1. You actually move parts of your body when you play an instrument. Audiences interpret this as 'doing something'
2. While there are many challenges to doing live Techno, the idea that the performers spent time learning to play instruments, and can re-create their music in front of them in real time, using their hands, voices, and feet is regarded, fair or not, as more artistically valid. 3. A guitarist playing the same riff for 4 minutes is subtly varied in a way a computer playing the same riff for 4 minutes. I don't disagree with what you're saying really, but live performance is all about perception. I get more respect if I drag out a TR707 to a set, even if I never use it, because people mistake it for a 909. I grew up in a performing family, and my parents ingrained in me that most of the audience perceives only about 1/10th of what you're doing. The spectacle of the event is every bit as important as the content. Sure, there are always 'the headz' in the crowd who hang on your every knob-twiddle, but it's dangerous to cater to them. Do that and you're some sort of Yngvie Malmsteen. On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Klaas-Jan Jongsma wrote: > I never played on stage with a guitar but i always wondered why > people say that as soon as a band uses guitars, drums, sax etc. it is > considered more live then some guy who is working the hell out of a > bunch of electronic equipment? I never understood why repeating a > guitar riff for 4 minutes is considered more live then arranging > electronic equipment for 4 minutes? >
