A recent TV commercial caught my ear when I realized that one of the musical elements in the background was a Sonic Foundry Acid loop that I used in one of my own songs over a year prior. I have no recourse to pursue an infringement case because the loops are royalty free, and open to the public to use in whatever way they see fit. This discovery has changed my attitude towards loop libraries.

I guess it was just a matter of time before this happened. Like many musicians, I was caught up in the loop craze for a few years as Sonic Foundry came out with a number of very good loop libraries and applications with which to compose. It's not even composing in the traditional sense. In some ways, painting comes to mind because many characteristics of the song are drawn on the screen. The user imports WAV files from CDs and arranges them until there is a pleasing sound. You can also make your own loops, or combine both original and store-bought loops from several companies besides Sonic Foundry.

For rhythmic elements, loops are useful because they sound great and provide the necessary drive for a song. With no room to record live drums, and with a shortage of drummers, loops provide a cost-effective solution to the problem of recording drum tracks.

It appears that melodic elements are less likely to be useful since everyone has access to the same files. Though many drummers would hate to admit it, the particular sound and timbre of the drums are more of a background item in most songs. Drums can be more easily substituted with loops. If two people use the same drum sample, it is not likely that many listeners (besides musicians and producers) will notice.

Since there is a possibility that multiple people, working independently, will use the same melodic elements to create songs, I see a bigger problem when it comes to melodic loops. It isn't even a matter of sounding "like" someone else - the complete melodic element can be identical, right down to the way the sound was produced, reverb, etc.

Much of the fun of looping comes with altering loops and creating something new out of an existing sound. In those cases, it is less likely that people would recognize the similarities. So it may not be fair to discount looping entirely.

As much as I enjoyed working with SF products and the loop libraries they produce, I can't help but see those libraries in a negative light now. Loop libraries are, in a sense, ways for musicians and companies to make a quick buck while not actually producing any music per se. When customers buy loop libraries, and work with them, they are just rehashing musical elements that they aren't even responsible for discovering. Even if the artist alters the loop (pitch, EQ, delay, etc), the end result wouldn't have been possible without the stock loop that was purchased. Samples threaten the integrity of the music writing process by presenting a homogeneous collection of sounds that are rehashed by several different people.

Loops make music writing look easy, and take much of the original creative process out of making music. While working with loops can be creative, and can serve a purpose, it circumvents the process that takes place when a musician connects with an instrument. Whether that instrument is an acoustic guitar, or electric bass, the connection between person and object is something that loops miss entirely. With loops, we connect with the sound, but not the instrument. Manipulating sound becomes a matter of programming and visualization (a separate topic worth discussing).

In my own material, I am now left with a feeling that the songs created during my "looping period" are somehow less valid than other material created on acoustic instruments. As much as I enjoy my loop-based songs, when I compare them with material written and recorded on acoustic instruments, there really is a difference. Acoustic music may require more work, and it may not be as technically perfect as computer loops, but it has more feeling and, I think, more value. - JD 12/23/03