looping" is suddenly identified
with
a specific style that has nothing to do with them, or at least that there
is one group trying to claim that. Then you will get all sorts of heated
debates on internet mailing lists.
>so it's
>
>andybutler--livelooper
And as I asked above, is that a description of your music or your role in
it? To me it sounds equivalent to saying "andybutler--guitarist" or
"andybutler--synthesist" or "andybutler--vocalist".
kim
______________________________________________________________________
Kim Flint | Looper's Delight
kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com