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

[Hedewa7@aol.com]

andré writes:
>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.
no, my response is just the 'feeling' that i get..... esp. as i haven't 
*played* too many live-gigs, this past year..... (which, btw, i may change 
in 
2002).....

>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"?
maybe just a little bit; though, to be fair, i did expect some of that 
type-of-reaction from 'established fans'.....
(as you know, the only real 'departure' for me ---vis-a-vis the 
splattercell 
mat'l--- was not musical, but merely the *name* change.....)

>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?
no; though most of the support comes primarily from less-commercial 
corners 
of that particular room, that segment has been relatively welcoming.

>> 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.
truth.
nevertheless,
the audience doesn't *care* to know how the music is achieved --- however 
the 
quality of the music's effect might be judged, *that* seems to be the 
audience's primary concern.

>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.
between us, here on LD, that's all fine w/me!
but: in practice --- i'm more interested in the intention & content of the 
music.
and: it kinda reminds me of the gtr-player gear/technique syndromes, which 
can be so very boring & stultifying.....

>Here's an older quote from David: "Looping isn't an effect: it's your
>playing, only more of it."
i said that?
good-o!
*-)

>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.  
.....whichall is (or, should be, imo) very personal stuff.....

>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.
digya.

>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.  
digya!

>If the intrinsic interest or value of a musical performance rests SOLELY
>in the fact that it's employing real-time looping...
..... or any other technique/methodology, for that matter.....

>then I think that's
>a pretty dubious foundation.
..... unless, of course, you (as a musician/performer/composer) are 
absorbing/rejecting that foundation to be incorporated/avoided as a tool 
for 
your own, eventual musical abuses.....
which is to say that there still may be much value, there, of a 
specifically 
educational cast & hue.....

>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.  
jaco did that?

>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.
yeah, albeit i'd say that -these days- it has become clearer to me that, 
as 
an element of performance & composition,  i *am* interested in the 
audience 
hearing/feeling/sensing the technology & methodology of live-looping, 
certainly insofar as it might mirror my view of the inexorable & 
fracturing 
plasticity of 'things'.....

>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.
me, neither --- that may, also, have something to do w/max's obvious 
ability 
to *present*, and to the projection of his persona.

>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.
right!

>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
huh? i use a 5-space rack, and a buncha pedals!
maybe it's the 3 amps (and the miles of cable) that make it seem so 
elaborate.....
*-)
 
>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.)  
thanks for that, a!

>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!
right, though ---
there's certainly no dearth of 
musicians-pursuing-and-perfecting-mediocrity, 
at the 'top' of their fields.....

>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.
currently, my floors are *somewhat* clean, already.....

>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?
no, it's not that different --- just a bit less 'tangible'.....

>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...
..... and i just finished my second dbl-espresso of the day.....
best,
dt / splattercell