Actually most the big rock bands do pre-programmed sets during their 'live'.
The order of the tracks, their lengths etc. Its everything but
spontaneaous. The good proof for that is that all the lights and visuals
are pre-programmed (just go next to the light jockey in a rock live, he
has next to his setup the full line up of the live with timed comments
showing what he has to do at this or that moment).
This can sound disppointing but there's still he interest of
seeing/hearing your favourite band playing different versions of their
own tracks and interacting with a crowd.
When it comes to techno its all about the same to me : wether the
performer plays the instruments live or does something more
pre-programmed is not important. And its not linked to the gear used
(both ableton and regular gear can be used live or pre-programmed). What
is important is the charisma and the visuals, which are a good part
(except the music and how it interacts with the people) of the crowd
satisfaction.
Its not nostalgic to say that ableton sets are less charismatic than
good old gear lives. That can end to this digital/vinyl DJ discussion,
but the difference is that 'live' is most of the time promoted as
'better' of 'more exceptional' that the regular DJ set.
Benoît.
kent williams a écrit :
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Kevin Kennedy <the...@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
I think that the distinction between 'Live' and 'Not Live' is blurred
at this point to where it's meaningless. I've had the privilege of
watching the two performers who have put the most effort into their
'live' performances up close: Shawn Rudiman and Stewart Walker. They
both have put a huge effort into making their performance mean
something more than pressing 'play.'
And they both build their sets out of preprogrammed patterns. Shawn
works his drum machines in write mode, but any time I've seen him play
he has an MMT8 full of patterns to drive his synths. Stewart will
even occasionally drop a complete track into his set, but only if it's
one of his tracks that's so old he doesn't have separate parts for it.
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.
If people want to be pure about live performances, they need to give
up techno and go back to watching live bands. I enjoy both, myself,
but I've been bored to tears at shows where every note was played by a
musician with their hands. When it comes right down to it, playing a
song on a guitar is every bit as much a pre-programmed experience as
playing loops on a computer. 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?
My father is a Symphony Conductor, and the same questions pertain. A
bad conductor is, in essence, pressing 'play' and the orchestra just
goes off and does their thing. Having played myself in orchestras for
crappy conductors, I know for a fact that they're little more than
human metronomes or worse -- they're unreliable human metronomes, and
the orchestra has to ignore them and listen to each other or
everything goes wrong. A great conductor has established rapport with
his orchestra, and knows how to coax or bully a meaningful performance
out of them, sometimes with little more than eye contact and a tiny
gesture.
So that's what it comes down to -- does it signify? Does it affect you
emotionally? Is it pleasurable? There's no absolute measure of the
methods behind the performance that determines whether it's good or
not. It's fashionable in some circles to look down on laptops, no
matter who is using them. I think that's a load of crap.
