------------------------------
Loopers-Delight-d Digest				Volume 97 : Issue 125

Today's Topics:
  Re: Ambient?                          [ pk@mainstring.win.net (Pat Kirtley) ]
  RE: Midi standards                    [ "Hogan, Greg" <GHogan@lexicon.com> ]
  Re: starting out                      [ "Stephen P. Goodman" <sgoodman@prim ]
  Re: Ambient?                          [ The Man Himself <altruist@shoko.cal ]
  Re: LOOPING PHILOSOPHY (condensed)    [ pycraft@elec.gla.ac.uk (Michael Pyc ]
  RE: Midi standards                    [ "Sellon, Bob" <bsellon@lexicon.com> ]

Administrivia:
Looper's Delight
****************

Please send posts to:

Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com

Don't send them to the digest!

To subscribe/unsubscribe to the Loopers-Delight digest version, send email
with "subscribe" (or "unsubscribe") in both the subject and the body, with no
signature files, to:

Loopers-Delight-d-request@annihilist.com


To subscribe/unsubscribe to the real Loopers-Delight list, send email
with "subscribe" (or "unsubscribe") in both the subject and the body, with no
signature files, to:

Loopers-Delight-request@annihilist.com


Check the web page for archives and lots of other goodies!

http://www.annihilist.com/loop/loop.html


Your humble list maintainer,

Kim Flint
kflint@annihilist.com

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 15:41:09
From: pk@mainstring.win.net (Pat Kirtley)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: Ambient?
Message-ID: <1493@mainstring.win.net>

This is an interesting topic. I think this thread sprung from a question about how
to categorize loop music on a performance calendar-database, but it's a
good issue on its own. Some people are apparently adverse to having their
music called "ambient". One suggested that this thread is about the
"tyranny of ambient". 

John Cage once emerged from a soundproof room and declared that there is no
such thing as silence. To Cage, any and every "ambience" became music. The
residual rustle and tone and beat of ambient sound is around us always.
The issue that's brought up here is: what is "ambient music", what's it
for, and what does it have to do with looping? 

I know relatively little about the music of other cultures, but I'll bet
ambient music is no recent development. I would define it as music which is
consciously designed to fit in with other ongoing activities and to enhance
the experience of those activities. We also use the term "background
music". However, due to the simplistic and pervasive application of products
from Muzak, Inc., that term has a highly negative connotation in creative
music circles. Indeed, background music has a place in life. But "elevator
music" is not ambient music. Why?

Once background music pops into our foreground attention, it's not part
of the ambience any more. Elevator music is a mis-application of ambience.
In a fancy restaurant, when a classical guitarist is performing
miscellaneous pieces in a far corner, he can be a positive contribution to
the ambience. When he comes over to your table to "entertain" you, then
he's not ambient. In fact, he may well be (using exactly the same music
you didn't mind hearing five minutes before) totally annoying.

When ambient music makes us "feel" a certain way, without rising in
our consciousness above the near-subliminal attention level, it can be
powerful. But it's a fine line to tread. Diane Ackerman writes in her book
"A Natural History of the Senses": "Virtually all movies these days have
soundtracks and background music. The assumption must be that we need
music to provide us with quick, relevant emotions. Is this because we
don't think the world is worth listening to? Is it because filmmakers wish
to combine words and music for the most powerful effect?" Music producers
for films and TV DO use underlying music for emotional and punctiational
effect. In that context, they are making successful ambient music.

One of the best ambient music creations I've experienced is performed twenty
four hours a day, two stories underground in a long connecting passage-
tunnel between two concourses at O'Hare airport in Chicago. The music is
just tones and sounds, and interactively follows several parameters,
including the background people-generated sound level, and also tracks a
sequence pattern of changing neon tube-sculptures in the ceiling.  The
music is also "zoned" so that somewhat different sound patterns occur in
different parts of the tunnel. This ambient music successfully rides in
that space between subliminal consciousness and directed attention. If you
are alone and quiet, it creates a positive, light, atmosphere (and also
makes you aware of the relative silence or conversational level around
you). If you are in a group, and having a conversation, it may be
completely ignored. So it's just *there*-- a part of the building. Brian
Eno has also made several such ambient creations, and I've read of members
of this list doing the same. To me this is the *real* background music,
and when done right, it is wonderful. 

