[ringside] This week @ Ringside (fwd)
gr...@ibiblio.org
Jeez, what the hell happened to Ringside? Thursday night live music appears to be pretty much dead, and Saturday nights have apparently been given over to the likes of this:
>the Naked Puritans: a high energy, interactive melodic
>rock show!
>http://www.nakedpuritans.com
>
>COOL SHOOZ: a jazz quintet, two of whom perform lead
>vocals, featuring original compositions which cover
>all contemporary jazz styles, hot swingin' fusion of
>classic and modern.
I know that there were problems with the PA, and with the owner acting like a fucking psycho anytime somebody turned their amp up above 2 1/2, but I didn't think it would go so far downhill so quickly. Can I get my membership $$ back?
Chris Rossi
>
> Jeez, what the hell happened to Ringside? Thursday night live music appears to be pretty much dead, and Saturday nights have apparently been given over to the likes of this:
>
> >the Naked Puritans: a high energy, interactive melodic
> >rock show!
> >http://www.nakedpuritans.com
> >
> >COOL SHOOZ: a jazz quintet, two of whom perform lead
> >vocals, featuring original compositions which cover
> >all contemporary jazz styles, hot swingin' fusion of
> >classic and modern.
>
> I know that there were problems with the PA, and with the owner acting like a fucking psycho anytime somebody turned their amp up above 2 1/2,
>
straight.
ringside was the one with the boxy room that is in bad need of sound
treatement and that had that beautiful plate glass window behind the
band that let all the sound pour out into the street causing the cops to
shut down shows early.
it is strange, though. there were good shows there every week for a
while. i hadn't thought about it, but has been awhile since i've heard
about something going on there.
rossi
gr...@ibiblio.org
On 03 Oct 2002 16:47:39 -0400, ch-s...@listserv.unc.edu said:
>> I know that there were problems with the PA, and with the owner acting like a fucking psycho anytime somebody turned their amp up above 2 1/2,
>>
>both of those were problems at the basement. keep your durham clubs
>straight.
Uhh, NO, those were the problems at Ringside. Ask any local band person who ever played there about the owner. And the PA problem was that they never got one, they just borrowed one from a particularly giving local music maven until it became apparent that they weren't really planning on getting one, so the maven took it back. I guess they've gotten something since, though--or maybe they're only booking "party" bands who can bring their own . . .
>ringside was the one with the boxy room that is in bad need of sound
>treatement and that had that beautiful plate glass window behind the
>band that let all the sound pour out into the street causing the cops to
>shut down shows early.
Yeah, but they stopped using that room for a lot of the live stuff & instead did it in that weird space on the ground floor--the "dance" floor, I guess. At least on the nights I went--I guess on weekends they probably had all 3 rooms going at once.
>it is strange, though. there were good shows there every week for a
>while. i hadn't thought about it, but has been awhile since i've heard
>about something going on there.
Everybody knows Durham isn't allowed to have any decent live music venues. It's an ordinance or something. It was only a matter of time.
hollin
she quit becuase of the owner...
and yeah, the PA was a joke. highschool pearljam cover-style.
hollin
Jamie McLendon
> it is strange, though. there were good shows there every week for a
> while. i hadn't thought about it, but has been awhile since i've heard
> about something going on there.
>
> rossi
Ouch! Geez, Chris, that hurts. Dom Casual and Three Torches played
there last Thursday, which Ross duly noted in his stuff to do list.
The whole PA debacle fell upon us, as Jenn called me two days before
the show to warn me that there wasn't one there. The resulting night
was an utter clusterfuck, which I intend to write about and post
sooner or later. Everything ended in smiles, but it was too fucked up
a scene for me to want to deal with. I think many will find the
incident both humorous and stomach-churning. Look for me to post next
week.
Incidently, Dom Casual are playing tonight at the Basement with
Scuppernong and Blue-Green Gods. This is our first gig there, and
we're looking forward to smooth-running evening.
thanks,
Jamie
3.2.3
> Everybody knows Durham isn't allowed to have any decent live music venues.
everybody knows all the world wants are djs now anyway. live music is so
1993.
