Re: [microsound] Performing "Live"

[david turgeon <david.t@xxxxxxxx>]

> here's one way to explain it: there are a couple of factors at work in
> producing the sound. we can say for the case of the guitar, there is the
> preperation of the guitar, which has to do with tuning, constructing a
> guitar, technological informational stuff and other general prep. then there
> is the execution which is like an archer who has spent years practicing, at
> that moment of letting go he's just going for the bullseye, and there's
> something really spontaneous and magical and exciting, sometimes ecstatic
> about it.
> now in the case of, perhaps, playing a DAT -- the preperation is writing the
> music and recording ot to DAT. the execution is limited in this case to
> pressing the play button.
> these two cases can be seen as _very_ different, no?

hmm, i didn't see the argument as being "dat vs instrument", but rather
"computer vs instrument" (a very recurrent theme on this list, it
seems).  my mistake: for the sake of convenience i'll agree that a dat
used strictly as a playback system is precisely that, a playback system.

then again, said dat can also be used as an instrument just like a
turntable or a cd player can, but one could argue that those are
"special cases" & that in general a playback device is not an instrument.

however, we're only saying this for the practical purpose of putting
concepts into neat little boxes, because in the end _everything that can
be operated to make sound (be it in a totally random/haphazard way) can
be understood as a musical instrument_.

> less difference is there between computer and guitar, especially as you
> noted because computers can be controlled. but a difference still exists,
> and will until the technology advances adequately.

i know what difference you're talking about, but to me it's trivial.  in
fact, i could turn your argument on its head & argue that a dat tape is
_the perfect musical instrument_ in that it absolutely faithfully
reproduces the _exact_ sound the composer intends, much more accurately
than any performer ever will.

when seen in this light, it appears that what's really missing with the
dat (as with other "playback systems", or computers with no real-time
processing software, or any limited musical instrument like say a
tibetan bowl [though i'm sure someone is going to prove me wrong on that
one :)] is a certain set of _improvisational possibilities_.

thus, one could sort objects depending on the breadth of improvisational
possibilities they offer.  & trust me, a simple pc with audiomulch
($1500 value) would rank pretty damn high.

still, the suitability of a certain object for a concert situation has
nothing to do with whether said object is a musical instrument or not;
which is why i think your distinction re: "dat vs guitar" is trivial.

hopefully i can also help you resolve your next post:

> so perhaps musicians should not attempt to release new music at all, we
> should just be in the business of making better pa's.

for many electroacoustic shows, a good PA is precisely what's needed; no
performer interaction is required (or even wished for) other than
"pushing the play button".  the amount of loudspeakers, their position &
their orientation produce a "listening environment" very few listeners
could afford (or would care) to reproduce in their own home.  if you
need a metaphor, think of cinema versus theatre.  do you go to the
movies expecting real people acting in real time?

i will concede one thing:  if your music is based _solely_ on
composition & you don't intend to do _any_ improvisation on stage, then
i'll agree that there is no point for you to perform live unless you
feel the PA adds an interesting dimension to your performance which
cannot be attained on a simple cd.

but since most post-electroacoustic shows i've seen involve
improvisation in some way or another, then we're probably in for more
"boring laptop performances", & thankfully so.

~ david