movement was Re: [microsound] hidden from the audience

[andrewduke@xxxxxxxxxx]

alex wrote:

>...laptop performance is a problem, in that the
relationship between the performer and the music is
lost in a blank stare into tft.  the answer i've found
is to project my desktop so people can see the
movements i'm making to make the music.  works for me. 
lets not follow the traditions set by laptop
'performers' replaying predetermined loops.

***2 things come to mind for me here: #2; while some
people do have rigorously preplanned sets, i think this
happens in all types of music, yet there seems to be an
assumption that laptop performers do this more than
other styles.  reminds me of my worst "gig" this year;
i was in a place to play a show the *next* night and
the day i got there i was convinced by the promoter to
do a short set at an open mike night at a pub!  being
always up for a challenge, i figured, "what the hell". 
i was assured that at least half the crowd would be
there to check me out (a day before my real show), but
i don't know where they were.  the catcalling ("look,
he's up there checking his email"; "is he playing
solitaire?" etc) drowned out my monitors at times, no
joke, and it was all i could do to actually stay up
there for a couple of songs.  i wasn't doing anything
preplanned, in fact i was desperately trying to whip
something together in realtime that would please an
audience that had just heard someone do beatles'
covers! #1:  i don't think we should equate performance
with movement; ie the more movement = a better
performance.  what about those who do a long drone
piece with minute manipulation versus someone who is
doing an uptempo rhythmic set?  the minute changes in a
drone piece, even if projected on a screen, might not
be noticed, and yet the person doing the uptempo
rhythmic set *might* have it totally presequenced, but
because s/he is bopping around, the onlookers might
assume that it is a real live set.  if you're doing a
set with minute changes and quiet details, you might
need to have headphones on and be staring into the
screen, not making eye contact with the crowd.  i know
for me, i'd rather not wear headphones when performing,
but if i'm doing a microsound set and the crowd gets
too loud, i have to put headphones on, or i can't hear
what i'm doing, even with monitors.  another example is
a set where something as unnoticeable as eye movements
control sound.  if people don't see the eye movements,
does it mean the performance isn't a real one?  for me,
music = audio = ears primarily, and, for something like
big bass tones that affect the body's chest cavity, the
chest secondly.  eyes don't factor into it for me,
unless the music is painting pictures in my mind, and
this mindpainting would work for a blind person without
sound, so again, it wouldn't really be sight-related. 
i think we need to judge music performances with our
ears, not our eyes. andrew
  

albums out now: Sprung (http://bip-hop.com) 
More Destructive Than Organized 
(http://staalplaat.com)
Highest Common Denominator (http://pieheadrecords.com)
Physical and Mental Health (http://dialrecords.com) 
74'02 (split with Hypo) (http://tsunami-addiction.com)
check Cognition (http://techno.ca/cognition)
for upcoming appearance and release updates
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com

------------------------------