Re: Practice, rehearse, perform

[Greg House <ghunicycle@yahoo.com>]

--- jim palmer <jimp@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > so why don't you just buy the video?
> > I like improvisation, and I like something real.
> 
> me too.  note: nothing visual required for either...

No, of course not. I've always enjoyed live recordings for that same 
reason. It's
more visceral to be there, since you get the full experience (the visual, 
in
whatever form it may take, the sheer volume if you're at a rock show, the 
vibe
from the rest of the audience, the shared energy of the thing).

> > Um... You lost me. Are you insulting me ...
> i wasn't trying to insult you, i was just joking. 

Sorry, my low self-esteem speaking there. I have enough trouble considering
myself a musician most of the time. To hear someone suggest I might not be 
felt
uncomfortable. Later I realized you couldn't be TOO serious since you 
haven't
ever heard me play (at which point you might have some authority in saying 
that I
am NOT a musician...<grin>).


> > What I was talking about, in terms of LOOPING performances, is simply 
>that if
> you
> > can do an action in a way that makes it clear to people that you're 
>doing
> > something (as opposed to stealthily pressing record and play with your 
>foot
> while
> > their attention is on your guitar), then it helps prevent them from 
>getting
> the
> > idea that you're playing over a CD or a sequencer. I wasn't talking 
>about
> > grandstanding, just being intentional about doing what you do in a 
>visual
> sort of
> > way. No fans on my long hair or spandex required.
> 
> i don't find that to be two different things.
> one mans grandstanding is anothers "being intentional about what you are
> doing in a visual sort of way"
> i find nothing wrong with either.

Perhaps not, but the degree of extremeness was what I was referring to. I'm
talking about the difference between an audience seeing my hand reach 
across to
press a reverse button as opposed to pressing it with my foot on a midi
controller. In both cases, they hear something change (and may or may not
recognize what the change was), but in one case, they don't know what 
caused the
change. When people hear changes and don't see something that obviously 
caused
it, that's when they start drawing their own conclusions (eg "he must be 
playing
to backing tracks). 

I have no problem with people playing ot backing tracks (unless the show is
billed otherwise, milli vanilli, etc), but from what I've seen, many music 
fans
consider that to raise the "cheese factor" of an act.

> nor is there anything wrong with forgoing the visual thing altogether.

I suppose not, but there are extremes to it. If someone sits behind a 
curtain,
completely removed from the audience, what makes that a worthwhile live
performance? How is it any different then setting up a sound system behind 
the
curtain, cueing the CD that was recorded somewhere else and leaving? From 
the
audience's perspective, the two are very close to the same.

> i love hearing michael brecker play and could care less if he moves or
> shows what he is doing to the keys or mouthpiece or air.
> in fact he tends to stay stock still while outrageous fire comes out
> musically...

I'm not familiar with him, but I saw Derek Trucks awhile back. he plays
blues-based slide electric guitar and stands like a statue on the stage. 
His head
is generally down, the only thing you see moving is his left hand. Yet he 
plays
with exceptional fire. I found it disconcerting, the dicotamy between what 
I was
seeing and what I was hearing. At one point I had to close my eyes to 
actually
take in the fire of his music. Listening back to a recording of the 
concert, I
found it much easier to be wowed with the performance. It just seemed 
strange
that there was so much difference.

> poe wrote a bit (i can't remember which story) where he describes a 
> hideous insect landing on his desk.  he is initially repulsed by it.  
>then he
> realizes it is actually a leaf and not a bug.  then he finds it to be
> beautiful.

Sure, perspective is everything. Wasn't it rumored that Poe was also given 
to
opium and alcohol?
 
> i noticed this sort of shift happen to a friend of mine with a 
>soundscape cd
> i was playing (a fripp cd, not mine) i noticed he seemed bored with it 
>and
> explained that it was just one guy with a guitar doing it live.  
> then he liked it. 

It's much easier to be impressed with the skill required to do something 
live by
yourself then what it takes to construct something in a studio where 
potentially
hundreds of takes can be cobbled together to construct something that 
sounds like
a real performance.

> so if you see a performer thinking they are playing live
> and like it,  then you find out they are using a cd,
> suddenly it is bad?  what about the other way around?
> if this makes a difference at all, i say it is theater and not music 
>that is
> different.
> actually, in this case i like to call it gymnastics.  

Well...I think they all fall under the banner of "performance" or
"entertainment". Of course, what's entertaining to you, or to me, may 
differ. And
it may differ from what's entertaining to your average Joe.

> > Frankly, I think we must be talking about different forms of 
>"visuals". Even
> > going to the symphony, which is pretty "straight" musically, there's 
>plenty
> to
> > watch. Violins are bowed, kettle drums are hit, clarinets are blown. A
> symphony
> > without the visual is no different then a recording with really good
> fidelity.

> i'm surprised you want to see a symphony. they are almost always playing 
>the
> ink.

I can appreciate that too. 

> and you must have some hellacious sound system and acoustic room 
> at home if it sounds like a live symphony...

That's part of the problem, I don't. I do have a recording studio, but 
even good
studio monitors won't reproduce all the nuances of a symphony. Besides, I 
like
the entire experience, visuals included. I probably wouldn't want to go if 
I
couldn't watch them play.

> if i went to the symphony, and they had installed a magical, sonically
> transparent light barrier
> between the audience and the orchestra, it would not bother me in the 
>least.

That would bother me. My wife and I went to see a musical awhile back which
utilized a live orchestra. I was disappointed that they put a canopy over 
the pit
and I couldn't see most of the musicians. 

> did anyone actually read all of this?

I did.

Greg

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com