I guess that I'll add my .002 cents.
If I am playing music that you'd never hear otherwise
(djing/mixing my own tracks that aren't out and available), I don't
think it is live. If I am creating pattens and sounds on the
fly...well maybe it is live. Shawn Rudiman is a great example of a
live performance. He uses the old machines that techno was built on
to do his performances. Anything can (and usually does) happen.
I used to do a live P.A. in the 90's when I had gear. Now I use a
computer for all of this stuff (with bits of things thrown in for
extra fun(k). However, many performers/artists nowadays want to have
so much control over their sets that they are canned. At the end of
the day (or night), does it really matter? If it moves you then it
moves you. If not, what is the point?
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Williams, Graham <gwilli...@eds.com> wrote:
> Never mind. Next!
>
> g
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Dust [mailto:mar...@dustscience.com]
> Sent: 17 April 2009 11:21
> To: Williams, Graham
> Cc: Three-One-Three
> Subject: Re: (313) What does "Live" mean these days?
>
>
> On 17 Apr 2009, at 11:18, Williams, Graham wrote:
>
>> No it's not the same point from the 70's, you said " like the hippy
>> students union in the 70's with their keep music live campaign"
>>
>> I never said anything about keeping it live.
>
> But you are saying it's not live, right?
>
> m
>
--
fbk
sleepengineering/absoloop US
