------------------------------
Loopers-Delight-d Digest				Volume 97 : Issue 128

Today's Topics:
  PMC-10                                [ patrick@his.com (Patrick Smith) ]
  It's not morbid                       [ BlkSwan03@aol.com ]
  guitars and samples                   [ Olivier Malhomme <malhomme@infobiog ]
  Re: LOOPING PHILOSOPHY/Methods & Mad  [ KRosser414@aol.com ]
  Re: PMC-10                            [ Claude Voit <c.voit@vtx.ch> ]
  Re: LOOPING PHILOSOPHY (condensed)    [ illoyd@intrlink.com (Ian///Shakespa ]
  Art, craft, communication, philosoph  [ Warren Sirota <wsirota@wsdesigns.co ]
  Re: Art, craft, communication, philo  [ miguel.barella@poyry.com.br (MAT) ]
  RE: LOOPING PHILOSOPHY (ad infinitum  [ "Hogan, Greg" <GHogan@lexicon.com> ]
  RE: Midi standards                    [ "Hogan, Greg" <GHogan@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: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 18:49:11 +0200
From: patrick@his.com (Patrick Smith)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: PMC-10
Message-Id: <v01520d01b00d0775b22a@[205.177.25.43]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On 8/4/97 Kim Flint wrote:

>Actually, for that much you could buy a used footpedal that sends just about
>any midi command and could probably handle both units. I got my digitech
>pmc-10 for $100. It can store 500 presets! It even has a midi in, which in
>addition to letting you back up and restore, can also do midi filtering and
>merging if you need it....

I picke done of these upa few months back on Kim's request and I can vouch
for the versatility of this unit. For $100 it can't be beat.....filters out
those nasty program changes my GR-1 sends each time a switch a
patch........

Patrick


 ***  ***    ** Fingerpaint http://www.his.com/~patrick/FNGP.html  ***  **

  

------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 22:20:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: BlkSwan03@aol.com
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: It's not morbid
Message-ID: <970805221901_107660999@emout06.mail.aol.com>

In a message dated 8/5/97 7:47:05 PM, you wrote, among other things....

<<I have been thinking a lot about this stuff lately, excuse me if this gets
a bit overly personal and morbid.>>

Thanks for the post Dave.  I thought it was quite good, tho sad.  I often
think( after creating a piece in the studio)  how lucky I was to have walked
in there and messed around.  A piece of music emerged that had not been there
the day before.  Making visible the invisible.  I wonder how many great ones
we miss simply because we were'nt there.  So many ways to waste time, and
time goes by so fast.  

Jim   Portland OR

------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 10:35:56 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Olivier Malhomme <malhomme@infobiogen.fr>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: guitars and samples
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970806102628.5870B-100000@lovelace.infobiogen.fr>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Reacting a bit late but...

"
Woah, I think there may be a touch of overemphasis on that point.
Guitarists are no nearer the cosmic source than anyone else"

Yes When i hear that guitar player are still playing black dog when a DJ
(or whoever) is still sampling, please gimme a break!
At least
1) with the sample it will correctly played
2) guitar player community is not exactly known fot its inventivity (does
it exist? lets say imagination, try to walk in a guitar shop a saturday
afternoon!)

I don't see MUCH difference between sampling and most guitar players
besides I'l prefer a sample used with imagination than a bad -or worst,
just usual- guitar part.

I would rather talk about experiments versus narrowness of mind
(again does the word only exists?)

It is clear to everyone that -in music- the end justifies the means!
The fact that we all choose different means is our richness that make us
sometimes different from our neighbour. It is quite clear to me that
mostly everyone is running after the same "end". Or not?
Olivier Malhomme

------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 04:49:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: KRosser414@aol.com
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: LOOPING PHILOSOPHY/Methods & Madness
Message-ID: <970806044914_1794560777@emout20.mail.aol.com>

The first part of this discussion between Andre & Kim (primarily) I'd like to
comment on has to do with Kim's assertion that 'a sample and a musician
reproducing something' are roughly the same for all intents and purposes,
especially if the audience is not sophisticated enough to know the
difference.  Andre replied (rightly so IMHO) that it should not necessarily
be the audience that moves the performer in this case, but rather the call of
one's art or craft (more or less - obviously, I'm paraphrasing). 

