> For both guys, they're making dozens of decisions every minute about > how to shape their music, and their goal is to engage their audience. > > What makes their performances 'live' isn't how much of the music > they're playing in real time, it's how they make the music interactive > with the audience, and it's whether or not their music is engaging and > enjoyable.
What makes it good or bad is in the > realm of intangibles. Does the performer react to and shape the > energy of the room? Does the performer project charisma? Yes, love how you explained this, Kent. Clearly there's no hard and fast answer, and that's what I love about listening to music, seeing it performed, and talking/writing about it. Everyone could potentially have completely unique experiences and ideas and feel passionately about them. And that's how I feel about all these types of debates - format, performance, the importance of identity and background - there are so many possible interpretations. I've written about this on my blog :) plug plug. http://denisedjsdetroit.blogspot.com/2009/04/aaron-carl-vinyl-bileebob.html http://denisedjsdetroit.blogspot.com/2009/03/boundaries.html -- Denise Dalphond Ph.D. Candidate Department of Folklore & Ethnomusicology Indiana University http://denisedjsdetroit.blogspot.com
