] [Thread Prev
A couple of responses
> I wrote
> >In this theater performance, I asked to be billed as a "Sound
> >I also considered going for "Performance Artist".
And Michael replied
> Works for Laurie Anderson. Has she ever been categorised some other
Yeah, but she was never a guitar (semi-)virtuoso with a guitar virtuoso
ego and identity to deal with. But perhaps it's time to shelve some of
that... Anyway, I wouldn't characterise some of her records as
performance art - most of them fall into the "intellectual rock"
category, in my book (e.g. Strange Angels, Mr. Heartbreak). The Mr.
Heartbreak tour, with Adrian Belew et. al, which I was privileged to
attend a show of, was a multimedia rock show with performance art
> More from Michael:
> Absolutely. There's also a great deal of satisfaction from writing a
> peice. It seems to me that improvisation is often an excuse for not
> learning material! :)
Or, for me, for not writing it!
> The argument I've heard is that only through improv can we see the
> soul of
> the performer, but in speech we can often put our most profound
> across when given time to reflect and put them down on paper, rather
> standing up and just talking. I'l also bet the most moving poetry is
> by-and-large, written off the cuff (please, no-one mention James
Well, I love improvisation, and loop-based improv is especially
hypnotizing. I agree with the quote that it can (at least sometimes)
give us a window into the performer's soul. However, that is only of
concern to certain niche audiences. Most prefer an "entertainment
experience", which means tighter structure, clean transitions and
attention to pacing. Sometimes I want to cater to this and sometimes
> >This leads me to question what the FUNCTION(s) of loop music
> >any case, the rock concert performed a
> >function -- and it seems to me that this was initially driven, or at
> >facilitated by the TECHNOLOGY.
> You mean we are about at the point where The Who came in: The
> was available and the function was invented or came out of the history
> the society. Loop technology is available and we are discussing its
> purpose. The Who probably did not discuss it as we do, but this makes
> of the changes of history.
The Who's function was nothing new - to provide music for dancing,
mainly so that young single people could engage in pre-mating rituals.
Providing music for dancing is a pretty ancient social function. All the
Who did was make it louder and more closely tied in to the chemicals
raging in teenagers' bodies, something that Elvis and his musical
progenitors also did in spades. The only aspect of the Who's technology
that was innovative was their view of it as disposable and their
choreography. (BTW, I was a serious Who fan in the early days and still
respect and enjoy their music. That's not the point here).
> We have a new idea here which is called JantArte (Jantar means
> supper). We
> invite for a chinese veg meal (body), a speach (mind) and a artistic
> presentation (soul), pillows on the floor. It will happen monthly in
> Centro de Cultura Chinesa. I will tell you how it goes.
> Is that New-Agey?
That sounds like a good setting. Creating the setting is a great thing.
Perhaps loop music can work as an analogue to dance music for older
people (is anyone on this list under 25?) Whereas rock (functionally
speaking) is pre-mating music for social rituals among young single
people, maybe loop music can occur in situations which encourage social
interaction (which is frequently rather limited) among mature, working
adults who may have families - maybe there's a new kind of social ritual
that could be created around this.
Netscape Navigator users: access to your favorite Web sites
with a single keystroke: http://wsdesigns.com/sextant/
Windows musicians: learn songs and solos from any audio CD: