Re: [-empyre-] live performance vs. studio/other

["Stasisfield.com" <john@stasisfield.com>]

john hudak wrote:

> i wanted to talk a bit about performing live versus recorded.  i tend to
> feel that performances are something other than studio/recorded types of
> expression in that they are temporal...lasting only a set amount of time,
> being recorded in some abstract way by the people watching, and if recorded
> digitally or analog, available for somewhat accurate listening, although
> never quite the same as being there (unless someone is just playing
> pre-recorded cds...and then still, the place one is hearing something, as
> well as the equipment one listens on, and the surrounding environment, all
> have a play in how the sound is perceived.


I definitely agree with this, john. There is an immediacy to live 
performance that can never be re-created by listening to a recording. 
Besides the environmental differences (being able to sit in your living 
room and listen to a live performance is completely different than 
listening at a venue along with an audience), there's the obvious ability 
on the part of the artist to endlessly tweak a studio recording. Live shows 
display what an artist can do with a limited amount of time *in real time*. 
There's no going back once a decision has been made. Even the most composed 
piece of music becomes an improvisation the moment something goes wrong -- 
or simply not according to plan.



> my background in performance art makes me always consider a visual element
> when performing for an audience...not that the sound elements can't stand on
> their own, but when someone is given more than one element to take into
> their minds to evaluate, one tends to give a little less power to one or the
> other media, so either experience isn't as serious an affair.


I also am in agreement with this...however, I'm not sure I agree with your 
"serious" comment. I do see how incorporating a visual element shifts part 
of the burden of engagement from the sonic element of a performance, but I 
think that presenting sound and vision together can be just as serious as 
sound on its own. It's definitely true that, in presenting a video or other 
visual element, it makes the sound less "precious" -- the audience now has 
a visual focus other than the performer, so the video will presumably 
receive the brunt of the visual attention. I see that as presenting the 
audience with an anchor to keep them engaged in what's going on, to ease 
their level of comfort. In a sense, the visuals metaphorically become the 
blank wall that is stared at during zen meditation, if we're to take that 
as a model for concentration -- but by using a set of images rather than 
one static image, it is easier for the audience to remain attentive; it's a 
bit much to ask that the audience remain silent and mindful of the sound 
without a visual focal point, especially if they aren't used to that type 
of deep listening situation.

But the most important thing is the choice of imagery--what you show has a 
profound effect on the reception of the sound, which is why I generally 
prefer to use abstract imagery. When I attend shows that use found footage 
from other films, or cartoon animation, or footage of people, it tends to 
completely distract me from the music. I find myself thinking "Oh, there's 
a person walking backwards at 72 frames per second" rather than thinking 
about the music. I would prefer to be thinking "The volume is changing" or 
"The rhythm has shifted" or "Those lights are pulsing in a way that 
directly relates to the music". But I do also enjoy shifting my attention 
between the video and the audio during a performance, which tends to feel 
like a more "complete" experience. Since I began using video at shows 
(which has only been within the past year), I've noticed that the audience 
appears more relaxed and comfortable with the situation; in some ways, I 
think it feels more "normal". And although I create so-called experimental 
music, I still feel that, especially when performing in a live context, 
that it's my job to provide an enjoyable, comfortable experience if 
possible. I very much view art as both an escape from and a comment upon 
reality, and I prefer to offer an environment that is somewhat calm and 
pleasant -- which I think is a comment in and of itself.



> as for recorded work, i have been concentrating on preparing recordings that
> can be effective on most listening devices...from boom boxes to expensive
> stereos (i listen to in-progress pieces on a boom box quite a bit).



This is also something that very much interests me--how will my music be 
listened to? I try to listen to my recordings in several different 
contexts: on a stereo, on cheap Walkman headphones, while driving in a car, 
while sitting on the train...it's interesting to see how pieces react and 
interact with different environments, rather than just how well they sound 
in the studio. I think it's a really important consideration when creating 
studio recordings.



>>

john kannenberg

[ http://www.stasisfield.com/empyre ]

[ http://www.whistlingpariah.com ]

[ http://www.stasisfield.com ]