3
gr...@ibiblio.org
Turntablism burned Captured Live!
mba...@duke.edu
: 3
You think it's bad from the view of just 10 or 15 years ago, have a look
from the perspective of someone like me, who's been playing in clubs since
the early 70s. Compared to those days, virtually nobody is interested in
live music.
Mike Babyak
Paula Simone Cook
> I know that there were problems with the PA, and with the owner acting like a fucking psycho anytime somebody turned their amp up above 2 1/2, but I didn't think it would go so far downhill so quickly. Can I get my membership $$ back?
hollin wrote:
> jen duerr- who runs DADA- used to do the booking and organizing stuff.
> she quit becuase of the owner...
y'all's hostility towards the owner seems a bit overmuch and a bit misplaced as well.
as you noted, jenn duerr was the one booking bands - not the owner. so if louder bands were booked there than were appropriate for the venue, *who* is it you're saying is responsible? probably the booker, who, it should be noted, didn't
bother to show up for the shows. if she had bothered to show up for the shows, perhaps she would have been able to help solve the PA problems, or mediated the tension between the owner's expectations and worries (um, he *is* the one with
his $ and ass on the line, absorbing all the risk) and the bands' expectations and worries.
as for her quitting "because of the owner", i think that ignores some other important considerations. like the fact that ringside was the only club fostering DADA in the beginning. in fact, DADA's big break in local news coverage - the
cover story in the independent - was excerpted in great part from a story on ringside by margaret chapman that was published earlier. there's also the fact that on a number of severely last-minute occasions the owner kindly allowed jenn
to co-opt the space and generally complicate affairs - including the initial Radio Free Records benefit/auction and the first free-of-charge outdoor DADA Bands Showcase, which was rained out with no rain plan (despite the preceding solid
week of rain and flood watches).
michael penny never purported to be opening a rock club - why are you holding him accountable for such? i think ringside is less a rock club that let us down than a dance club/lounge that let us rock there occasionally. ringside
expanded its original intentions to accommodate the intentions of the fledgling DADA. now ringside puts on the loungey, dancey, left-end-of-the-volume-knob stuff the club was made for and DADA has other venue and production options.
everyone's happy! :) i for one am thankful all concerned had the moxie to do their respective thangs.
Tim Harper
"3.2.3" <ifo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D9D9A68...@yahoo.com...
Yes, I've been considering that for a while now especially since starter
"two turntables and a microphone" sets are outselling starter "squire strat
and a tiny amp" sets.
Now I digress - - -
For me as Dub Assassin it poses a particular quandry. While I might spend
time actually performing the music for the samples I use, it is impossible
to play everything at once so in order to perform the stuff requires
creating tape loops on ADAT and loading up samplers and sampling keyboards.
Now comes the real problem. Since I was raised on the concept of finger to
the fretboard or at least a real live drummer I can't get my head around a
performance being me pushing buttons or tweaking knobs on a mixer. Thus,
unless I'm dressing up like Elvis and doing karate kicks I don't consider
what I do as DA to be a performance. I have been getting many requests
lately to perform but since I have no Elvis costume I must politely decline.
I am not discounting the skill involved in being a real DJ, but is it really
performance? At least on the level of most average DJs? I recently was
involved in a DJ competition and the only performance I saw involved a DJ
sticking his hands between his legs to scratch or over his head or moving
the crossfader with his nose, etc. I once saw Fatboy Slim and his
performance consisted of tweaking tone knobs and holding up signs while he
sipped his tonic drink with an umbrella. There might have been two or three
instances of beatmatching, crossfading, or actual scratching.
Compared to Hendrix playing a flaming guitar with his teeth we are severly
lacking in the performance department these days.
Tim
Bo Williams
As Bobby Brown proved in the video for "(Ain't No) Humpin' Around",
they can be totally sweet.
