Just to clarify - the most important thing for me is the music, always.
I hope I didn't suggest otherwise.
But if I'm going to be on stage, in front of people, then I try to take
it into consideration that there is, by default, also a visual parameter
to the experience that is an addition to what would be happening if the
audience was listening at home.
To focus on the visual entirely, at the expense of the music, would make
me feel cheap.
But to focus on the music entirely, at the expense of the visual, would
make me feel isolated and alone. I consider it my responsibility to
provide SOMETHING more than a recreation of my recorded output.
That being said, <confession> I'm actually pretty unsatisfied with my
live performances. I don't consider myself a consummate laptop artist
at all, and I get really freaked out when I feel like the audience isn't
getting it. </confession> So any advice I might have to offer on the
matter should be taken with a grain of salt anyway.
--
Dennis DeSantis
www.dennisdesantis.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gosh, is what we are talking about a sorta DJ vanity? Like, if something
doesn't *look* interesting it *isn't* interesting, no matter what it sounds
like? I would not argue that the visual is totally unimportant, but personally
I don't think it's the most important thing - unless that's the whole point you
are there. Not everyone can pull off good visual art. I know some DJs who are
very low key but SO amazing. Kinda like the way a cricket is a small bug and it
can make this loud, wonderful noise - but if you go look at it, it ain't all
that visually exciting (usually). Personally, if something sounds good I'll go
look at it, but after that I'm too busy dancing to worry about looking unless
it comes to me (like lights or video all around you).
As long as the experience enjoyable for people (DJ included) does it really
matter how you get there or do it? There's more to the experience than just
what the peeps on the stage are doing ...
Lisa