The more salient issue in this thread is that of live performance of
ambient music. I don't see how one could call it ambient music, by the
above definition, if people are being implicitly requested to pay
attention to it. So if a club owner looks confused when a group tells him
the style of music they play is "ambient", it wouldn't surprise me.
"Ambient" is a valid classification of a type of music, but outside of
music created to accompany another activity, I don't see it as a
logical way to describe a stage-performance style.

With regard to loop-music being "ambient" music-- Why not? I think we
should see looping as a technique, not a style of music. Bach used lots
of arpeggios in his compositions, but we don't say that he made "arpeggio
music". People trading ideas on this list call themselves loopers (here)
because that's what this discussion group focuses on. But mostly they are
*musicians* and sometimes *composers*.  If a composer uses loop-technique to
create a dense wash of underlying sound for a movie scene, we could well
call it "ambient music", and still call him a "looper" (and in the movie
credits he would be called "composer"). 

And when a guy gets up on a stage with a bass player and drummer, and he
starts laying down loop tracks as a background and then starts riffing over
the top of it all, it certainly is not ambient music, and we can still call
him a looper, if we like. But in the newspaper listing he would probably be
called a 'jazz artist".

It would be nice if all genre-labeling could be dropped, and people would
just listen to the music. Descriptions are in many ways anti-music. 

The Man Himself wrote:
>>Two cents on the ongoing "tyranny of ambient" thread...
>>
>>People have wondered why so many assumptions tend to be made about
>>"loop-based" music being equated with "ambient" music, and why there seem
>>to be so many Big Three-wielding guitar players on this list. 

Let's simply quit making all those assumptions. And let's drop the "big
three" terminology. The passage of time changes all of this pretty quickly
--any given embodiment of technology is ephemeral.

As to why there are so many loopers who are guitar players on this list-- I
would like to think that it's just because there are MANY guitar players in
the world, and a (small) proportion of them are also experimental /
compositional musicians. And that looping technique is a powerful way to
experiment with musical composition with a guitar. And those experimenters
of guitar - loop - composition have aggregated in this wonderful little
corner of cyberville.  

The guitar is capable of many diverse tone qualities and sounds. Pure
tone, sustained tone, harmonic-rich acoustic tones, searing distortion,
muted distortion, lush chords, power-strumming, bass lines, scratching,
bending, whammying, tapping, hammering, thumping, e-bowing... It's just
that the guitarist doesn't tend to make all of those sounds at the same
time. With looping technique, a guitarist-composer can make powerful
layered concoctions of sound from these ingredients, and add herbs and
spices too. The guitar is a visceral, organic, tone generator.  A looping
device can be seen as a sound-combiner and in a very literal way, a
guitar-multiplier. 

Let's end the confusion about Ambient, and just let it live, in its place,
alongside all the other arbitrary descriptions the world is compelled to
impose on the music we make.


Pat Kirtley
 

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 15:03:00 -0400
From: "Hogan, Greg" <GHogan@lexicon.com>
To: Loopers-Delight <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
Subject: RE: Midi standards
Message-Id: <9708042018.AA22325@beryllium.lexicon.com>

Hi Kim,

It seems like the answer is no, the MIDI spec does not imply that MIDI   
program change messages are ONLY for program changes.  I don't think that   
it would take up a lot of space in the document for it to imply so   
either!

I agree that we might need new controls and new definitions for new   
technologies and/or non-traditional uses of old technologies.  However if   
we had to wait for such standardization for these tools they may never   
get put to market or even created.

I can not answer all of your questions as to exactly how Lexicon made the   
decision to control the JAMMAN via program change messages.  I do know   
that we did not break any rules in this regard and I feel that your   
charge of being unethical is unfair.  My suspicion is that the decison   
was based on the fact that it was an easy and cost effective way to give   
our customers the most amount of control over the machine.  Lazy?  Maybe.   
 Bad judgement?  Perhaps, but I don't think so.  Unethical?  Absolutely   
not!

