[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] Money/Mouth



Chris wrote
""I never made any assumptions about what an audience member could or
couldn't
do.  Actually, I was pointing out that the laptop artist is representing
him- or herself in certain ways that *create* expectation, either as rock
star or auteur, rather than "here is the audio".  It's just ego.  Wasn't the
scandal of Milli Vanilli is that they did *not* present themselves
authentically?  Misrepresentation?""



I didnt mean to imply that you were.  More of a generalized statement on my
part then anything else.  Others have tho, and that what i disagree with.
Who is to say how others percieve things?


Lets not debate the monkees either as i was just using them as an example
inregard to expectations of the audience member.(They did know how to play
their instruments tho, they wrote music and partied with guys like Hendrix
and Dylon .)


Chirs wrote
"""The argument about the laptop as instrument, laptop
player as performer is somewhat beside the point.  Why is this the mode
being chosen in the first place, when there are other models out there
(radio, academic "performances", etc)?  Center stage does seem somewhat
inappropriate for someone "appearing" to do their taxes.  And in many
instances, the performer adds *nothing* to the performance.  Why not just
throw in a CD?  I'd still go hear it if the venue had an excellent sound
system."""

I dont believe that a laptop is an instrument either.  Ive always said that
it was more of a tool then anything else.  In regards to your centerstage
comment, i find this to be true as well.  But i also feel that their really
is no other option.  What other choice do i/you have?   Most people seem to
need a face to go along with the music.  Something to key in on.  Also what
you and me percieve as boring is irrelevant really.  Its to much of an
individual opinion on our part.  I know id rather hit play on my laptop and
sitdown and drink a few beers with my pals but i dont think the audience
would be to happy about it.

Why?  .  I believe that it has something to do with the need to be
entertained.  Or maybe they just want to see someone perform even if it is
in an nontraditional manner. ""Here is the audio"" type of attitude doesnt
fly with everyone.  Especially at a venue where they went to see someone
perform(Whether it can be classified as a performance or not, that's what
they expect.)

The scandal of Milli Vanilli is that they had nothing to do what so ever
with the creative process.  They neither wrote the music or lyrics to
anything that they "danced around to"  They basically moved their lips
around and did some synchronized dancing.  My point was if their shows were
actually of acousmatic nature, does it make a difference ?  Why is ones
perception's changed after the fact.  Why does it matter if the sound is
what was to be appreciated in the first place.

These are two different genres of music as well.  Each genres fans carry
different expectations in regards to what they expect.  I think a fan of Kid
606 or Taylor Dupree has "a " different set of expectations then a fan of
N'sync.  I will go out on a limb and say that a N'Sync fan has the need to
be entertained along with appreciation of music, where as a fan of Dupree or
Tilleander would go just for the sound.



More later out of time:(



aLEKs