Re: Alternative performance devices

[vze26m98 <vze26m98@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/30/03 at 10:58 AM, The pHarmanaut <pharmanaut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Point being, I'm interested in pursuing the spiritual rite
> aspects of performance, and the ability of the separated and
> elevated performer to provide a focus for the alignment and
> motivation of multiple sites of consciousness. I think that
> much of this discussion is overlooking the finer mysteries of
> live performance to focus on technicalities of delivery.

This is great, but what are the "finer mysteries" pray tell? Are you
suggesting that a sufficiently adept performer can tune any audience
into his/her musical aesthetic through the use of finer mysteries?

> I don't think it varies simply by musical genre but within
> musical genre, as well. This depends on: the quality of the
> performer; the particular venue; the particular audience on a
> given night; the weather.

I'm saying that genre establishes a context for performance. The roles
of audience and performer are acted out, in whatever manner, with
respect to this context. I'm guessing your finer mysteries either keep
the context vital, or a lack of them diminishes context, or provocation
establishes a critical stance with repect to genre.

> Sometimes this is true. But I've been to shows where this falls
> apart completely. I've been in supposedly intimate gallery
> settings in which the division between "ARTISTE" and audience
> was as manufactured and antagonistically dividing as at any big
> arena, and at arena shows that felt startlingly intimate.

I agrre with you here, but you're employing metaphor (gallery LIKE an
arena, arena LIKE a living room) where I was trying for something
concrete.

For example, genres form around the extreme unlikelyhood that Def
Leppard will never be booked for a gig at the Village Vanguard and Fred
Hersch will never play a one night solo gig at RFK Stadium.

The commercial impossibility of either event seems hardly worth
investigating, but the enumeration of the reasons lay bare a whole
socio-cultural complex at work that's barely spoken about.

I'm suggesting we take those insights and apply them to the situations
that have been offered up, like "laptop performer in a blues bar." How
did he/she get there in the first place? How much power does an
individual artist have to alter that performance context?

> And what about the whole "shoegazer" scene in rock? Again, I'm
> not comfortable with these broad genre definitions.

I don't think I'm making broad genre definitions. I hope it's clear I'm
suggesting that an artist performs in relation to a set of generic
expectations, and that these expectations encompass not only the
immediate aesthetic values of the individual performance, but also
commercial, architectural and socio-cultural (to name a few) aspects
that we would do well to examine.

> This overlooks more nuances. Point is, at a certain time in
> Coletrane's career, a lot of people DIDN'T think he was playing
> jazz on a saxophone. Once he escalated past hard bop to space
> jazz, he completely alienated much of his former fan base.

I would argue that much of this is due to the cultural intermediaries
that produced Coltrane. I think you have to view Bob Thiele's
alternation of ballad albums with the "angry" stuff, and renaming
compositions like "Red Planet" during the Cuban Missile crisis as
creating/preserving a sector of Coltrane's audience that
couldn't/wouldn't follow him once he boarded the Sun Ship.

Coltrane's record contract with Impluse was the best any Jazz artist,
except Miles Davis, had ever negotiated. Although Coltrane was good
natured about it, the trajectory of his artisitic development was
clearly at odds with the commercial value of portions of his artistry.

> Both options suggest far too much of an academic-environment
> for me. I'm getting tired of the hyper-intellectual
> associations between computer music and academia. Rather, as I
> believe devslashnull was first to observe, the laptop has
> turned computer-based music into the new folk music.

I agree with the folk music thing, but I'm not sure that everyone's
ready for pulling out the laptop at the next camp fire sing along...

Sorry if I conveyed an academic slant here. I was simply trying to
bracket the region of knowledge that might be sufficient for an audience
member to suspend disbelief.

>From the posted examples, it seems that some audience members might be
more comfortable if they understood how a business computer can produce
musical sound. At the other end, do they really need to know that a
certain (virtual) slider is at "79" or that the filename of a sample is
"wigloop02.aif"?

Somewhere along the continuum of knowledge, an audience member ceases to
classify an experience and becomes open to its aesthetic values.

Best,

Tad

<tad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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