well then denis from what I can tell in what your saying is that your need for a show of flash and glamor has to do with your feeling of isolation on stage... why dont you try to connect with your audience through yout music try different things change up the track, add new sounds, eq things youll get reactions and there you go your reactions... your no longer isolated but flashy movements are just that movements gestures and are meaningless... if your not doing them with integraty as a way of connecting with your audience... if the audence leaves the dance floor thats not a bad thing thats thier way of saying I dont like it then work hard to bring them back its all about communicating with sound rather then words and images which is how we generally communicate... music came to be as an alternate way to communicate with each other (war drums of the native africans as example) its that what your doing on stage ....
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Dennis DeSantis wrote: > 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 > -------------------------------------- [neil adam wiernik aka naw] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [music available on] http://www.noisefactoryrecords.com http://www.pieheadrecords.com http://www.worthyrecords.com http://www.complot.ca [artist features] http://www.clevermusic.net http://www.newmusiccanada.com http://www.cognitionaudioworks.com --------------------------------------
