Ableton Forum

I'll say it again

doesn't matter what you're doing or what anyone else thinks, just do what you enjoy and put a little passion and excitement into it for yourself and the rest will take care of itself.

stop thinking about what the crowd thinks, the crowd will respond to you if you're excited about what you're doing. stop thinking you have to do a lot, if you don't wanna trigger every clip then don't, if you do wanna trigger every clip then do it, if you want to tweak the cutoff on your synth during every song then do it, if you wanna use beatrepeat constantly then do it. do whatever the fuck you want to do and stop wondering if people will like it.

Johnisfaster wrote:I'll say it again

doesn't matter what you're doing or what anyone else thinks, just do what you enjoy and put a little passion and excitement into it for yourself and the rest will take care of itself.

I don't care what the audience thinks, but for me there is a philosophical boundary to be crossed when performing. For me it *has* to be an immediate expression of an artistic idea, and that simply can't be achieved while "djing", if you ask me. It does matter what I am doing to the extent that I need to work within my own limits, and outside them at times.

As a performer and live composer I will generally not accept anything less than a strong influence on where the night goes. If I bomb it won't be because of bad planning when doing up my minidisc for the night... it'll be because I didn't PLAY the music right, or didn't feel the vibe in the room.

- I would also agree that I am a lot more dogmatic than others, it's just the way it goes, I guess.

tempus3r wrote:Another electronic band who's performance I think needs discussion is Kraftwerk.

I mean, these guys are the godfathers of electronic music performance... and they barely move at all and show no expression. Yet, people go absolutely nuts for it. (like me)

Yes, but Kraftwerk does what is appropriate for four chaps standing still, working with laptops & trackballs should do: they have massive & excellent video projections that perfectly match their music.

In other words, if YOU are not doing anything remotely entertaining, then re-focus your audiences attention on something that is. Providing, of course, that you intend your audience to be entertained, as opposed to just presenting your music in a live context. There is a difference, & both are acceptable.

I saw Kraftwerk, & it is was an absolutely *perfect* experience! I brought a friend who was unfamililar with their work, & after the show she said "Now I understand why you are so crazy about them, they're great!"

Kraftwerk can walk on stage, tell a bad joke, & waltz off together, & I'll applaud wildly because of all that they have contributed to my happiness on this so called planet.



On the other hand, if I paid big bucks for the experience, I might be a bit bummed...

Might be time to examine the distinction between "artist" & "entertainer"; two noble paths.

Allow me, if you will, to over-simplify!

An artist, by nature of the work, is less concerned with how the audience will react. For the entertainer, this reaction is paramount. The entertainer measures his or her effectiveness by the audience reaction. The artist is usually more concerned with articulating a vision -making tangible that which was in their head, with the thought of how it might be received a secondary concern. Of course, there is more than just this one form of artistic expression. And I would also add that entertainment is an art form as well. Fun, eh?

At various points these paths can converge & diverge. A lot of very good work is the result of a meaningful balance. Many of us may start with "art", wondering just what results a certain experiment might yield. Then we might switch hats to focus on"entertainment", to ask "OK, so how do I take the results of my experiment & make a great song out of it?"

Again, over simplified, & there are more than just these two possibilities, but a distinction can be made. You've probably all thought of this yourselves, but I do think it has relevance to this conversation, & I haven't come across it in the thread yet.

oblique strategies wrote:Might be time to examine the distinction between "artist" & "entertainer"; two noble paths.

Allow me, if you will, to over-simplify!

An artist, by nature of the work, is less concerned with how the audience will react. For the entertainer, this reaction is paramount. The entertainer measures his or her effectiveness by the audience reaction. The artist is usually more concerned with articulating a vision -making tangible that which was in their head, with the thought of how it might be received a secondary concern.

I guess I have an issue with the "artist", I think that idea of an isolated and pure "Artist" is a myth. Perpetrated by art schools and cultural elitists.

About 95% of people who claim to be "artists" - are in fact producing derivative obscured nonsense that is among the easiest stuff to do. Artists simply operate to different rules, those of obtuseness and 'being challenging'. Artists who claim they do not consider the audience are deluded, humans incorporate a mental model of interaction into almost every act. If art was designed that did not act upon a person then it would be meaningless and useless! Make me happy, sad, uneasy, sick, angry ... or fail. Artist who really do not care ... do not exhibit.

With those criteria fulfilled they can entertain their audience. Artists claim to operate in a vacuum, that is the fictionalised ideal of the "artist", but in reality : No-one exists in isolation.
Unless the artist is autistic, they are usually producing work which is aiming to get an effect over the public. But that effect is meant to be "how clever ! " rather than "that rocked ! "

Art often refers to the process, not the end result. Artists may be referring to that part of their work that is the process, involving experimentation, & the attempt to articulate a vision. This is often done with out any audience, or thought to presentation.

oblique strategies wrote:Art often refers to the process, not the end result. Artists may be referring to that part of their work that is the process, involving experimentation, & the attempt to articulate a vision. This is often done with out any audience, or thought to presentation.

but surely this thread is about performance.
so any artist engaging in performance or public display has consciously decided to display their work , to some desired end ... and they choose to display it some-how.

that is what this thread is about.
If you are going to 'display' at all then you have chosen to interact - and how.