 However, I'd like to add that maybe the challenge here should be to expand
your notion of 'audience'.  Personally, I think it's an artistic cop-out of
the highest order to present something you know is not the best you can do
because you assume the audience just ain't sophisticated enough to know the
difference, especially because it may not be true.  I've done jazz gigs at
dives where there were only a dozen people in the audience and one just
happened to be Horace Silver or McCoy Tyner.  They were certainly going to be
aware of everything that was going on onstage.  I did a gig somewhat recently
where the sax player leading the band was unaware Herbie Hancock was sitting
at the bar and sort of passed it off like it was 'just another gig' until I
told him right after Herbie left, at which point he felt pretty embarrassed
for not giving it his all.  The fact of the matter is, I don't see what's to
lose in assuming the best from an audience because unless you get a chance to
interview and test everyone you don't really know what they're capable of
getting or not.  Let's assume every time you perform in public SOMEONE, even
if one person, has pretty intimate knowledge of what you're trying to
achieve.  The performance then becomes an opportunity to rise to the
challenge of creating the absolute best you can at the moment, to push
yourself to be  committed totally to presenting what it is you do with
greater clarity because you are confident it's being received with clarity.
 OK, for the sake of argument let's say the reverse is true - absolutely no
one is really informed enough to get the details of what you're doing.  What
is to gain by making this leap of logic?  What do you have to lose by telling
yourself otherwise and giving it your all just the same?  You are the only
one who loses - you've chosen to back down from the challenge because you've
chosen to underestimate the intelligence of your audience.

In many ways, I believe (naively perhaps) that ultimately we get the
audiences we insist on.  This is why it's important to sweat the details and
give it your all instead of making dubious assumptions about what the
audience can and can't perceive.

Along those lines, the debate about whether a sample is as 'human' a musical
idea as a phrase played in real time.  I think it's a matter of intention.  I
find myself in a funny position here, having passionately defended the use of
samples on Miles Davis' late 80's records on the Miles e-mailing list a while
back, but I think I can see where a line can be drawn.  Miles and Marcus
Miller used those to spice up the stew, so to speak, to add some unusual
sonic coloring here and there.  So does MeShell Ndegeocello, who I adore.  In
both cases, the samples are not playing the part of ersatz musical substance,
since the songs stand quite well without them.  Same for Torn's "What Means
Solid".  In contrast, there was a song on alternative Top-radio about a year
ago getting a lot of airplay (sorry, the artist escapes me) where the
signature hook was a line sampled from something originally sung by BB King.
 Now, I consider it one of the primary jobs of pop songwriters to come up
with good hooks, but when the one you're counting on is a sample appropriated
from another source, it just sounds to me like someone's being really lazy.
 Sure, maybe you get a lot of airplay one day and maybe a good deal of money
but ultimately you know you've taken the easy way out rather than insisting
on rising up to the challenge of creating something yourself, and you are the
one who will be most hurt creatively by that.  Or take MC Hammer - in dance
music, groove is everything and he lifted grooves hook, line and sinker from
James and Prince, etc.  Dare I suggest that there might be a correlation
between the longevity of MC Hammer's career as an artist and the amount of
creativity he applied to the samples he used?

As in the first issue, no laws are broken, no rules violated, everyone is of
course free to do whatever the hell they want.  But, it's a matter of every
artist's conscience to be honest with themselves as to if they are indeed
imposing the toughest challenges on themselves or taking the easy way out.
 It's not important if anyone else knows.  It's important that YOU know.

As to the 'tyranny of ambient music' or the prospect of 'electronica' taking
over, I have to admit to unmoved by the former and skeptical of the latter.
 I've never liked the idea of ambient music, be it knives and forks clanging
along with Satie, music for Brian Eno to ignore while he sits in airports,
New Age or Musak playing in the grocery store, what have you.  To me it's all
essentially trying to achieve the same thing - acknowledging that pure
silence doesn't exist as we're surrounded by sounds all the time, it insists
on being the context in which you hear everything else around you, which kind
of strikes me as irritatingly passive-aggressive.  What admittedly little
I've heard of the 'electronica' movement strikes me as entirely intellectual
instead of visceral.   I have yet to hear an electronic dance track that
moves me anything close to the way MeShell does, but I remain open-minded and
will continue to try to check out some names I see cropping up.  But, they
certainly have a role in looping and I would welcome some more practitioners
of that on the list, as Kim says, to keep things controversial and hopefully
interesting.

I add this last paragraph not to put down anyone else's tastes or choices,
but just to maybe illustrate another range of perspective which is all of
course my highly irrational and subjective opinion.

Jeez, Burroughs and Fela leave us within a few days.  I fear their kind is
not being made much anymore...

