Re: Practice, rehearse, perform

[jim palmer <jimp@pobox.com>]

> > 
> > so why don't you just buy the video?
> 
> I like improvisation, and I like something real.
>  

me too.  note: nothing visual required for either...

> 
> Um... You lost me. Are you insulting me because I think most audiences 
>like more
> of a "show" then someone gazing at their shoes playing music 
>note-for-note as it
> is on their CD at something they call a "live performance" (which bears 
>little
> resemblance to either)?
> 

i wasn't trying to insult you, i was just joking. 
ugh, i just noticed i mispelled "you're."  

also, i am only talking about peoples need for visual entertainment at a 
music perfomance.
whether the musicians are playing the ink is another issue altogether.

> > really, the term "poser" was coined for this sentiment.
> > i personally am not interested in adding theater to my music 
>performances.
> 
> My understanding of the term "poseur" is that it's not that someone 
>moves around
> in some particular way on stage, but someone who COPIES the style of 
>someone else
> who does (usually denoting a poor attempt at reproduction).
> 

i doubt i will ever have need of that other term ("poseur") i really meant 
"poser"
it really is a common term.  maybe they are remotely related...

> Frankly, I don't have much interest in hopping around just to show off 
>or attract
> attention. I don't have a problem with people that do...or don't. And I 
>don't
> think either indicates more or less artistic integrity.

me too.
and i have done my share of hopping around...
it was a lot of fun.  but it wasn't music.  i like the term "theater" for 
that stuff.

> 
> What I was talking about, in terms of LOOPING performances, is simply 
>that if you
> can do an action in a way that makes it clear to people that you're doing
> something (as opposed to stealthily pressing record and play with your 
>foot while
> their attention is on your guitar), then it helps prevent them from 
>getting the
> idea that you're playing over a CD or a sequencer. I wasn't talking about
> grandstanding, just being intentional about doing what you do in a 
>visual sort of
> way. No fans on my long hair or spandex required.

i don't find that to be two different things.
one mans grandstanding is anothers "being intentional about what you are
doing in a visual sort of way"
i find nothing wrong with either.
nor is there anything wrong with forgoing the visual thing altogether.
i love hearing michael brecker play and could care less if he moves or
shows what he is doing to the keys or mouthpiece or air.
in fact he tends to stay stock still while outrageous fire comes out 
musically...
maybe he should rig a flamethrower up for the non-auditory audience

interesting, maybe we need a new term.  should that be "vidience?"
or for the multimedia types, maybe "omnience"...lol.

this i find cd/sequencer thing interesting. 
poe wrote a bit (i can't remember which story) where he describes a 
hideous insect landing on his desk.  he is initially repulsed by it.  then 
he
realizes it is actually a leaf and not a bug.  then he finds it to be 
beautiful.

i noticed this sort of shift happen to a friend of mine with a soundscape 
cd
i was playing (a fripp cd, not mine) i noticed he seemed bored with it and
explained that it was just one guy with a guitar doing it live.  
then he liked it. 

so if you see a performer thinking they are playing live
and like it,  then you find out they are using a cd,
suddenly it is bad?  what about the other way around?
if this makes a difference at all, i say it is theater and not music that 
is different.
actually, in this case i like to call it gymnastics.  

i would say:
  music is all about sound.
  theatre is about visuals.
  gymnastics is about difficulty.

believe me, i do my own share of gymnastics as well.
crafty guitar fretwork is more about gymnastics than music and i still do 
it.
but you can have music with no crafty work and vis versa
(not that there's anything wrong with that)


> 
> > i find the general audiences preoccupation with visuals somewhat akin 
>to
> > people who can't read a book without pictures.
> 
> Frankly, I think we must be talking about different forms of "visuals". 
>Even
> going to the symphony, which is pretty "straight" musically, there's 
>plenty to
> watch. Violins are bowed, kettle drums are hit, clarinets are blown. A 
>symphony
> without the visual is no different then a recording with really good 
>fidelity.
> 
> Greg
> 

i'm surprised you want to see a symphony. they are almost always playing 
the ink.
and you must have some hellacious sound system and acoustic room 
at home if it sounds like a live symphony...

if i went to the symphony, and they had installed a magical, sonically 
transparent light barrier
between the audience and the orchestra, it would not bother me in the 
least.

ok, enough for one day.
did anyone actually read all of this?