If a live recording sounds good why not release it? Music is only sound waves that is processed into an electronic signal in your brain which triggers an emotional response. I often find that a mediocre techno artist sounds better live because they give their master recordings in the studio a polished production and sometimes their music sounds better raw.
the formula for progress in music is: sound technology (part of mans natural evolution) trend in human culture (influincing the composers composition) on 12/18/02 9:07 PM, Tristan Watkins at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthew MacQueen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "::)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 11:58 PM > Subject: RE: (313) plastikman live > >> I can respect the artist who takes that position. You can't re-create a > special one-time environment and sound system and performance and a feeling > w/ a live CD or MP3 file. The performance is more than just sum of the > notes played through the equipment. It's a whole "thing" that exists for > that moment in space and time, and is the sum of a zillion other factors, > (the crowd, the weather, the smell of the warehouse, your drive there and > home, the lights, your feelings at that time, etc. etc. ) then it's gone > when it's done. There is something more special and visceral about it that > way, I think for both performer AND audience... FWIW. >> >> "we play liiive, we don't play off tape" - FUSE, Logikal Nonsense > > They've been taking this position for ages as well. It seems Hawtin is quite > anti-archivist. More power too them, I say. It's their material ultimately, > although I disagree 100% personally and find myself looking to archives > perpetually. It's not that I don't see where the anti-archivists are coming > from, I just don't see any reason to be so strict, and ultimately stifle the > interests of their fans. Clearly it ain't the same as being there - but I > think everyone knows that, it doesn't mean it isn't a valuable record of the > experience, and ultimately even more valuable as a record of the event to > the thousands who couldn't experience it at all, like our unfortunate > friends in remote places, or our friends in Detroit who never get to see > Mills, for instance. I mean, surely I'm not going to hear [313] cry out in > unison that they don't want to ever hear another recording of Mills. Come > on. > > I think Stewart Walker is the best counter-example to this, someone who was > quite hesitant to put a live set online (or on CD) until he had one that he > thought did him justice, and has since archived a bunch of performances, and > does so regularly. I think it speaks to his mastery of performance more than > a shift of attitude, but I could be wrong, and I wouldn't try to speak for > him on that point. > > In general, I don't think being so particular about it is fair to a global > audience, and I think that sharing what you've got will only assist everyone > in understanding your artistic purpose. I mean, primarilly we're artists, > and we want to communicate our art as broadly as possible, without > sacrificing that integrity, right? The question becomes if it is a sacrifice > of integirty to broadcast a live show, and I think anyone who has watched > Depeche Mode's 101, or [insert favorite tour footage here], can agree that > it ain't the same, but is an immensely valuable service to fans, especially > when someone like Stewart innovates every set. You want to hear every last > performance, and I think that rather than keeping each one a secret to those > in attendance, you ought to provide as many shining examples as possible to > your fanbase, because they still love it, they still buy your records, and > they want to attend your shows even more. If you are trying to build a > career as a peformer, you need to promote as a performer. Besides that, I > think you need to give the recorded-audience some credibility for their > powers of abstraction. It may not be the same, but it *is* meaningful. Who > cares if it's the same meaning? It never is the same meaning for everyone > anyway. > > Again, I mean no disrespect to those that are anti-archivist, because I > understand the impulse, very similar to Matt's explanantion - I just don't > think it's ultimately the right choice. From my perspective, I see > everything the opposite of the Minus camp, and have for a long time. I think > performances should be archived freely, and source material should be paid > for, but ultimately you can understand why each camp wants to protect > something, so that artistry can remain lucrative enough to sustain full-time > artistic committment. Regardless of which side you support, I think it's > essential to maintain artist support, and I doubt hashing this out in a > public forum will reveal anything anymore decisive than previous attempts > have. Besides that, I think we need to look at it all from a somewhat > anarchic perspective. Look at the bootlegging, sampling and live recording > that goes on w/o permission. It's all illegal, and is almost never busted. > Just goes to show that we're all accountable more to our own moral compass > than law or popular opinion when it comes to recording/copying ethics in the > electronic music world. > > More important than any of this, just look at what so many of us have > learned from pages like deephousepage.com I mean, that really speaks for > itself. How many times have we wished out loud for a Wizard/Mojo online > archive? Most importantly it can educate those of us that were too young to > enjoy it the first time, and there is nothing wrong with that. If anyone > here is a trance-hating anti-archivist, I challenge you to exmine what > choice you're giving kids to find the real deal. > > Tristan