Bo
Duncan Murrell
Errors" at the Bleecker Street Theater, alone and not knowing what the
hell it was. It was a fun show, and I thought the DJ's performance was
pretty great -- and recognizable as a performance. But it required
placing him above the stage as a God figure observing and commenting
upon the MC's. He doesn't speak much, but his facial expressions,
gestures, and his use of the turntables to shift moods and comment upon
the action added up to a pretty fascinating performance. I found myself
watching him almost as much as I watched the play.
Without the MC's it would have been very odd and boring. The DJ needed
something to reflect and interpret. Without MC's, or other people
providing something to reflect and feed back, I agree -- it seems like
it amounts to mostly button pushing and head nodding, however great the
beats.
d
who really enjoys DJ Shadow, but has never once had the urge to get his
groove on while listening to "Endtroducing," and can't imagine going to
see him "perform."
On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 11:41 AM, Tim Harper wrote:
3.2.3
> Yes, I've been considering that for a while now especially since starter
> "two turntables and a microphone" sets are outselling starter "squire strat
> and a tiny amp" sets.
i almost bought one of those toy cd scratching kits that were in all the
stores last christmas. :)
> Since I was raised on the concept of finger to
> the fretboard or at least a real live drummer I can't get my head around a
> performance being me pushing buttons or tweaking knobs on a mixer.
hence, the unseen hand of the dub assassin!
i was searching on google this morning (to make sure i wasn't
mis-remembering that cap live was no longer a live venue when it
burned... i remembered correctly) with the search argument:
"captured live" +fire +durham
and all i kept getting were references to the unseen hand and some
baseball park sessions with dr rock. :)
> I am not discounting the skill involved in being a real DJ, but is it really
> performance?
i used to hang out pretty much daily with dj madd back in the day, and i
considered everything i ever saw him do to be phenomenal performance.
i don't discount being "a real dj" either. but that's not the same as
showing off your awesome record collection or having a roland 505, as i
hear you say.
> Compared to Hendrix playing a flaming guitar with his teeth we are severly
> lacking in the performance department these days.
i think i could rant for pages about lots of things. but they all come
down to money and spectacle. so why bother?
i say, laziness is not only a right, it's a virtue.
3
bendy
taking over from the drums circa 1958. So it might be that popular music
as we know it is genuinely mutating into something that isn't concerned
about guitar. But there is also cycle of public appreaciation for raw,
live music which alternates with more processed, burnished music.
Rave and DJ culture took hold just as guitar rock was getting to it's
least glamourous. Electronica has a glammy decadence that makes Indie
Rock and Grunge look sort of puritanical. If I were a horny 16 year old
out shopping for a subculture to join, I might well choose turntablism.
Some of that stuff blows me away. But like Synth Pop and Disco before
it, it requires too much techonoligically and logistically to get out of
control in a live setting (for the performers, at least.) Sooner or
later, a new Iggy/Jerry Lee/Gene Krupa madman will come along who'd make
the turntables skip and who's secrections would mess up the digital.
Don't know if they'll be backed by a guitar, though.
bendy
Phaedra Kelly
doubt, it's not a "performance" in the way that a live band "performs" but I
enjoy it and don't need stage antics to do so, whether it's a shake yo'
bootie kind of dj show or not. But then, I've been known to enjoy dudes
w/laptops mixing it up.
I think it's fucking exciting that we have some really kick ass local bands
and kick ass dj's in this area. It's all about folks makin' and interacting
with music (and yes, I believe that dj's are making new music in their
manipulation of sounds).
You know, guitar bands can be very, very boring. Watching some adolescent
white boy act like he's hot shit while he screams into a mike and plays a
few whiffs is not always my idea of a good time. Certainly, there are dj's
I don't enjoy listening to as well. It's all about finding what you believe
to be quality, and supporting it.
phaedra
>>>everybody knows all the world wants are djs now anyway. live music is so
>>>1993.
>>>
>>>3
>>>
>>
>>Yes, I've been considering that for a while now especially since starter
>>"two turntables and a microphone" sets are outselling starter "squire
>>strat
>>and a tiny amp" sets.