Machinate wrote:

Johnisfaster wrote:I'll say it again

doesn't matter what you're doing or what anyone else thinks, just do what you enjoy and put a little passion and excitement into it for yourself and the rest will take care of itself.

I don't care what the audience thinks, but for me there is a philosophical boundary to be crossed when performing. For me it *has* to be an immediate expression of an artistic idea, and that simply can't be achieved while "djing", if you ask me. It does matter what I am doing to the extent that I need to work within my own limits, and outside them at times.

As a performer and live composer I will generally not accept anything less than a strong influence on where the night goes. If I bomb it won't be because of bad planning when doing up my minidisc for the night... it'll be because I didn't PLAY the music right, or didn't feel the vibe in the room.

- I would also agree that I am a lot more dogmatic than others, it's just the way it goes, I guess.

see I'm with you, i like to be as live as possible. but the fact of the matter is that it seems everyone is asking the wrong questions around here "how to entertain the crowd?" when they are forgetting to actually entertain themselves.

I mean jimmy hendrix didn't ask himself "do you think people will understand that it's the guitar thats making all this noise? oh I don't know if I should do that cause it won't translate to the crowd" no, he just went for it cause he was feeling it.

I'm not pointing this at you, this thread just makes me feel ranty.

jimi hendrix ?
he just played without a thought for the crowd?
the guy who played his guitar behind his head, and with his teeth

that one?

Angstrom wrote:jimi hendrix ?
he just played without a thought for the crowd?
the guy who played his guitar behind his head, and with his teeth

that one?

No, the guy who set his guitar on fire. That one.

Machinate wrote:

Angstrom wrote:jimi hendrix ?
he just played without a thought for the crowd?
the guy who played his guitar behind his head, and with his teeth

that one?

No, the guy who set his guitar on fire. That one.

Exactly. Nobody sets their guitar on fire for anybody else but themselves.

I'd personaly say he did it cause he had a blast doing it.

but thats besides the point, people love picking appart cross references and analogies online. the point is that we shouldn't spend so much time caring about what the crowd is gonna think and wondering if they'll understand this and that, just go with what you love to do and make sure you're having fun doing it.

Paddy/PB's point regarding playing keys in a band vs. his current project I think was the most cogent and appropriate. It's a lot of work for one piece of the whole.

Compared to the live band, the advantage that Live gives you is studio-like sound quality in the live performance venue. It is true that what you trade off for that is the 'human communication' that multiple people on stage playing their own parts gives you, and yes it is true that the audience's perception plays a large part.

The other advantage, of course, is that you do not have to have the ability to play an instrument to make music with computers. Whether people 'respect that' has more to do with what preconceptions they have.

But the perception... that 'good sound' is part of the perception, bands can sound like crap even if they can play well.

I've gone to open mics and have had people applaud, even though I was barely doing anything, crossfading and adjusting some stuff, because to bring a whole setup for 7 minutes was not worth it. People liked it because it was different and it sounded good. You'd be surprised at how many people still think 'computer music' sounds like the Space Invaders video game, and they are pleasantly surprised when it is not.

Now, controlling what goes on within Live being the same as 'playing' it... sometimes when I'm playing an instrument I'm thinking about controlling it, but when I'm really playing it I'm singing through it. Besides hitting the correct notes with the intended duration, there are a limited number of dimensions I'm controlling that equate to 'articulation'.

I think, then, what people are saying 'goes missing' are two things(the 'anacoustic' aspect) 1) *per note articulation* as controlled by a human touch and 2) the visual information that indicates said articulation is occuring in real time.

Something funny and maybe appropriate-- was up late last night and stumbled across this 'soft rock of the 70s collection from Time/Life' infomercial, hosted by the principle members of Air Supply. They ran through a calvacade of songs and video performances of that type of music, much of it performed live by real, emotive hippies with actual guitars and voices:).

Yes, many of the songs were iconic (not to mention laconic ) and many were memorable, but the whole "power of the DJ" is that *90% of what's good about a particular genre of music can be evoked just by playing the rekkid*.

One thing that was instantly apparent to me is that the sheer barrage of technology that a handful of people with laptops and a couple of projectors can muster is far more stimulating. It is the case that that visual aspect is 'decoupled' from the movements needed to generate the music, but it's different and that is ok.

So don't worry about 'playing your laptop', worry about structuring the content that you "emit" so that it can be mixed and matched on the fly in a way that is spontaneous.

