Solo performers with loop station : Cheating ??

[bluesypicky]

hmmmmm, let me check the rule book... nope, not cheating.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Love this! :wink:

 

[krysh]

no, it's an artform:
http://youtu.be/EJfnvna4kwI

 

[Ravon]

no, it's an artform:
http://youtu.be/EJfnvna4kwI

Very cool. I bought a Jamman looper with dreams of doing stuff like the guy in your link Krysh. Maybe I'm just too old to figure out how it all works. This kinda inspired me to give it another go however. Watch out world!

 

[fronobulax]

Slight veer.

There is a work by Richard Einhorn called "Voices of Light". It was inspired by a silent movie - "The Passion of Joan of Arc" and a performance often consists of a screening of the movie synchronized to a live performance by chorus and orchestra. Would it be a better experience for the audience, or more true to the composer's vision, to not show the movie?

 

[scott]

Hi- I perform quite a bit at many different venues and functions; I would never use loops or any other technology except an amp-with very little reverb. If you have to use these artificial devices to sound good maybe you should practice more. Nothing is nicer than listening to a musician work in conjunction with his/her instrument-at any technical level. I have seen many performers Kottke, JD, JT, Fahey, Legg numerous times and many others. If they were using loops, their credibility would be in question. Haven't music awards been taken back for this same thing? One aspect of their craft that made them so special in the first place is what they can/could do without technology. Has music gotten better with the use of technology? Maybe another topic.

 

[bluesypicky]

Hi- I perform quite a bit at many different venues and functions; I would never use loops or any other technology except an amp-with very little reverb. If you have to use these artificial devices to sound good maybe you should practice more. Nothing is nicer than listening to a musician work in conjunction with his/her instrument-at any technical level. I have seen many performers Kottke, JD, JT, Fahey, Legg numerous times and many others. If they were using loops, their credibility would be in question. Haven't music awards been taken back for this same thing? One aspect of their craft that made them so special in the first place is what they can/could do without technology. Has music gotten better with the use of technology? Maybe another topic.

Hi Scott,
I suppose you speak of acoustic instruments only here...? Because if you play an instrument using an electric signal to be heard I don't quite grab your purist notion relating to sound.
While enjoying the crystal clean sound of a vintage Fender amp, I for one, also enjoy the warm distortion of a breaking tube, guess that means I need to practice more (which is utterly true btw) but I know of few others that do enjoy it too, and don't seem to be needing much more practice. :wink:
Picasso was considered by many a fluke when he came about with his strange looking squares... was he cheating?
These modern artists that use junk yard car parts to build sculptures, are they cheating since they are not chiseling a rock like everybody else before?
As Zulu very nicely pointed out, what differentiates sports or trends from "ART" IS the rule book, (or lack thereof).
In conclusion, anyone has the right to say " I like this" or "I dislike this", but not making judgment calls on someone's integrity towards his "ART", or skill level, based on the path taken to achieve the desired result. :wink:

 

[fronobulax]

Very interesting question.

I think some of the different opinions stem from different answers to the question of "why?" the "technology" is being used. I think we would all agree that using it to cover up for some deficiency in talent or technique is not the best. But what if it is part of the artistry?

There are a lot of folks using sampling, remixing and other technologies to make entertainment that would not be possible without those technologies. I used "entertainment" because some folks don't consider the results "music" although many others do. The talent exhibited by the artist is in hearing sounds, using editing technology and presenting the results to the listener, and not in the technical mastery of an instrument.

My guess is that the folks who would not call the above "music" and object to describing it with words like "artistry" and "talent" are the same folks who perform on acoustic guitar, cringe because they need to make things louder and so need a mic or a pickup and an amp and consider most effects an abomination.

Note that I am not saying "better", just "different" and noting that the difference explains a big chunk of the discussion.

Meanwhile back to the original question - since the gig in question seems to be solo guitar as background music at a wedding reception, I'd say no effects. Just you and your guitar. I would not use "cheating" to describe using effects in this particular situation unless it is accompanied by an admission that using the loop is the only way to stretch a limited selection of songs to fit the required time. In that case, the preferred solution would be to learn more songs :wink:

Ive seen a lot of guitarist these days using loop stations and/or backing tracks..

Following the herd is not always the wisest, best or safest path.

 

[jmac]

I think Karaoke at bars is lame. Maybe its fun at a party like any party game, but as an entertainment form its about as low as you can go.

I think pitch correcting electronics is fine in a studio, but really lame when performers use it in a concert.

So if you do a show with backing tracks, loops and maybe electronic enhancements, then you're coming awfully close to being Johnny Bravo.

 

[bluesypicky]

I think Karaoke at bars is lame.

So do I, but then again, I think soap operas are lame, social networks are lame, organized religion is lame, reality shows are lame... or in other words: The masses are lame.
But point is "the masses" are the ones throwing the money in crap they want to do, hear or watch. :roll:

 

[killdeer43]

In conclusion, anyone has the right to say " I like this" or "I dislike this", but not making judgment calls on someone's integrity or skill level, based on the path taken to achieve the desired result. :wink:

There it is: the old bottom line, perfectly stated! :wink:

Bravo,
Joe

 

[davismanLV]

So do I, but then again, I think soap operas are lame, social networks are lame, organized religion is lame, reality shows are lame... or in other words: The masses are lame.
But point is "the masses" are the ones throwing the money in crap they want to do, hear or watch. :roll:

d) Strongly agree.