>>
>>Now I digress - - -
>>
>>For me as Dub Assassin it poses a particular quandry. While I might spend
>>time actually performing the music for the samples I use, it is impossible
>>to play everything at once so in order to perform the stuff requires
>>creating tape loops on ADAT and loading up samplers and sampling
>>keyboards.
>>Now comes the real problem. Since I was raised on the concept of finger to
>>the fretboard or at least a real live drummer I can't get my head around a
>>performance being me pushing buttons or tweaking knobs on a mixer. Thus,
>>unless I'm dressing up like Elvis and doing karate kicks I don't consider
>>what I do as DA to be a performance. I have been getting many requests
>>lately to perform but since I have no Elvis costume I must politely
>>decline.
>>
>>I am not discounting the skill involved in being a real DJ, but is it
>>really
>>performance? At least on the level of most average DJs? I recently was
>>involved in a DJ competition and the only performance I saw involved a DJ
>>sticking his hands between his legs to scratch or over his head or moving
>>the crossfader with his nose, etc. I once saw Fatboy Slim and his
>>performance consisted of tweaking tone knobs and holding up signs while he
>>sipped his tonic drink with an umbrella. There might have been two or
>>three
>>instances of beatmatching, crossfading, or actual scratching.
>>
>>Compared to Hendrix playing a flaming guitar with his teeth we are severly
>>lacking in the performance department these days.
>>
>>Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Walter Davis
>
> "3.2.3" <ifo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3D9D9A68...@yahoo.com...
> > gr...@ibiblio.org wrote:
> > > Everybody knows Durham isn't allowed to have any decent live music
> venues.
> >
> > everybody knows all the world wants are djs now anyway. live music is so
> > 1993.
> >
> > 3
> >
>
> the fretboard or at least a real live drummer I can't get my head around a
> performance being me pushing buttons or tweaking knobs on a mixer. Thus,
> unless I'm dressing up like Elvis and doing karate kicks I don't consider
> what I do as DA to be a performance. I have been getting many requests
> lately to perform but since I have no Elvis costume I must politely decline.
>
consisted of nothing but a guy dressed in black sitting on a mostly dark
stage, smoking, occasionally tapping a key on his powerbook.
For some people there's less enjoyment if there's not at least some
visual stimulation. But really it's about the music, so if you're
creating new music, sounds like a performance to me.
And if folks are asking you to perform, sounds like it's a performance
to them too.
chris clemmons
Ringside one time -- and I've seen several other bands there -- but I
have to say I've never experienced or witnessed any kind of problem
between the owner and the bands. He's always seemed very gracious and
supportive. I like Ringside, as a place to play, a place to see
bands, and a place to just be. And drink. I'd just be and drink
there more if I didn't have to drive from Raleigh to do it.
Two cents, no more. CAC
Paula Simone Cook <paula....@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<3D9DAD7A...@duke.edu>...
Bob Wall
significant other's band during soundcheck for being "loud". Very uncalled
for an "adult". My band played a week later and Jenn manged to get the guy
out of there. The show went off well, but I spent nearly an hour trying to
work with a ground situation due to Ringside's ancient wiring. We also
played there a little over a month ago and the PA system was complete shit.
Still more ground and electrical problems as well. If you're going to book
bands at all, BE PREPARED. Be prepared for loud bands and have an adequate
PA system with at least one person there who knows how to set the thing up
(not all musicians are soundmen).
The Basement doesn't appear to be hanging on either. The place is a shambles
with their new PA setup/placement. Without Jason and his wife working, the
place is an organizational nightmare. And if you're in a band playing, you
can forget a free soda much less a beer or two without them being
there.Let's don't even talk about getting paid. Jason has done an amazing
job with the Basement. He cares about the bands and treats them well, and
pays them what they have coming to them. The owners and their flunkies could
care less.
"chris clemmons" <chris.c...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:43874b50.02100...@posting.google.com...