Goodnight,
Ken R

------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 12:37:23 +0200
From: Claude Voit <c.voit@vtx.ch>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: PMC-10
Message-ID: <33E853E3.526@vtx.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

PMC 10

Fine Midi implementation but a litle fragile for the road

Check the switches
the ac in socket :I've had power cuts on too flexible stages
The remote must be checked because its the only way to program it

Questions :

Is there somewere a midi software that can program it via sys ex

Or a dot it yourself project that could replace the remote keys(those
gummy things ( ??!! remember the MMT 8)

Its still the more powerful unit I know

Claude

------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 08:23:06 -0400
From: illoyd@intrlink.com (Ian///Shakespace)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: LOOPING PHILOSOPHY (condensed)
Message-Id: <v02140b03b00e177aae5e@[206.156.204.27]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

No, to answer the unasked question, I'm not gonna let this die without at
least trying to get my point across...

>But again, the "sensibilities" that are at work with a guitarist are an
>intangible, organic, built-in thing
Okay let me try and clarify my point:
A DJ's abilities as a DJ are just as inate as a guitarist's abilities as a
guitarist... you're born with a certain amount of talent that you hone
through practice. And by DJ, here and throughout my posts, I've been
referring to a "disc jockey" with 2 (or more) turntables as a basis and
whatever else he/she might choose to have along (sampler, drum machine,
etc...). I really don't see a difference between a guitarist practicing his
craft and a DJ practicing his. Are we together up to this point?
So, a guitarist inflecting his personality on a riff, we  all agree that
thats because of who he is, then why is it such a stretch to say that the
way a DJ drops a sample (not necesarily from a "sample" as from a digital
sampler, perhaps a cut-in from the other turntable...) into a song, as
thats part of his craft, part of what he does, part of the nature of being
a DJ, is really that different; he's grafting, adding elements and
removing, much the same way as a guitarists picking or strumming may add or
take away notes from a riff.
And this really boils down to what some will see as a philosophical
difference and I don't. Its almost political....

>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
Okay well  how does your opinion of me change when i tell you all the
samples i use are samples of my own  performances?

>I personally would feel
>very uncomfortable with inserting a sample of someone else's music into my
>own
Thats a personal choice and one i can totally agree with, i.e. I see where
you're coming from, all I'm trying to say is that there's not a lesser form
of music because it simply _may_ use parts of other songs.

>I just can't bear the thought of
>literally buying music off the shelf.
and this is where we totally agree... I own one sample CD and its a thing a
freind of mine put together of like 1000 drum machine samples...

>I'm not saying that each format is identical to the other in terms of what
>you can do.
Okay, gotcha, and i totally agree...

>BTW, if you've got a better suggestion as far as terminology goes, I'd
>genuinely love to hear it.
I subscribe to the theory that guitar players have chosen: metal and
alternative and bluegrass just becomes hopuse and techno nad jungle and
gabber and all the other different genres. I guess I'd feel alot better
about the "electronica" tag if there was a similar overt categorisation for
"all the people that play music with guitar bass vocals and drums"...

>> The whole point of electronica is accepting what others do and seeing how
>> people change whats previously been done.
>
>I don't know if everything I've seen in electronica supports your claim.
my example i think got delted before i posted... um, the widely held
concept that drum'n'bass evolved by gradually increasing the tempo of songs
and slowly bringing out certain elements, over a period of several years.
It was a progression...

>I'm pretty sure we're taking them too seriously anyway!
Yeh, you're probably right... Anyway, thanks for some stimulating
conversation and some points to gnaw on when I should be working... :-)

Ian///Shakespace
www.intrlink.com/~illoyd

------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 09:34:12 -0700
From: Warren Sirota <wsirota@wsdesigns.com>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Art, craft, communication, philosophy
Message-ID: <33E8A783.4A480B0F@wsdesigns.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi all,
I'd like to say something pithy about art, craft, communication, looping
philosophy, etc.Unfortunately, all I can offer is fragments based upon
my subjective evaluations of various points.

- Art is what you do for yourself. Or, more precisely, it's what you do
for "itself". You start a piece. It turns into something. It "wants" to
be that thing, and you know when it's finished because anything you add
to it detracts from it. If it's sufficiently far from people's
conditioning, then they may be impressed, moved or stretched, but they
will also probably experience confusion and possibly annoyance ("where's
the conceptual pigeonhole for that? how do I know if it's good or bad?")
Unfortunately, people's conditioning and cultural referents seem pretty
narrow these days, and the reasons (and prescriptions) for that would be
another rant in and of itself.