Thanks, Pascal!!

 

[scott]

I thought this topic would "open a can of worms" as the real question is much larger than" loops and cheating". Does technology enhance the opportunity for growth or does it inhibit growth. The Picasso comparison is apples and oranges; the painter is still using paint and brushes- those haven't changed much over the years; but if you add computer graphics to the equation then that is a new artform. It is visual art but not painting-graphic design is a different skill-set. Many graphic designers don't draw very well but are great at using the technology to create fabulous illustrations. I would equate that with looping or not looping. To use graphic design and call it a painting would not be accurate. Looping and effects is a different skill than playing a guitar well; I also play electric guitars with distortion and effects; playing heavy material is completely different than playing dynamic fingerstyle pieces. I have heard many players us effects to cover-up for lack of skill. Joe Pass would not even use a flatpick as he thought it detracted from his tone.

 

[adorshki]

I think Karaoke at bars is lame.

So do I, but then again, I think soap operas are lame, social networks are lame, organized religion is lame, reality shows are lame... or in other words: The masses are lame.
But point is "the masses" are the ones throwing the money in crap they want to do, hear or watch. :roll:

And any good criminal investigator will tell you, if you wanna find the culprit, follow the money.
Snarky simile fully intended.

 

[bluesypicky]

Picasso comparison is apples and oranges; the painter is still using paint and brushes- those haven't changed much over the years.

And a guitar is a guitar, be it acoustic or electric, they haven't changed much over the years either, which makes the Picasso anaolgy all the more relevant, with all due respect.
And no can of worms here, just an interesting adut conversation. (Except for Al's posts of course) :lol: :lol:
Kiddin' Bro! Always enjoy messin witcha... 8)

 

[adorshki]

Picasso comparison is apples and oranges; the painter is still using paint and brushes- those haven't changed much over the years.

And a guitar is a guitar, be it acoustic or electric, they haven't changed much over the years either, which makes the Picasso anaolgy all the more relevant, with all due respect.
And no can of worms here, just an interesting adut conversation. (Except for Al's posts of course) :lol: :lol:
Kiddin' Bro! Always enjoy messin witcha... 8)

I know, bro. But a couple of Scott's other points do have merit, about technology opening up new avenues for artistic expression. I'll reiterate my distinction about the difference between using your own material and pre-canned stuff as one of the differences between art and "product", and close with the observation that Hendrix was an unrecovered gadget addict. :wink:
Maybe one last observation: The bit about using gadgets to cover mistakes was also spot-on.
I can't remember who it was now, but when I was a beginner it was brought to my attention that no amount of gadgetry will make you sound good if you can't actually play. It was one of the things that made me decide to concentrate on pure acoustic guitar even though I wanted to sound like Jeff Beck when I was starting out. In fact, there's another good example: Beck's a minimalist when it comes to gadgets.
2 magnificent artists with diametrically opposed technical philosphies.
Go figure.
:lol:

 

[Zelja]

Joe Pass would not even use a flatpick as he thought it detracted from his tone.

Surely that's a decision borne out by the results that he prefers and not based on a philosophy or notions of "purity".

How far do we go - isn't an acoustic guitar "technology"? Let's just all go back to just singing, clapping & footstomping - everything else is just cheating.

 

[zulu]

The guy in Krysh's link is great!

This guy would be proud:

http://youtu.be/i43l-LdtmPc

 

[bluesypicky]

But a couple of Scott's other points do have merit, about technology opening up new avenues for artistic expression.

Oh... I agree with that... and I'm sure if you look hard enough, you'll find painters using manure spreaders to achieve their piece...
When I say a guitar is a guitar, it still has the same 6 strings, and require the player to put his fingers somewhere on the fingerboard to produce the music. As far as sound preferences, and means to get them, it's all a matter of personal preference as I said above.
I don't think the fact that Larry Carlton uses distortion on his signal makes him a lesser guitarist than Joe Pass or Herb Ellis for that matter.
... or are we restricting the question to loopers as intended by original poster?... :?

 

[bluesypicky]

Let's just all go back to just singing, clapping & footstomping - everything else is just cheating.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Thanks Zelja!

 

[scott]

Hi- I feel as if you missed the point : Picasso did use brushes as did painters before him; he didn't use computer graphics to get the effects he created in his paintings. The analogy is paint and brush vs. computer graphics is as single track acoustic guitar vs. looping or other effects. I have have heard performer after performer use gadgets to make up for lack of competence. Much like karaoke. The hoopla about steroids or HGH in athletics is much the same thing-technology to enhance performance. A shortcut that is now illegal. Awards were confiscated in athletics and music for these types fo behaviors and other punishments-Marion Jones, for example, was imprisoned.