Rattmouth (removeYOURDAMNEDSPAM)
optimistic attitude about it all. DJ's are really just another option. And
if your issue is over DJ's getting the gigs at local clubs instead of bands,
then I say that the bands are gonna have to offer something better to the
venue if they want to compete. If a DJ can draw in the same (or more)
drinkers to a bar, then of course the bartender is going to hire the DJ.
They can set up their equipment in 15 minutes and be spinning records for
hours on end. One person. No PA's. Et cetera. Also, there are seriously
fewer smokers at DJ events.
Try to avoid ever comparing DJ's to live bands though. There's a serious
error in that comparison. Apples and oranges is the cliche that pays. There
exists only a few rock bands who can inspire a boogie in the average
drinker. And it is a rarity when a DJ can express complicated heartfelt
emotions through a song. So it all just depends on what you are in the mood
for really.
The point is just to support your local musicians, whatever they are doing.
That's all.
Matt Routh
[plug]www.trianglefuturemusic.com[/plug]
"Phaedra Kelly" <bluef...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F1593DaI9uk8R...@hotmail.com...
3.2.3
> For some people there's less enjoyment if there's not at least some
> visual stimulation. But really it's about the music, so if you're
> creating new music, sounds like a performance to me.
i say more recitation than performance in this sense. automated
reproduction of past performance.
it still could be recitation even with visuals, should the visuals be
automated reproduction as well.
but, depending on the visuals, it could be a more engaging recitation.
i was given a ticket to super furry animals ($15K in your backyard from
clear channel) so we went and waved a welsh flag. a good portion of the
show was the automated reproduction of sounds (i.e. evidence of a past
performance in which music was created). someone pushed a button. the
band did not have any lights on them to speak of, so they were front and
center but in the shadows as far as the audience was concerned. when the
button was pushed, the band would often just up and leave the stage for
awhile. the stage was so dark, you might not have even noticed the band
was gone for a few seconds depending on your vantage point. the visual
element was the automated reproduction of moving images in the form of a
giant screen laptop show elevated behind the stage. very large scale,
very nicely done, and very well coordinated with the music via
automation to an almost insane degree during which the moving image of a
talking head close-up on the screen in social realist motif seemingly
was reciting the words of a similarly idiomatic sound loop ("man must
forget... man must forget... man must forget..."). the effect was
further enhanced by a 40 kilowatt, extended range, rave-like, surround
sound system from which the lows went so low as to rearrange your
internal organs and make you see orange flashes with your eyes closed.
(note to dub assassin: the kids are all about 5.1.)
i guess this is what the cradle is built for, really.
anyway, the music itself was not holding my interest, but visual
spectacle was. that was just enough. but all the while was the
unexpected void of feeling like i was at the movies rather than a play.
we speak of someone's performance in a particular movie, but what we
actually refer to is their performance in front of the camera.
now, you may argue that a recital is a performance but i think you'd be
discussing the performance of reciting from human memory or plan rather
than the recall of machine memory or algorithm. it is not uncommon to
speak of machine performance, as in "this car drives really well," but
when people talk about an artistic performance, i do believe they are
thinking more in the vein of "he drives that car really well." if the
car drove itself, however, there isn't much of a human performance to
compliment, except for the car makers, and i think that's what some
people miss: the "real time" construction of the creation as well as
watching it done.
it is possible to appreciate the automated reproduction of audio-visuals
while having a greater appreciation for the real time production of
audio-visuals.
it isn't necessary or warranted to elevate recitation or automated
reproduction to the level of human performance. music is music, sure,
but is more with the act of creation present in place of reproduction.
the act of creation is a large part of why we'd transport ourselves and
pay admittance to somewhere when we could just stay at home and listen
to records or the radio. now there is a trend for us to make the same or
more expense for the expression of music that is less. i think you can
see how some think this is not the most progressive or constructive
direction in general.
there's haste to reify reproduction into something it isn't.
if some people prefer to experience music without performance i think i
can also be persuaded on occasion to view less as more. that has its
place. i just can't be going along with that most of the time when i'm
paying for it. sooner than later i'll leave the button pusher for the
string picker.
