Excuse me if I gave the impression of thinking
that you were or had been not professional, far from my intentions. But for
the rest, your reply to Gary seemed to me to be the kind of criticism of
someone who would have been at least a bit upset if he had paid to
get to see the show.
** okay. i really believe that gary has every right
to say what he wants to say. i was merely pointing out that sometimes the gigs
that i don't like are gigs that i learn from the most. it was pretty much my
take on the evening that we both witnessed (at least the first two parts). i
think the term ripped-off would be the one that got me as it connotates some
sort of stealing or dishonsety. we kind of agreed on the first two sets with
some quibbles and then disagreed on my brilliant set
;-)
You told that the first
performance was boring, that it tired you...and that you didn't like the
second part of the show...
** yeah. but in the first set there were things that
i got out of it (and i said so); and i liked the opening of annie's set (and i
said so). so all was not lost.
And yes, if I go to see
a show which is told me (at least in the brochure, gig spam or whatever
else) to be done with the use of loops, I want to see a show which
is done using loops!!! It is not to question about the quantity or the quality
of the loops...
** well . . . there were loops! by my reckoning i
did loops through about one third to one quarter of the set. maybe you
wouldn't like 'em, but they were there. i did 'em, i heard 'em, i did
stuff with 'em.
As for Gary, I think that if someone
thinks that something is shit he must be free to tell it, but he has
to use the right words, just not to offend the sensibility of anyone reading
his statements
** right. though i really didn't feel so
offended . . .
stig