- I perceive several varieties of craft:
1. Basic craft on an instrument or voice, which is usually necessary in
order to create most music that even relates to the traditions we've
been accultured to.
2. Craft in service of art, which is when you practice in order to pull
something off that you really want to pull off.
3. Developmental craft - basic practice in order to increase your
general skill level, in the hopes that new skills will become part of
your vocabulary and enable you to do cooler things
4. Obsessive, competitive craft - the kind fostered by most guitar
magazines. play faster, better, cleaner, like Steve Vai, like Eddie Van
Halen, like Jim Hall, like Django Reinhardt, like Robert Fripp. Impress
the other guitar players on your block. This is the evil extreme version
of craft. Usually it just makes you feel inadequate.

- Philosophy
1. I am a child of the universe. Whatever I do isn't great, it isn't
bad, it isn't good (except as I judge it so)--it's just *my* voice,
which in turn is just an expression of whatever creative goo was stuffed
into this bodily shell by the Tao. Judgements - it's popularity or
success by any external measure - are almost entirely the result of
non-artistic factors: the mood and background of the reviewer, the
relation of the piece to the popular psyche of the day, the promotional
budget, etc.

2. There are always players better than me when measured on along any
particular objective dimension, and players worse than me. I must
constantly fight depression in the face of the better and arrogance in
the face of the worse, for these are divisive and non-constructive
reactions.

3. Or, as is said in The Artist's Way - "I'll be responsible for the
quantity and let the Tao be responsible for the quality." (paraphrase)

4. Philosophy of looping - I don't understand why one is needed.
However, I'd like to point out (this seems to be relevant, though I'm
not sure why) that in an age of information overload, editing and
evaluation is in scarcer supply than raw material. Looping seems to
encourage a focussing of the senses and concentration of attention in a
way that is in tune with this principle.

Hoping not to piss anyone off for a change,
Warren Sirota

------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 15:20:09 +0400
From: miguel.barella@poyry.com.br (MAT)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com, 
    Warren Sirota <wsirota@wsdesigns.com> 
Subject: Re: Art, craft, communication, philosophy
Message-ID: <00003939.@poyry.com.br>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part

     Hi Warren,
     
     Good analysis but too "Guitar Craft" oriented. Any relationship?
     
        Miguel

___________________________ Separador de Resposta ______________________________
Assunto: Art, craft, communication, philosophy
Autor:  Warren Sirota <wsirota@wsdesigns.com> na INTERNET
Data:    06/08/1900 9:34


Hi all,
I'd like to say something pithy about art, craft, communication, looping 
philosophy, etc.Unfortunately, all I can offer is fragments based upon 
my subjective evaluations of various points.
     
- Art is what you do for yourself. Or, more precisely, it's what you do 
for "itself". You start a piece. It turns into something. It "wants" to 
be that thing, and you know when it's finished because anything you add 
to it detracts from it. If it's sufficiently far from people's 
conditioning, then they may be impressed, moved or stretched, but they 
will also probably experience confusion and possibly annoyance ("where's 
the conceptual pigeonhole for that? how do I know if it's good or bad?") 
Unfortunately, people's conditioning and cultural referents seem pretty 
narrow these days, and the reasons (and prescriptions) for that would be 
another rant in and of itself.
     
- I perceive several varieties of craft:
1. Basic craft on an instrument or voice, which is usually necessary in 
order to create most music that even relates to the traditions we've 
been accultured to.
2. Craft in service of art, which is when you practice in order to pull 
something off that you really want to pull off.
3. Developmental craft - basic practice in order to increase your 
general skill level, in the hopes that new skills will become part of 
your vocabulary and enable you to do cooler things
4. Obsessive, competitive craft - the kind fostered by most guitar 
magazines. play faster, better, cleaner, like Steve Vai, like Eddie Van 
Halen, like Jim Hall, like Django Reinhardt, like Robert Fripp. Impress 
the other guitar players on your block. This is the evil extreme version 
of craft. Usually it just makes you feel inadequate.
     
- Philosophy
1. I am a child of the universe. Whatever I do isn't great, it isn't bad, 
it isn't good (except as I judge it so)--it's just *my* voice, which in 
turn is just an expression of whatever creative goo was stuffed into this 
bodily shell by the Tao. Judgements - it's popularity or success by any 
external measure - are almost entirely the result of non-artistic 
factors: the mood and background of the reviewer, the relation of the 
piece to the popular psyche of the day, the promotional budget, etc.
     
2. There are always players better than me when measured on along any 
particular objective dimension, and players worse than me. I must 
constantly fight depression in the face of the better and arrogance in 
the face of the worse, for these are divisive and non-constructive 
reactions.
     
3. Or, as is said in The Artist's Way - "I'll be responsible for the 
quantity and let the Tao be responsible for the quality." (paraphrase)
     
4. Philosophy of looping - I don't understand why one is needed. 
However, I'd like to point out (this seems to be relevant, though I'm 
not sure why) that in an age of information overload, editing and 
evaluation is in scarcer supply than raw material. Looping seems to 
encourage a focussing of the senses and concentration of attention in a 
way that is in tune with this principle.
     
Hoping not to piss anyone off for a change, 
Warren Sirota
     
     
     

------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 11:55:00 -0400
From: "Hogan, Greg" <GHogan@lexicon.com>
To: Loopers-Delight <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
Subject: RE: LOOPING PHILOSOPHY (ad infinitum)
Message-Id: <9708061823.AA29282@beryllium.lexicon.com>

Kim,

I was very surprised to read your statements below.  This seems like it   
was written by an entirely different person than your posting regarding   
MIDI Standards.  Replace Looping Philosophy with Design Philosophy and   
you may understand what I mean. :>}

Best regards,

Greg

 ----------
From:  Loopers-Delight[SMTP:Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com]
Sent:  Tuesday, August 05, 1997 1:48 AM
To:  Loopers-Delight
Subject:  Re: LOOPING PHILOSOPHY (ad infinitum)

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

I'm not going to bother replying to all the megabytes this thread has
generated. In some sense I'd like to, and I'm sure I'd enjoy flaming   
Andre
into a whimpering cinder, but I don't even have time to read it all let
alone reply! So I guess it's a debate I lose by attrition...:-)

It all begs one question, really. And I guess this is the main reason I'm
not motivated to get into such a discussion. Simply, what is the purpose?

When you try to debate the validity of one means of creative expression
versus another, what are you really trying to do? It seems to me that   
there
is another level to the discussion, a larger motivation. What would be   
the
goal of winning such a debate? If you successfully prove to the world   
that
one means of expression is inferior, what would your next step be?

And why is it that the PurestFormOfCreativity is always, by some
coincidence, remarkably similar to that of it's proponent in the debate?
Have you ever seen such a discussion where someone vigorously argued that
their own artistic methods were clearly inferior to all the rest?

I think the most difficult step in such a process is the one where you   
step
out of the debate and out of yourself, look back in, and question your   
own
motivations. Tough questions to ask yourself, and you need to do it
honestly. I know, I've had to do it plenty of times! You have to deal   
with
your own ego, and your confidence in yourself, and the inherent fear of
self-expression. And if you're like me, you'll be left still ashamed of
comments made 12 years ago that only you remember.

The question of which artistic method is most creative and experessive,
which holds the greatest validity, has no answer. It's a pointless and
self-serving argument. These debates have raged through artistic and
academic communities for all eternity, and they never end in a positive
growth. More like isolation, alienation, suspicion. The world is not   
black
and white, its full of a whole spectrum of color. And: a full range of
sounds! There is no right way to create. There is no wrong way. No better
way, no worse way. Just other ways. Different colors and sounds.

When we come across someone using a different method than our own, let's
not take the path of boosting ourselves by putting them down. See it as   
an
opportunity to learn. How does their method help them to express
themselves? What are their artistic goals? How do they get there? What   
can
we learn from that? Let's use the opportunity we have here to gain from
each other.


....one sermon and a couple of rants. My quota is filled for the   
week.....

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

------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 14:47:00 -0400
From: "Hogan, Greg" <GHogan@lexicon.com>
To: Loopers-Delight <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
Subject: RE: Midi standards
Message-Id: <9708062053.AA00169@beryllium.lexicon.com>

Matt said:  "Wouldn't this scenario make more sense if Lexicon
made/sold foot controllers!!! ;-)"

Funny you should mention this.  We announced at the summer NAMM show that   
we will be shipping a footcontroller this fall.  It is meant to be a   
deicated footcontroller for our MPX1 but will allow MIDI control as well   
as provide a modulation source for anything else that can be controlled   
by them.  It will list for a little more than a JAMMAN so it will likely   
not be priced right for most JAMMAN users.

If anyone has any questions regarding this please contact me directly.

Best regards,

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

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