dj between bands. dj in the band. but dj is the band? uh, once in
awhile, sure. pardon me while i go get a beer.
i think rattmouth has it right. djs are better and cheaper at pulling in
the alcoholics. more of you bands will have to play for free at go! :)
3
S. Warner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Wall" <bob...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: alt.music.chapel-hill
To: "Chapel Hill Music Lovers" <ch-s...@listserv.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: [ringside] This week @ Ringside (fwd)
> The show went off well, but I spent nearly an hour trying to
> work with a ground situation due to Ringside's ancient wiring. We also
> played there a little over a month ago and the PA system was complete
shit.
> Still more ground and electrical problems as well.
Mental Note: Do not grab any cold water pipes with mic or guitar in hand.
-scott
Ludkmr
Just got back from the homeland where I saw an incredible array — niger funk,
serbian brass band, benin brass band, flamenco, peruvian jazz and so on — for
two days.
lotusfest.org
But what killed me was the Fado. The sad and beautiful Fado?
Is there a Fado singer in the house?
I'm ready to quit my job, cut off the soles of my shoes and live in a tree.
kmr
blandings dunman
> But what killed me was the Fado. The sad and beautiful Fado?
> Is there a Fado singer in the house?
> I'm ready to quit my job, cut off the soles of my shoes and live in a tree.
>
> kmr
make me a tape of [you playing] some fado and i'll give it a shot.
i think i could very well be a fado singer, among other things.
-kevin
grady
throwing down with the 7"s sans-fat-hole-adapter at the XYC/XDU prom this
past spring. All hail Perlmutter.
At 12:46 PM 10/4/2002, you wrote:
>Sooner or later, a new Iggy/Jerry Lee/Gene Krupa madman will come along
>who'd make the turntables skip and who's secrections would mess up the
>digital. Don't know if they'll be backed by a guitar, though.
>
>bendy
>
------------------> www.trianglerock.com <------------------
grady
live bands were apparently still being booked, but they were of the
good-times from-Richmond frat-party type of band such as the one which
played there this past Saturday night, a link to which was included in my
original email. Specifically, this one:
>the Naked Puritans: a high energy, interactive melodic
>rock show!
>http://www.nakedpuritans.com
As far as my reference to my membership $$, I seem to recall a specific
rock show where the future of Ringside was in question, and the call went
out from one or more of the bands/organizers to the local rock-fan
community for everybody to come out & support this new live-music venue by
buying a $10 membership. On that night, whether intentionally or via simple
peer pressure, you weren't getting in the door as a "guest"--you had better
be filling out the membership form & ponying up the bucks, which many of us
did gladly in order to support this exciting new live-music venue.
If they want to be a DJ bar/danceclub, then more power to them, I'm sure
the triangle needs more of those things. But I don't feel obligated to buy
memberships to those clubs in order to show my support.
xoxox
Ross
At 12:26 PM 10/4/2002, you wrote:
>bravo, paula. that's so well put. my brother, who is less into
>everyone's loud rock and more into dj nights in general, seems to have
>spent an equal amount of time at ringside as I have, and never have we
>been there on the same night. he speaks of ringside almost always with
>extreme compliment, and as he should. everyone's happy there when he
>goes. there are many reasons why playing there (meaning loud rocking
>there) has been great for some (with less attitude and expectation) and
>bad for others (that have a certain precident set for what is acceptable
>in a rock venue, some with good reason). it seems that if more people
>were aware of the entire schedule as it's always existed, that includes
>many groups and bands and theme nights that most 'rockers in the know'
>wouldn't dare go to (whatever their reasons, be it that their opinion is
>that it's bad music, or because they wouldn't know anyone or know how to
>stomach unfamiliar music??) it wouldn't seem that it was going downhill.
>amelia
>
>
>
>
>
>Do you Yahoo!?
>New <http://rd.yahoo.com/evt=1207/*http://sbc.yahoo.com/>DSL Internet
>Access from SBC & Yahoo!
