[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: logistics nightmare?
Just a thought..
If and when this performance were to happen, it seems that several
performers might set-up on stage in advance. The advantages would
be reduced over-all set up time.(There's that damm mfg. language
kickin' in). It will also allow the opportunity for some of us to
improvise with others. I think the "new music night" in L.A. is a
good idea, but I'm open to just about anything.
joe
At 04:29 PM 11/6/96 -0800, you wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Nov 1996 KILLINFO@aol.com wrote:
>
>> > Mind you, an hour isn't exactly the model of brevity!
>>
>> Well perhaps not. But to drive 400+, miles lug heavy gear
>> with a bad back (remember some of us are no longer as
>> young as we once were), spend 15 to 20 minutes setting
>> up and dialing in a complicated rig (and our muse), for
>> a mere 15 to 20 minute spot does not seem to be that
>> much of a trade off. My wife thinks I'm crazy to do it
>> for a mere hour (3 kids, 18 years of marriage and I still
>> can't get no respect--ha!).
>>
>> I'd do it for the smaller spot, but I'm affraid that I'd
>> just be warming up and have to stop. It's not so much
>> that "brevity" is a problem per se--it's more a matter
>> of "invoking the spirits" (for lack of better terms)
>> that seems to take all of the time (particularly under
>> harried and stressful circumstances).
>
>This is a very good point; the main inclination for an hour-long set
>would be to ensure that all participants had some opportunity to play.
>But as it seems more and more likely that the "gig" will in fact be
>divided between the different state regions, it does seem that longer
>sets would be both more feasible and more appropriate.
>
>And I definitely agree as far as the tradeoff of set-up time vs.
>performance time; I try to operate under a maxim that I don't spend more
>time setting up and tearing down geat than I spend actually playing music,
>and hour-long sets could well walk the border for some of us (myself
>included). And there's no point in creating an environment where
>everything is so harried and rushed that it's a struggle just to try and
>get yourself into a solid frame of mind.
>
>The flip side is that, as Dave @17 indirectly alluded to, if you've got
>just four people playing an average of 90 minutes to two hours for their
>set, and you figure in *at least* a half hour between sets for changeovers
>of gear (any realistic scenario will probably be more on the order of at
>least 45 minutes), then you've got somewhere between 8 and ten hours of
>gig time for four people! This was the main thing on my mind when I
>suggested the "short" set length of an hour as a guideline.
>
>It looks more and more like we'll have to do seperate northern and
>southern gigs, both for the logistical purposes and for the sheer amount
>of time involved in accommodating the performance needs of a handfull of
>people. More problematically, just the fact that the average desired set
>length seems to be in the 90 minute to 2-hour range means that the whole
>program will be far too long to stage in a situation such as Nels Cline's
>New Music night (or any club for that matter), unless the proceedings are
>spread across several nights or weeks. And then it becomes less of an
>actual gathering than it does a series of seperate solo gigs. Not a bad
>scenario by any means, but definitely not the same sort of thing as a
>summit concert.
>
>Damn, it gets complex, don't it? 8-/
>
>Thanks to Ted and the rest for the very astute suggestions. Any ideas on
>where to go at this point? I must confess I'm a bit stymied.
>
>--Andre
>
>
>
>