Expectations, artifice, and a hell of a can of worms

[Andre LaFosse <altruist@altruistmusic.com>]

Max Valentino spake:

> >Believe it or not, most audiences
> >DO want to be challenged, whether they are cognizent of this or not.

and David Torn did quip:

> i'm not so sure about that.
> these days, it seems there's been a kinf of amplified resistance towards
> 'challenge/surprise', in the ongoing musical balancing act 'twixt that 
>half
> of the equation & the other: that of 'fulfilling expectations'.

I'm wondering if either Max or David (both of you, ideally) could expand
on these respective points of view.  Because I'm curious as to any
specific experiences you might have had which would have led to the
formation of your current points of view.

Max: Are there specific venues/types of gigs/types of audiences that
you've found to be surprisingly open (or opposed) to doing your thing? 
(I'm also really curious as to venues you like for doing a solo live
looping thing, here in LA...)

David: Would you say that some of the feedback to the Splattercell
material has impacted your feelings regarding the percieved resistance
to challenge or surprise?  I'm thinking specifically of fusion and prog
fans who might have been expecting another "David Torn album of burning
guitar playing"?  Or maybe some people in the dj/dance world who might
look dubiously upon a schooled instrumentalist (let alone an electric
guitarist) trying to make a contribution to "their" sphere of music?

> OTOH, see: madonna's 'drowned world' tour, or
> any NiN show:
> nobody seems to *know* nor *care* that it's 'canned'.....

In both of these cases, I think a big part of the equation is that both
of these shows are very, very theatrical presentations, by celebrities
with significant cults of personality.  So the finer points of what's
live and what's prerecorded aren't at the forefront of the audience's
minds; it's more a question of the overall spectacle of the thing, of
which the music is but one part.

Max says:

> >By "walking the audience" thru the whole looping process, you somehow
> >involve them in what is happening, and at that point...you have 'em!

DT says:

> i'm always hoping for some  kind of ineffable transformation to take 
>place in
> the process of performance, both for me and for the audience..... at 
>least,
> something more subtle than what might otherwise occur as a result of the
> addition of whatall might be construed as a 'lecture'.....

and also says:

> but --- while for us the *process* of looping may be important, why would
> that process be important to a listening audience? --- unless, of course,
> that audience is comprised primarily of musicians..... which is another
> story, altogether.

My thought on this (and I'm probably opening a hell of a can of worms 
here):

I honestly feel that too much importance is placed on the mechanics and
craft of real-time looping by many of the musicians who use those tools.
 

Here's an older quote from David: "Looping isn't an effect: it's your
playing, only more of it."

Mull that over for a second.  YOUR playing.

It's interesting to compare notes on our various experiences with the
real-time loop thing, but ultimately I think any such discussion HAS to
take into account the skill and the musicality of whoever (and whatever)
is getting looped in the first place.  

That's something that can't be reduced to a genre of music, a style of
audience interaction, a performance venue, or a specific piece of gear.

It's my feeling that, ultimately, the music in and of itself needs to
have a certain fundamental strength to it, REGARDLESS of the presence or
absence of clever or unusual methodology.  

If the intrinsic interest or value of a musical performance rests SOLELY
in the fact that it's employing real-time looping... then I think that's
a pretty dubious foundation.

I've heard a lot of live looping that would be pretty unremarkable if it
wasn't for the fact that it was happenig in real time.  And even then,
it's been about 30 years since the first Fripp and Eno record helped
usher that approach into the "popular consciousness" (and longer still
since Terry Riley and others started gigging with the stuff in public),
or Jaco's looping solo in the middle of Joni Mitchell gigs.  

Sampling a phrase live and playing over it isn't exactly state of the
art anymore, and although a looping performer can often still get away
with the "wow, I've never seen that!" effect on an unsuspecting
audience, there HAS to be more to it then just the novelty of looping if
you want to bring them further along, into the realm of having a serious
musical experience.

This is NOT a criticism of Max's "lecture" approach, because clearly it
works for him.  But I have to assume that a big part of the appeal of
his live show, and a big part of what makes it work, involves Max's
playing in and of itself, apart from the lecture factor.  Because (aside
from his having a great reputation) I'm simply not convinced that
showing the audience the mechanics of the thing, in and of itself, is
enough to bring them along every time.

Same thing with Steve Lawson; a number of his tunes are very
straightforward in terms of "looping technique," but it doesn't matter,
because his playing is so strong and musical, and he uses the technology
in a way that augments and extends the foundation of his playing, far
beyond simply being "clever" or "interesting" to an unfamiliar listener.
 

And I think it's the same thing, ironically enough, with someone like
Torn, who uses a much more elaborate approach, both in terms of the
amount of gear and in terms of how far the gear is being "pushed".  But
he KNOWS that gear, and knows how to "play" it in a very musical manner.
 (Of course, his being one serious mo-fo of a guitarist means that any
looping of said guitar will be off to a good start to begin with.)  

On the other hand, a mediocre musician can plug into the most hardcore
looping gear on Earth, and give the most entertaining, insightful
introduction to the audience, but that alone isn't going to make them
sound any less mediocre.  If anything, it'll probably compound that
mediocrity with every successive overdub!

An unusual or esoteric approach (i.e. looping) might lure a listener's
curiosity, but it's a solid, innate, consistent musicality that will
hold that listener and reward their curiosity.  Whether that musicality
takes the form of playing a bass guitar or tweaking the LFO rate on the
fifth effects processor in a rack shouldn't matter.  

True, not every audience is going to be equally receptive to every type
of music.  Play an ambient drone back to back with a James Brown tune,
and you will probably get a "stronger," more "immediate" reaction from
people with the latter selection.  But that doesn't mean that people
can't hear the former one.  And it doesn't mean that a good ambient act
can't clean the floor with a bad funk band.

And sure, there's a hurdle to be overcome in learning how to coordinate
every additional piece of hardware on stage, and how to integrate that
hardware into a graceful musical (and visual) presentation on stage. 
But is that really so much different than an organist pulling different
stops, or a turntablist rummaging through the crate and changing records
mid-set, or a percussionist switching to a different instrument, or a
keyboardist switching to a different synth and scrolling through patches?

Anyway...

Hopefully some of this makes some sort of sense to someone.  Maybe I'm
overly idealistic about this.  I'm sure being on day 3 of caffeine
withdrawl has something to do with it too...

Best wishes, folks.

--Andre LaFosse
http://www.altruistmusic.com