Placid, Response to (some of) your friend's points - it wd have been nice had they contributed them themselves! We don't bite here!
this was a concert/performance, and was billed as such, so >why should we expect to be excited by what's on the stage? it's the sound >that should be concentrated upon, not the "two ugly blokes" making it. - In some places (as I noted) it was in fact billed in the club section of publications: I mentioned the London Guide, in the Guardian Newspaper. But nevertheless, a concert is was what I was expecting and a concert I can get with. On the other hand this was an audience watching intense men working on their pcs. Is this a new frontier in concert performance? I doubt it. During the performance, I suggested to my friend that it would have been just as feasible and perhaps more enjoyable to experience the performance at another venue, with the music streamed via ISDN or something. Being at that place during the 'show' seemed pretty pointless to me. The exhortation by the woman who introduced the event, implying that visits to the lavatory would be frowned upon didn't help. However - I was with friends who saw Stockhausen perform with a similar format using not much (I think) not much more than himself and a laptop. In that case, the audience were encouraged to shut eyes or concentrate on a small dot of projected light, whilst the auditorium was darkened - which I think would make sense. So yes, under some circumstances, I'd have to concede that minimal visual performance would be acceptable to me ... >leading modern art galleries? a largin' it, hands in the air, laser >extravaganza? Clearly that's ridiculous - only a fool wd expect such. I don't think that's what you're implying. >i enjoyed listening to all three of the acts, for different reasons. ...>parlane's piece emerged from the silence and slowly built, layer upon >...it was intimate and affecting. Entirely subjective. Similarly, it's entirely subjective that I found his performance dull due to it's almost literal monotonousness - a composition of near-autistic flatness. the accusation of 'randomness' is >one i've come across before, and which, quite frankly, i find boring and >lazy. Sorry if my dislike of VDelay bores you! However, it's again my personal opinion. You saw order or some pattern which pleased you, I didn't see any meaningful pattern, such as there was displeased me. I can't accept the accusation of laziness: I engaged my critical and evalutive faculties for over two hours in order to understand what all the musicians were attempting to do, as I did when I made a very long and I hope at least reasonably thought through post of my own thoughts to this list - as I am doing now! I cannot see why because I don't agree with you that makes me lazy - maybe that's your view because of lazy thinking! it >was delay himself who was taking the decisions as to when and how he chose >to play and layer the sounds he produced. there must be intention in >theses actions, thus rendering the random accusation useless. it may have >been difficult to listen to but by no means impossible. First part does not disprove the idea that he was making it up as he goes along - 'random'. Second part, again you enjoyed it, I didn't. Maybe 'random' is good. In that particular instance for me, it didn't work. I hated it. Ken >-----Original Message----- >From: Placid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 6:33 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Org >Subject: Re: (313) Vladisalv Delay > > >In response to the vladislav delay criticism... > >A friend wrote... > >hmm... > >well. that's an opinion. and s/he's welcome to it. > >i, on the other hand, had a great time. mainly, i guess, beacause i knew >exactly what to expect. > >and so should anyone who attended, given the blurb on the tate's website, >where the words 'contemporary' and 'experimental' feature in the first >sentence. i mean, what else were we to expect from one of the world's >leading modern art galleries? a largin' it, hands in the air, laser >extravaganza? this was a concert/performance, and was billed as such, so >why should we expect to be excited by what's on the stage? it's the sound >that should be concentrated upon, not the "two ugly blokes" making it. > >i enjoyed listening to all three of the acts, for different reasons. >parlane's piece emerged from the silence and slowly built, layer upon >layer, gradually enveloping the listener as the volume and complexity >increased, and then slowly stripping things down again over the period of >half an hour or so. it was intimate and affecting. > >tennis did things differently. the "sub-pole/chain reaction ... dub >soundscapes" description doing them justice i think. again, it was good to >listen to. aurally engaging, if you will (if not visually). > >delay was different again. abstract electronic music - as advertised. he's >been moving in this direction for a while, from the early chain reaction >stuff to the latest album on mille plateaux (under his own name, not the >luomo stuff - but even on the 'vocal city' album you can hear the layering >and vocal snippets and cuts that dominated his performance on saturday). >moving in and out - both in volume and through the triggering of different >samples, etc - delay created a collage of sound that was quietly >disturbing but fascinating to explore. the accusation of 'randomness' is >one i've come across before, and which, quite frankly, i find boring and >lazy. unless we're all being fooled (which i guess is the risk we take) it >was delay himself who was taking the decisions as to when and how he chose >to play and layer the sounds he produced. there must be intention in >theses actions, thus rendering the random accusation useless. it may have >been difficult to listen to but by no means impossible. something was >being created before our very ears, as it were, something abstract and >hard to understand (if, indeed, understanding is required) but beautiful >nonetheless. > >the whole evening was mucically different. it was good to be able to sit >down in a dark space with a quality sound system and listen - i mean >really LISTEN - to four artists doing their stuff for us. and i was glad >to have been given the opportunity. > >close your eyes and open your ears. > > >________________________ > >> If this bloke comes to a town near you anytime soon, make sure >you know what >> you're in for before you attend. >> >> Went with a few mates (and a few list members) to see him >'perform' at the >> Tate Modern gallery in London on Saturday. >> >> What a pile of self-indulgent toss (mho). (US members check your thesauri >> for English slang). >> >> It didn't bode well when it emerged that it was sitting room only in the >> Tate's little theatre ... compare this to to 'Metropolis'/Mills >at the Royal >> Festival Hall ... a compere cautioned us that visiting the toilets during >> the "micro-interval" would be met with severe disapproval. >> >> The line up was Rosy Parlane (NZ) Tennis (UK) and Mr Delay. >> >> Parlane came on and played about one note for nearly 30 minutes. Someone >> whooped when he finished, many faces turned to where it came >from carrying >> looks which said "WHY?!?!?!?" (to be fair the whooper might have >just been >> relieved it was over). >> >> Tennis probably were the standout, playing sub-Pole/Chain Reaction-esque >> (but much slower) dub soundscapes and really experimenting with echo. >> But -(and this applies to all the acts) watching 2 ugly blokes staring >> intently at the screen of a laptop does not an engaging spectacle make. >> >> I have dug some Vladislav Delay tracks a lot in the past and I always >> respect experimentation. But tell me someone, what is the value of random >> squelches and other inharmonious noises strung together with >vocal snippets >> which sound like the voices you might hear if you had the misfortune to >> listen inside the head of a schizophrenic? >> >> There were no beats. This in itself need not be a reason for music to be >> boring or even undanceable - but this was *not* The Detroit Escalator >> Company - nor even the Vladislav Delay which you'll hear on most >of his LPs >> and a few Chain Reaction titles. This was sheer random noise >obfuscation and >> maybe for that reason it was a brave thing to do. I mean maybe >he was baring >> his soul. But to me he didn't really use 0.00005% of the talents which he >> has in doing that. >> >> Strangely, the London (Guardian) Guide billed it in the clubs section! I >> noted many looking at their watches. Luckily it the whole thing was only >> about 2 and bit hours long. >> >> Tate, spend your Education grant more wisely please. That was >crap on acid. >> >> k >