Is Lexicon impeding the evolution of the MIDI standard by this action?  I   
don't see how.  Should Lexicon or anyone else wait for the standard   
evolve before implementing any non-traditional uses of these controllers?   
 I don't believe that anybody would want to wait for innovations to be   
standardized.  Isn't part of creativity the the bending or breaking of   
tradition in order to push the boundaries further?

Finally, I fail to see how this would prevent you or anyone else from   
developing the looping tool of the future.

I am not here to defend Lexicon right or wrong.  You stated that our use   
of program change messages in regard to the JAMMAN was unethical and I   
found your statement a bit hard to swallow.

Once more I do thank you for this forum.

Best regards,

Greg Hogan
Lexicon Customer Service
Phone 617-280-0372
FAX 617-280-0499
email: ghogan@lexicon.com  

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 13:28:21 -0700
From: "Stephen P. Goodman" <sgoodman@primenet.com>
To: <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
Subject: Re: starting out
Message-Id: <199708042029.NAA21500@usr10.primenet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<afn39111@afn.org> Posted:
> 
> So say I'm thinking about starting out with loop music and don't want to
> necessarily drop a load of cash for the absolutely top of the line
device,
> for both reasons of simplicity and it possibly being a bad idea.  What
would
> you suggest?
> 
> (always looking for something to expand beyond the solo-bass pit)

First off, look for a used-goods newspaper in your area.  Los Angeles
(where I currently reside) is a fantastic place to look for used musical
equipment, since there are a lot of musicians and recently-ex-musicians
getting rid of equipment there... The paper here's the Recycler (used,
incidentally, by Thomas Dolby in '88 to recruit band members for his
tour-at-the-time).  I'm sure there are equivalents elsewhere.

I experimented with a lot of really crappy equipment - most of it old
reel-to-reel equipment that should have been pasteurized long ago - and
finally bought both my looping unit (Digitech 7.6) and effects/ambiance
unit (QuadraVerb +), for $125 each!  In most cases people get rid of this
stuff (in THIS town anyway), when they've got some more money and they're
just upgrading.  I haven't had a problem yet [crossing fingers while
preparing the first series of gigs for the next few months]...


One PENULTIMATE RULE, though:  If it's got an Anvil case, don't even call
'em up - if it's got a case, it's been out of someone's living room.  Well,
most likely, on tour, and all over Hell and Back.  My Juno-106 synth is
still kicking, and I bought it for $400 in '87, from the guy who wrote
"Jump" for the Pointer Sisters (the strings wash used in the repeating hook
is actually the default #1 patch!)....!

Well, hope this helps.

* Stephen Goodman            It's the Loop Of The Week!  And it's free!
* EarthLight Productions      http://www.earthlight.net/Studios

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 13:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: The Man Himself <altruist@shoko.calarts.edu>
To: loopers-delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: Ambient?
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.91.970804132158.9833B-100000@shoko.calarts.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Pat Kirtley wrote:

> >>People have wondered why so many assumptions tend to be made about
> >>"loop-based" music being equated with "ambient" music, and why there seem
> >>to be so many Big Three-wielding guitar players on this list. 
> 
> Let's simply quit making all those assumptions. And let's drop the "big
> three" terminology. The passage of time changes all of this pretty quickly
> --any given embodiment of technology is ephemeral.

Fine.  If you've got a better way of referring to the Echoplex, JamMan,
and Boomerang without actually having to write out their names, I'd love
to hear it.  If you don't think that these *three* units occupy a distinct
and fairly unique place in the realm of looping with regards to the
details of their design and the features they offer, I'd be genuinely
interested in hearing why not.  If you honestly don't think that
guitarists who use one of the B** T***e units comprise a majority of those
who are *presently* subscribed to the list, I'd like to hear the evidence
you have to the contrary. 

I'll say it again: I'm not trying to make qualitative judgements about
"Those loop-based units of which three is the number, and the number is
three...  thou shalt not count five, nor two, save that it then be
followed by three..." being inherently better vehicles for artistic
expression.  I think some people have interpreted my posts as elitist
manifestos of manifest destiny rule by Oberheim, Boomerang, or Lexicon
customers, and as statements that I want this list to remain dominated by
guitar players who utlilize one of the... well, you know.  That's *not*
the case!  I'm not trying to "draw lines in the sand" beyond which no
outsiders may pass.  This whole epic started off with me offering some
ideas as to why there seemed to be a dominance of the aforementioned
demographic group.

