On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Kent williams wrote: > On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Jayson B. wrote: > > > > >I do live performances myself, and second because I've seen people > > > >recently -- The Kooky Scientist, Shawn Rudiman, and Stewart Walker -- > > > >who all put on performances that were improvisational, raw, emotional > > > >and immediate. > > > > > > well, although i admire and LOVE the live sets of all these bloaks, lets not > > give them too much credit. the word 'improvisational' really doesn't apply > > to a single live pa, unless they're more of a band (which this arguement > > doesn't apply to anyways). Electronic music production, by its very nature, > > doesn't allow much room at ALL for live improv. > > > > In each of these cases the performers in question were making moment by > moment decisions and while they had rough ideas of what they wanted to do, > everything they were playing was uniquely the product of the moment. That's > the only way to do it and produce any excitement. Most rock shows are no > more spontaneous than a techno show -- less in fact.
I think this is what can be called improvisation, though it is not necessarily the same thing as an acoustic jazz quintet. A different process, and a different relationship with the audience, perhaps. I don't know if the rock example is really the comparison...Kent you note that the response to PA's is the reverse of rock concerts. This is both right and wrong...right in that there IS a different response, but wrong in that I don't think the rock comparison is the one we should be looking at...because from what I understand of rock concerts (unless prince in his purple rain stage counts i've never been to one), these concerts are about watching rather than dancing. The key comparison it seems to me would be to some similar example within dance culture. > And I think any of the guys I mentioned, and also guys like Titonton > Duvante, Bill Van Loo, Cex, Kid606, Marumari, Kit Clayton, Todd Sines, > all can produce 45 minutes to an hour of cool music. The point I'm trying > to make is that a live set CAN be done well, and that for me as a listener, > it's a more artistically deep experience than DJ'ing. This is probably correct...but there is a difference between approaching techno as a listener and as a dancer. There is some overlap--i listen to dj sets now in my office more or less and don't dance much anymore, but STILL have a "dancers ear"--but they are distinct enterprises. > DJ'ing is about having a party. It's about setting a mood and controlling > the crowd. A real DJ set (in my opinion) is 90 minutes bare minimum, and > better 2 or 3 hours. Frankly it's less mentally taxing than playing a > live set. I'd be interested in getting other opinions on this. > > > > that guy playin records, be it oakenblow or richie hawtin or t-1000 or > > anybody, can choose slammin ass tracks (slammin as in good). I'm not saying > > record shopping is easy (i know how much of a pain it can become), but its > > just a different thing. > > > Heh. If a DJ can be an artist, it's interesting that his or her primary > expression is in which entertainment products he purchases and chooses to > share. DJ'ing makes art out of materialistic acquisitiveness. They curate > private collections. Haha. There's a bit more to it than that right...even in comparisons to PAs? ;) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
