Re: [microsound] Performing "Live"

[jonah dempcy <jdempcy@xxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "a dontigny" <a_dontigny@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "microsound" <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [microsound] Performing "Live"


> > i'm writing from my experiences. of course my experiences
> > are biased in a
> > certain way because my experiences are different from
> > yours, no?
>
> Of course, we both agree that you are biaised.

of course what?
i asked if you agree that we have different experiences.
again you fail to respond to a direct question.

> > computers don't even allow you to _acknowledge_ these
> > type of things.
>
> Of course, we both agree that a computer alone (and shut
> down) cannot respond properly in a group improvisation.

of course what?
i am talking about you the musician, and your ability to
acknowledgespontaneous musical ideas and tangents on your instrument.



> > so my argument is this: live = spontaneous, less limited
> > spontaneity = good,
> > the less limited the instrument and more spontaneous the
> > performer, the
> > better the live set.
>
> live=spontaneous : When an symphonic orchestra plays, it is
> anything but spontaneous and it is still considered a live
> performance.

the _ideal_ of "live" .. the abstract live.
i think classical musicians try _not_ to be live, rather than infusing the
music with their persona and emotion (as a "live" jazz musician would) the
classical musician aims at faithfully reproducing the composers intention,
similar to how a playback device would.

however a live classical performance, although far less creative &
spontaneous than the ideal that i speak of, is still more live than a
playback device because of the nuance and inflection of the chosen
instrument. the subtlety of master musicians is amazing, regardless of
stylistic limitations virtuosity will show & master musicians will find a
way to express themselves on their instrument. look at itzhak perlman for
example as someone who plays with such emotion as to break through the
boundaries of having his notes dictated to him.

still these musicians are more limited than someone like uri caine who
freely interprets and jams on classical songs as common practice.

anyway, i covered all this in the email. all manner of things (as i
qualified but you so nicely erased) will affect whether something is
spontaneous or not. i even wrote AND I QUOTE "this argument can also account
for any stylistic limitations ..." such as in your example dictated sheet
music.

you also used the example of a symphony. even in a free-jazz or otherwise
spontaneous live performance, don't you think a symphony is a bit much? i
can't imagine 70 players in a jam! how about 70 microsound musicians!!

no, instead lets talk about a jazz trio, specifically brad mehldau. go to
napster and DL some of his work with jorge rossi, like the "art of the trio"
albums.

then you come up with your "best" and "most live" show that was done
entirely on a computer.

let's compare!!

> the less limited the instrument : Supposedly limited
> playback devices can make a hell of a good performance
> onstage (something called a turntable for example).

and hence the musician vs DJ debate.
as you imply, the DJ should have 100% rights to claim the music as their own
and give no credit to the original artist. i disagree with you here as well.

perhaps if you would prefer, you can produce a DJ set that you consider to
be "better" and "more live" than the aforementioned brad mehldau
performances?

-jonah