I'm simply trying to talk concisely and effectively -- and 
*realistically* about how things seemto be represented on this list *at 
this moment in time*.  And I honestly don't think I'm doing that in an 
inaccurate way.  This is starting to get a bit silly...

--Andre

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 23:15:07 +0100
From: pycraft@elec.gla.ac.uk (Michael Pycraft Hughes, PhD)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: LOOPING PHILOSOPHY (condensed)
Message-Id: <9820.199708042215@rank-serv.elec.gla.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The Man attracted The Controversy:

>> But the whole idea of (re)contextualising comes from how the sample is used
>> in another piece of music. Sure 5 guitarists will play "Black Dog" slightly
>> differently, and 5 techno artists will use the sample from "Black Dog" in
>> different ways in wildly varying styles, but the guitarist is still just
>> playing "Black Dog". 
>And the DJ is still "just" sampling it!

The way I look at it is like this:  either view it as a partnership between
DJ and player, or a partnership between composer/conductor and orchestra. 
Either is still considered creatively acceptable@ :)

>> So in a way, just as the guitarists sensibilities
>> affect how he plays the guitar riff, a DJ's sensibilities affect how he
>> uses the sample in a song or dropped into his set.

>But again, the "sensibilities" that are at work with a guitarist are an
>intangible, organic, built-in thing, and they're there from the crack of
>the cosmic DNA.  

Woah, I think there may be a touch of overemphasis on that point. 
Guitarists are no nearer the cosmic source than anyone else ('cept maybe
Jerry Garcia), we're just hittin' bits of wire an' wood in a way that
pleases us.  I _do_ understand where you're coming from, in that I find
synths etc sort of "isolating" instruments where I don't have enough
control over the sound, like I do with guitar.  But that has nothing to do
with the quality of music produced.

A good example - how do the sensibilities of a harpsichordist fit into this?

>It's like the difference between a painting and a photograph.  Different
>photographers will take different sorts of pictures of the same thing, but
>the degree of implicit, preliminary variation and distinction just isn't
>on par to what you'll get if different painters work off of the same
>model. 

Yes, but a painter will never be able to achieve the look, the clean lines,
of a photograph.  And I (as a guitarist) will never be able to sound like
Kraftwerk.  Damn.  :(

>This is all very true.  I think for me the bottom line is that if you're
>working with samples, even if you're tweaking and recontextualizing the
>thing to the nth degree, you're still working with blocks of other
>people's material, in a way that's far more overt and undiluted than if
>you're translating that material through your own performance.  

Andre, you mentioned in another post that you would be playing in coming
gigs with a guitar synth.  If this is anything post '88 or so, you are
fundamentally _playing_with_samples_.  OK the samples are short sections of
sampled intrument waves, but samples nonetheless.  Now we get to a second
question - how long does a sample need to be before it ceases to be the
DJ's own creation?  :)

>True, but within that general realm of similarity is contained a universe 
>of different possibilities.  (This is getting a bit high on the "muso" 
>scale...  maybe I'd better go watch "Contact."  8-/)

No, I think maybe The Simpsons... back to ground level!  :b

Michael

/-------------------------------------------------------------------\
|Dr Michael Pycraft Hughes | Tel:0141 330 5979 | Fax: 0141 330 4907 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Bioelectronics, Rankine Bldg, Glasgow University, Glasgow, G12 8QQ |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  http://www.elec.gla.ac.uk/groups/bio/Electrokinetics/main.html   |
\-------------------------------------------------------------------/

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 18:43:00 -0400
From: "Sellon, Bob" <bsellon@lexicon.com>
To: Loopers-Delight <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
Subject: RE: Midi standards
Message-Id: <9708042306.AA23086@beryllium.lexicon.com>

Just a few comments on Kim's "Program Change" discussion.

While I can appreciate Kim's emotion over our apparent misuse of the MIDI   
Program
Change message, I'm still not convinced that it was an entirely bad   
decision. Our
decision to use Program Change messages for operational commands was made   

entirely for the benefit of our customers. At the time JamMan was   
released there
were precious few MIDI foot controllers available and it seemed like the   
ones that
were reasonably priced only transmitted program change messages. Our   
intent
was to provide extended control of the JamMan for people on a tight   
budget and
I think we did that.