------------------> www.trianglerock.com <------------------
Walter Davis
>
> Walter Davis wrote:
> > For some people there's less enjoyment if there's not at least some
> > visual stimulation. But really it's about the music, so if you're
> > creating new music, sounds like a performance to me.
>
> i say more recitation than performance in this sense. automated
> reproduction of past performance.
Depends on what we're talking about. Your description of Super Furry
Animals fits your description. On the other hand, using pre-recorded
sounds as a basis of improvisation that creates music in real-time most
certainly does not.
I'll let Tim decide which is the more accurate description of what he
does, but his description sounded to me like he is creating new music
from pre-recorded bits. If both the bits and the ordering of the bits
are pre-conceived, then perhaps this is "recitation."
Paula Simone Cook
so to clarify any misconceptions about my feelings toward non-ringsideowning entities, i'll say that if it were up to folks like jenn duerr, or jason and paige, who ceaselessly bust their asses fAr more for the love than the money, each band
in the triangle would be presented with a golden egg every time they loaded in. no wait - a PA that *laid* golden eggs. and each golden egg would have a hinged top, and when you got thirsty onstage, you could just pop open one of your eggs
and inside would be the most refreshing beverage you can think of, according to your own personal taste and temperament. *ahhhhhhh*
3.2.3
> Depends on what we're talking about.
i think the discussion as qualified by tim was about dj's who just push
a button.
from what i've seen of what tim does, he is involved in producing
audio-visual recordings which, from what i hear, he is subsequently
relucatant to peddle as performance. the dub assassin video which was
posted here quite some time ago was pretty great.
i gave the example of dj madd, who makes a live improvisational
performance of creating sound from bits of previously recorded sound.
he's no less involved or skilled in what he's doing than your average
indie rock guitarist. and he's very watchable as he performs, although
the watchability of your average indie rock guitarist has been called
into question.
i think i'm agreeing with tim here, most of what we see are dj's as
recitation. ok in some respects as far as a replacement for your radio.
a step back from performance. sometimes desirable for the lack of
spectacle.
although, as in the super furry animals example, recitation can be
spectacle in its own right. my point was, and i think we agree also,
that's where the visualization factor breaks down as a defining
difference between performance and recitation. there's plenty of visual
recitation to be had.
so i'm left wondering how nothing but a guy dressed in black sitting on
a mostly dark
stage, smoking, occasionally tapping a key on his powerbook qualifies as
performance, no matter how enjoyable it might have been. the guy in
super furry animals was doing basically the same thing, except he had
super giant screens above stage. but we can agree that is recitation,
irrespective of how enjoyable it was or not.
tomato sammiches are enjoyable. their construction may at times be
performance if blandings is making them. but the sammich itself?
paintings can be enjoyable. some few painters put on a performance as
they paint. is the painting a performance? only as 60's conceptual art,
which is the source of my objection:
i still say we hasten to reify recitation into something it is not. is
that on the basis of whether or not we may have enjoyed it? on whether
or not it was visually stimulating? on whether it was or not a mental
puzzle forcing us to think about what is performance?
i think there is something else involved. as i said, i think it's the:
3.2.3 wrote:
> "real time" construction of the creation as well as watching it done.
then your reply requalifies your original assertion of "creating new
music" to one of "creates music in real-time" as the definition of
performance so that we now appear to somewhat agree. i would add "and
watching it done."
we are experiencing a loss of real-time creation through the addition of
yet another layer of technological mediacy. for whatever reasons, too.
maybe economics. maybe the rejection of the real time audience role.
dunno. don't care. already have a surfeit of media. already have a
lounge at home. i never lacked for recitation. performance is a rarer
commodity requiring even more attentive cultivation.
who knows? maybe it's a "good" thing. maybe the consumption of rarer
commodities is bourgeois. maybe performance in the age of dubya is
obscene. maybe all bands should play for free and dj's should get
magical fabrege eggs.
speaking of tomato sammiches, it's past my lunchtime.
