Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
>... > (at which point you might have some authority in saying that I > am NOT a musician...<grin>). > even then, it will just be like/don't like... >... > ... > 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. > perhaps they are theater fans. if they can't hear whether it's "canned" then it doesn't matter... >... > If someone sits behind a curtain, > completely removed from the audience, what makes that a worthwhile live > performance? pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, i am the mighty oz! > 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. if it sounds the same, it is the same (musical equivalent of "a difference that makes no difference is no difference) but it almost never sounds the same, else i would rarely attend... >... > ... > Sure, perspective is everything. Wasn't it rumored that Poe was also >given to > opium and alcohol? > another plus... > > 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. why do you need to be impressed? also, you can be impressed by a great music performance just from the sound, without the crafty button pushing/fret tapping/mouthpiece squeezing, etc. (not that there's anything wrong with that) > > > 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. i don't like calling music "performance" or "entertainment" those are something else. obviously you can have both without any music at all... >... > > > 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. > ay, there's the rub. you aren't supposed to be watching the musicians, they are there only for support. i played a production of "godspell" while i was in college (one of my few paying gigs at the university) in that production, the band was on stage (though we all were wearing black) it was interesting to be part of the theater. it was also the only stage gig i played where a director kept asking for "more guitar" (rather than less) when's the last time any guitar player heard "can you make it louder?" i had it cranked and could barely control the feedback. i was using a lab series L5 100w with the orange boss fuzz box - so loud. wooohoooo! luckily he wasn't saying "i just can't get enough cowbell"...