Another advantage to Program Change messages over Continuous Controllers   
is
set up. Most foot controllers generate Program Change messages without   
any
special configuration by the operator. Generating Continuous Controllers   
generally
requires going into an edit mode and tweeking. My experience has been   
that
most musicians don't want to have to tweek at all (many don't even like   
MIDI
much less care about what messages are being sent). They want to plug it   
in
and have it work. Done.

If we have insulted the MMA by misusing the Program Change message, on
behalf of Lexicon, I apologize.  Our intent was to encourage the use of   
MIDI
not to scare people away from it. MIDI has been getting a bad rap lately   
and
if using Program Changes to execute functions instead of changing   
programs
makes it less painful for people to use it, then I have no problem with   
it.
We did not fundamentally change the MIDI spec we just gave people an easy
way to use it.

Bob Sellon
Lexicon/Stec


 ----------
From:  Loopers-Delight[SMTP:Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com]
Sent:  Sunday, August 03, 1997 7:34 PM
To:  Loopers-Delight
Subject:  RE: Midi standards

 ----------------------------------------------------
Greg asked me this a while back, and I haven't had time to answer until
now. I must say it has really been amusing to me. It's probably totally
dull and technical to many of you, feel free to skip it. Basically a long
rant directed at the MI industry in general, and maybe a little bit
unnecessarily hard on Lexicon. No offense intended towards them, just
trying to be provocative and stir things up a bit, as usual. I wrote most
of it a while ago when I must have been more stressed out than I am now,   
so
try not to get too peeved by the rough edges. I've chilled a bit since   
:-).
Some interesting things to think about, hopefully:

At 3:08 PM -0400 6/25/97, Hogan, Greg wrote:
>Dear Kim,
>
>Can you please tell us where in the MIDI spec it states that program
>change messages are ONLY for changing programs?  I don't believe it   
does.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Greg Hogan
>Lexicon Customer Service

If the MIDI spec were to define everything by describing what you are not
supposed to do with it, it would be infinitely long, would it not? That's
why industry standards are not written that way!

Industry standards are agreements between the members of a particular
industry to use a common interface and greatly increase the possibility
that devices from different manufacturers can operate together. They are
not laws or regulations, and do not have agencies enforcing them. They
merely have volunteers representing different parties, working together   
to
define the standard and add clarifications and extensions where   
necessary.
Complying with the standard is done as a matter of faith in the process.

In the case of MIDI, we have the MIDI Manufacturers Association, or the
MMA. The MMA is not big and powerful, and is not known for operating
quickly, but they do appear to be quite dedicated to maintaining the
integrity of the MIDI Standard. They have an electronic forum where   
members
are able to discuss proposed changes and additions to the midi spec.   
Voting
is held periodically to determine whether proposals should become   
official
components of the spec. Examples of this sort of process of addition
include Midi Sample Dump, Midi Show Control, and General Midi. I've never
been active in this process myself, but I've followed it a little bit and
may end up being involved one of these days.

I think the definition of MIDI program change is clear and
self-explanatory. It is for changing programs on a device. Programs are
generally taken to mean the configuration a device is set to. With a
synthesizer, sending Program Change on a given midi channel is understood
to set the instrument used on that channel. With an effects device, it is
understood that Program Change sets the patch that is currently being   
used
to process audio. With a sequencer or drum machine, Program Change sets
which pattern or song is currently cued up. To abstract this a little   
bit,
Program Change alters the configuration of a device, but in no case does   
it
execute a function.

We have different commands to execute functions. For a synthesizer, we
configure a channel with Program Change, but we execute on that channel
with Note On and Note Off commands. With the sequencer, we execute with
Start Song and Stop Song. We do not expect Program Change to cause any
functional execution. Likewise, we do not expect Note On/Off or   
Start/Stop
Song to change the device configuration. With an effects device, there is
usually no concept of execution, because the processing is always on.
Therefore, there is no corresponding "execute" command.

