Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
At 03:00 PM 3/24/98 -0800, you wrote:
>> From: Laurie Hatch <lahatch@dnai.com>
>
>> The age-old "artiste" question comes to mind, and it's one of the
>toughest we
>>(snip). There are no easy, or "correct" answers. But we've
>gotta
>> constantly ask the question.
>
>Hmmm....Miko hinted at this too I think. I've been pondering this idea of
>"re-inventing" yourself musically. Is it responsible or proper for an
>artist to take his or her rough sketches out on the road to present it to
>his/her audience? Or is it more responsible to refine the work and
>present
>it as a finished product? As humans, I know that part of the experience
>and joy of reaching a new level or obtaining a goal is the journey
>itself....but...don't you feel cheated when someone presents you with
>something that is less than you know they are capable of producing?
>Hmmm.....
I believe if these artists (Fripp, Crimson, anybody we hold on a
high level) toured a bit more often and we didn't view going to see them
with such awe and as a rare treat, it wouldn't be so irritating to see/hear
them work out new ideas in sketch form at shows. (This has more to do with
our viewing these events as "special", which, given the logistics for
touring, unfortunately, seems to be likely to continue.)
There is a certain excitement you get hearing these explorations
when they go somewhere. The price you pay is that they don't always
succeed, just like our own explorations. When you have a group of
improvisers gigging together regularly, you run some risks. One is that
on
an uninspired night,to give the audience something for their time and mony,
there's a little falling back on old favorite licks and tones. Another is
just a plain uninspired performance. When it succeeds. it can be
wonderful.
When it fails, it fails. I think the idea of "R&D" Fripp talks about for
the projekcts makes it apparent that it might be a bust on any given
night.
I don't think its an easy thing for any inventive artist to totally
re-invent themselves. It takes time to rid yourself of habits you find
pleasing in your playing, especially one's you've come up with the last
time
you redefined yourself, non? If Fripp didn't use that Fripp fuzz tone or
craft those particular types of soundscapes, then what? I think taking the
explorations on the road allows the musicians time to play their old
tricks,
realize they do or don't work and in what contexts they succeed. A
recontextualized old trick may show a new side to the player and listener
that allows for further exploration.
As for whether I feel cheated when they present me with less than I
assume them capable of, I have to judge that in context. Was it an
exploratory, improvisational evening? If so, maybe they weren't "on". Was
it after much refinement and studio work and the artist deemed it ready to
be presented as gtroundbreaking and then it was just the same old stuff?
Then, I'd feel cheated.
The bottom line for me, as I won't get a chance to see Projeckt 2
unless it comes to Boston (which doesn't seem to be on the schedule) is
that
if over time they manage to come up with a new approach to music for the
next Crimson album it was worth it. If they had a good time doing the
exploring and came up with nothing new, they had a good time, and did some
good playing, even thoough it was nothing groundbreaking. At least they
tried.
Frank Gerace
Dreamchild
Then Travis wrote
>The consensus of the recent postings regarding this show seems to have
>been that there was one really magical moment during the evening, and the
>other parts were of less interest. I remember Miles Davis once said that
>if you played one new idea in a night (at a time when a gig was four
>sets), it was a success. And Miles' band was playing standards, so there
>was at least a framework to lean on. Five or ten minutes of hot stuff in
>a improvised gig sounds pretty good to me.
>
>Travis Hartnett
>
As usual, someone sums it all up much more suscinctly. Well said.
>
>>