[edit] Most of what people do when they are playing an instrument is executing "macros": scales, phrases, these are loaded into the mind and queued up as muscle movements that have been honed by lots of practice, and once you build a repetoire of these you string them together. In that sense, it's very similar to launching clips, with, again, the difference being the per-note articulation is there (and is also error prone).

I also think that people who are willing to give an electronic music performance "a chance" are different, also, than people who are not.

[edit edit] If I play my guitar for an audience, I can guarantee them I will generate the notes that I intend as best I can. If I play electronic music for an audience, I can guarantee that I will play many notes I never intended, but none of them will be "wrong" If I play both at once, I can guarantee a potential for the best and worst of those two worlds simultaneously.

[edit edit edit] where is b0unce? shouldn't he be by to call me a pompous ass about now?

mikemc wrote:Most of what people do when they are playing an instrument is executing "macros": scales, phrases, these are loaded into the mind and queued up as muscle movements that have been honed by lots of practice, and once you build a repetoire of these you string them together. In that sense, it's very similar to launching clips, with, again, the difference being the per-note articulation is there (and is also error prone).

This is more to the point about my earlier comments regarding playing laptops and musicianship. I actually think to a certain degree it is easier to 'play' a traditional instrument than a laptop. Not withstanding the blur between performing for the crowd or for the artists personal selfish reasons (selfish in a fulfilling and positive sense), there is still a gap in general public acceptance about what skills are being used when you perform via a laptop. hence the next statement...

I also think that people who are willing to give an electronic music performance "a chance" are different, also, than people who are not.

Part of the reason for people being different is the training society gives them about what is 'normal or acceptable artistic skills.' That is why I mentioned earlier, that for the time being anyway, performing via a laptop is an elitist endeavor.

I spend quite a lot of time these days in the school system, having three teen or pre teen kids, and a large portion of my students from local schools. I see all sorts of school curriculum subjects in the visual arts or graphics areas where the use of computers is normal. In actual fact, some artist skills that used pen in hand that were common only 20 years ago have virtually vanished now. What we called Tech Drawing or Drafting has been replaced by CAD and related computer based skills. So all of my manual drafting equipment is stuffed in a closet now, my oldest son has no need for it to aid in his learning let alone any idea how to use it.

Music has not caught onto this societal change yet. I don't know what it is like in your country, but I see a current generation of high school kids who the majority (very high percentage) are taught their concepts of musicianship via traditional instruments (recorder, ukulele, guitar, piano, drums etc). Laptop performing is usually not a standard high school music subject. Kids usually stumble into laptop recording and performing outside of school. (shame really because of all the people who judge their musical skills based on traditional instruments end up thinking they are not cut out for music and miss the opportunities computer based music can give them).

IMHO This is a big part of why there is so much debate and polar opinions about the place of computer based music. Because, unlike other artistic skills where the computer is unquestioned now as an aid, computer based music making as a whole has not reached the same level of perception at a grass roots level. Therefore, general familiarity about musicianship and laptops is still an uphill battle, by and large. I can convince parents to spend $500 on guitars and related stuff for their kids, but its a losing battle to get them to spring $200 for a system that their kids can record themselves. Parents have no problem buying computers and software for other subjects, its just not questioned.

From this perspective, I think playing a laptop as an instrument is Elitist, and I think it will be so for another 20 years.

Angstrom wrote:

oblique strategies wrote:Art often refers to the process, not the end result. Artists may be referring to that part of their work that is the process, involving experimentation, & the attempt to articulate a vision. This is often done with out any audience, or thought to presentation.

but surely this thread is about performance.
so any artist engaging in performance or public display has consciously decided to display their work , to some desired end ... and they choose to display it some-how.

that is what this thread is about.
If you are going to 'display' at all then you have chosen to interact - and how.

Absolutely. And once anyone decides to hit the stage they probably start to think about the audience. This is when they can either change their work for supposed entertainment value, or keep it as it existed before they decided to perform it. It really depends on their relationship to their art, or craft, or material, or act, or whatever they want to call it.

I think that there are some people who hit the stage with the goal of entertaining their audience, while some might hit the stage with the goal of sharing something that they do for themselves at home, & would do for themselves at home even if they were to never take to the stage again as long as they live.

Since the word art has loaded connotations, let's change the word "art" to "something we really love" (like music). Now I can ask: at what point do I change something I really love for the sake of the audience? Do I love the audience appreciation more than the thing that generated it?

I agree that this thread is about performance, & how that performance (or lack of performance), is perceived by an audience. Some folks talked about pleasing an audience, some about pleasing themselves. Since this polarity had already been introduced, I thought that it was time to add in a bit about two fully developed examples of this polarity: an "Entertainer" & an "Artist". And I do acknowledge that this is artificial, since I think there is a spectrum, & also that both can change place regularly!

And to really cloud the issue there is art with a capital "A" -a world unto itself. Here you'll find a lot more tolerance for people staring into laptops, as the focus is on the audio & not the performance. Then there is the alternate universe of "Performance Art"!