In the case of the JamMan and other looping devices, we are not merely
dealing with a passive effects device. We are dealing with a device that
executes functions under control of the user. In my opinion, using MIDI
Program Change messages to execute these functions is a significant
deviation from the manner in which Program Change has traditionally been
used in other devices, including other devices from Lexicon.

So I wonder, Did Lexicon discuss this new use of Program Change with the
MMA? Did Lexicon attempt to work with the MMA to determine which commands
best suited their new type of need? Did Lexicon attempt to propose a new
subset of MIDI commands for looping to the MMA, in the manner Charlie
Richmond did with Midi Show Control when he wanted to use MIDI to control
lighting rigs?  Or did Lexicon glance at the MIDI 1.0 spec published in   
the
early 80's, ignore the years of subsequent discussion, additions, and
publications, see that the spec didn't say you couldn't use Program   
Change
any way you wanted to, and just go ahead?

Perhaps the fact that Lexicon has primarily dealt only with effects and
processing is why they stumbled over this subtlety? If you never had to
allow users to truly execute functions, could you have failed to realize
the distiction that other devices have always dealt with?

Or was it just convenience? Lots of potential users owned simple midi
controllers that only sent Program Change, why not use that? "The MMA is
too slow, and we want to sell product." Lots of people have taken that
route, unfortunately. The classically simple decision with larger
ramifications than anyone is realizing? How often do we complain about
decisions that only help in the short term but hurt in the long term?

And what do we do in the case of a looping device that can also have it's
configuration changed? If there had been a JamManII with 128 presets, how
would it's functional executions be controlled? Either you can't have 128
presets, or you can't be compatible with your own products! That would   
have
been a troubling situation, and following the MIDI Standard spec would   
have
helped you to avoid it. That's what standards are for! Not to mention the
fact that it helps you to be compatible with other manufacturers.

By making the seemingly trivial choice to use Program Change, I think   
that
Lexicon effectively diluted a portion of the MIDI Standard specification
and the MMA's process, and I think that was irresponsible on the part of   
a
major manufacturer in the music industry. At the same time, I sincerely
doubt there was any malicious intent to subvert the MIDI spec or the MMA,
and suspect it is just a combination of ignorance and convenience. I know
how easy that is, because I've made similar decisions myself.

Lexicon is presumably a member of the MMA, but I really have no idea how
active the company is in the organization. It is clear that they have   
been
involved from the very earliest days, since Lexicon has manufacturer ID   
6.
My question to you, Greg: With your comments above, you don't mean to
indicate that Lexicon is not totally committed to this history and the
continuing process of evolving the Midi Standard specification, do you?
Does it really make sense for Lexicon to try to justify what seems to me   
to
have been a poor decision, with the reasoning you have used? Wouldn't it
make more sense for Lexicon to say, "Yeah, that wasn't a very good idea.
Sorry about that."

I may seem a little insane for going on about this. But I hope you see   
what
I am trying to get at. Looping devices are continuing to develop, and are
becoming more sophisticated. We won't really be able to use Program   
Change
to control these devices. It's not just the philisophical distinction
between configuration and execution. Or the fact that Program Change will
be needed for it's intended purpose. There are technical reasons too,   
since
Program Change only sends one byte of information and a minimal control
interface can take advantage of at least two. (that's why the echoplex   
uses
note and controller messages, which send two bytes, for control. The
interface is more sophisticated and Program Change doesn't convey enough
info. This has it's own set of problems, less philosophically severe than
the program change decision, but admittedly still troubling. That's why   
we
let the user select which way they want the midi control to work, in the
hopes that it doesn't conflict with something else.)

We need a standard way to communicate with these devices, or we have   
chaos
and the ability for a fledgling segment of the industry to grow is
hampered. Lexicon probably doesn't care about that anymore, but it would   
be
nice if a company with so much influence didn't continue supporting a
position that limits the rest of us from developing future generations of
looping products. Would that be too much to ask?

thanks for your patience, and honestly not trying to offend,

kim


______________________________________________________________________
Kim Flint                   | Looper's Delight
kflint@annihilist.com       | http://www.annihilist.com/loop/loop.html
http://www.annihilist.com/  | Loopers-Delight-request@annihilist.com

--------------------------------