Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
So, here's an idea, folks: Hook up your laptop screen to a projector
are
project what you are seeing -- or, at the very least, get some kind of
audio
visualizer program and project the output of that on a big screen behind
you. If you intend to connect with the widest possible audience, you must
include some kind of visual element in your performance. Tim Reynolds
projects slides behind himself when he plays.
And stand up. How much energy can you be putting into your performance
if you're sitting down? I know I would rather sit down and play all the
time, and I probably play better sitting down (because I always practice
sitting down), but you will get over more often if you stand up. Ah, the
harsh realities of presenting to the public.
***DANGER***: HERE FOLLOWS AN EXTENSIVE RANT ABOUT JOE AVERAGE'S
PERCEPTION
OF MUSIC.
It seems to me that most people who aren't musicians don't actually
*listen* to music. They *watch* music. If music is on at home or in the
car, they are usually not aware of anything other than the words. If the
music is such that it asserts itself into the forefront of the environment,
demanding attention, (e.g. Meshuggah, Squarepusher, or basically anything
with above-average musical density in any respect [harmonically,
rhythmically, melodically]) the average joe or joan will feel uneasy
(translates into "dislike"). The negative effects of higher-than-normal
compositional density seem to be circumventable by adding plenty of humor
(e.g. Frank Zappa), or at the very least lots of very easily understandable
lyrics presented in familiar melodic patterns (e.g. Dave Matthews). But,
in
general, the whole idea of music without words doesn't make sense to the
vast majority of people who grow up on MTV and commercial radio.
I see this all the time when I play an opening instrumental set with a
jazz quartet, then a singer joins us for the second set. All of a sudden
people look up and start to pay attention because there is someone singing
words. The minute she sits down and we play an instrumental, eyes are back
to the beer glasses and soup bowls and the talking resumes. And it's not
because the singers I play with are really great and we suck. No words =
no
music. It's just the way some [the majority?] people are.
I guess it comes down to giving people something that they can relate
to. People can relate to someone singing, because everyone has tried it at
some point. People can relate to someone who looks like they're working
really hard (the "fuck face" as Jimmy George put it -- hahahahah), because
most people have worked hard at something before. Most people can't relate
to John Coltrane's playing on Interstellar Space, because it doesn't
obviously relate to tonal music, which is the extent of most people's
experience of music. Most people can't relate to a guy standing there with
a laptop "making" music, because, if anything, maybe they've picked up a
guitar, or banged on a drum one or twice in their lives, so this is how
they
understand music is made (hence the benefit of dragging around and playing
a
bunch of instruments). Only someone who knows something about what is
involved in the creation of music on a computer will be interested in
what's
happening. But, as we only see the plastic shell of the laptop and not the
screen there's not really much point to getting really interested, because
you will never get the pay off.
But, it all depends on who your target audience is. Music geeks have a
higher tolerance for musical density, and lack of "show." Just like
authors, when reading, have a higher tolerance for literary references and
focus on character development, rather than plot development and action.
-J
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Sottilaro" <sine@zerocrossing.net>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: Dragging Instruments Around
> Another aspect of the Laptop is the performance issue. BORING. I once
> went to a big new music fest and my wife and I walked out when a guy
> sat down with a laptop and began to produce what seemed like slightly
> edgy techno. (IDM). We looked at each other and said, "Would it
> matter if that was all coming from the CD player in is Laptop?" The
> answer was: NO.
>
> Look at Hans. That wall of gear is part of the show. So fun to watch
> him tame COLUSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT. Coupled with a sequence of
> wardrobe changes that would make Cher jealous, you've got one hell of a
> show... even if all his gear fails! (Sorry to rub it in Hans, I love
> you and your music!)
>
> However, I feel that often I'm not that far away from the laptop guy.
> At the ascension show we were in the dark in a corner. I'm positive
> that most people weren't aware the music was live. Didn't really
> matter on some level. A lot of people were there and seemed to be
> having fun. We were the "ambient" reception music, so that's OK. BUT:
> What if I had recorded a really killer set in Digital Performer the
> night before, burned it to discs and showed up with a DJ setup. One of
> those Pioneer CD players an iBook and a mixer. Would there have been
> any difference? I'm not sure I think so. Should I become a DJ of my
> own music? I think people are doing this. Anyone here doing this?
> Could be a good way to go for this type of event. (where dancing and
> socializing are the focus) When it's more of a show (like Loopstock)
> then you go for performance mode. What do people think?
>
> I saw Bjork live where she had someone who looked like he was
> "performing" ProTools while she sung. OK, there was a string orchestra
> too. Anyway, it worked for me.
>
> Mark Sottilaro
>
> On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 01:41 AM, Rick Walker/Loop.pooL wrote:
> >
> > I'm still not completely sold on buying a laptop.
> >
>