3
Walter Davis
>
> Walter Davis wrote:
> > Depends on what we're talking about.
>
> a mostly dark
> stage, smoking, occasionally tapping a key on his powerbook qualifies as
> performance, no matter how enjoyable it might have been.
In the example I gave, the guy tapping keys on the powerbook was
improvising, creating music in the moment, simply doing so by triggering
sound samples rather than strumming strings. This to me qualifies as
"performance."
Regardless of whether it qualifies to others as performance, I fail to
see how it qualifies as "recitation." "Recitation" to me is, well,
recitation, where the script has been written beforehand and one is
doing one's best to stick to the script. Isn't "creation" by definition
not "recitation"?
In such a setting, throwing the switch that starts the recitation is not
a performance (or at least not as I would normally think of as
performance). But if one is throwing switches in order to create some
new combination of pre-recorded elements, then it's not recitation.
Whether any of this is "entertaining" is left to the reader.
>then your reply requalifies your original assertion of "creating new
music" to one of "creates music in real-time" as the definition of
performance
Not exactly. Playing a cd is obviously not "creating new music".
Sounds like what SFA was doing at the concert was not "creating new
music." Of course, back when they created it, they were creating new
music, but obviously from that point on it wasn't quite so new. Where
of course things get sticky is in non-improvisational live performance
which includes, to varying degrees of course, the vast majority of live
musical performance.
And then you get other sticky bits, like, say, Phil Kline's
"performance" at Transmissions a couple years back. The first piece
consisted of him singing "Woman, you need me" in appropriate Plantian
falsetto into a series of 12 boomboxes with a short tape loop loaded.
The second piece consisted of prerecorded tape loops loaded into about
20 boomboxes that folks walked around the Cradle, where the variation in
tape speeds from box to box and the variation in music location as the
box carriers wandered around the Cradle created what was, presumably, a
unique "performance."
This, to me, is close enough to call it performance ... or at least I'd
say it's far enough away for me to not call it recitation. And it was a
fine tomato sammich.
Tim Harper
"Walter Davis" <aim...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:3DA1B37D...@altavista.net...
> "3.2.3" wrote:
>
> I'll let Tim decide which is the more accurate description of what he
> does, but his description sounded to me like he is creating new music
> from pre-recorded bits. If both the bits and the ordering of the bits
> are pre-conceived, then perhaps this is "recitation."
The bits are preconceived, some ordering is preconceived but most is not.
I guess I'm a little hard-assed about this but I can see the point as the
performance being about the music. I guess I still need to get over my Elvis
meets Neil Diamond or Jimi mental block. Entertainment is in the butt of the
boogier.
I did spend the last hour pricing Powerbooks though . . .
Now if I could find a way to automate corporate presentation creation I
might have some time or compulsion to get back to the bits.
http://www.prosoundweb.com/recording/mm/week1/mm.php - highly recommended if
you want to see waht really goes on in a major label recording session.
Thanks,
Tim
Chris Toenes
> We need a resurgence of those "keyboard shaped like a guitar" things.
> As Bobby Brown proved in the video for "(Ain't No) Humpin' Around",
> they can be totally sweet.
>
It's here: http://kevyb.com/images/kevinblechdom_bw_300.jpg
(played at Go! recently)
I think it may be at the Carolina in Chapel Hill for this week only (anybody
know?), but this addresses the Manchester history of ravers
versus/collaborating with rock:
http://www.mgm.com/ua/24hourpartypeople/
->Tony Wilson and the story of Factory Records, Joy Division, etc.
Chris
3.2.3
> In the example I gave, the guy tapping keys on the powerbook was
> improvising, creating music in the moment, simply doing so by triggering
> sound samples rather than strumming strings. This to me qualifies as
> "performance."
so, if he was tapping a key "occasionally" what were the keys doing?
triggering a pre-conceived sequence? changing a parameter of a sequence
generator?
> Regardless of whether it qualifies to others as performance, I fail to
> see how it qualifies as "recitation." "Recitation" to me is, well,
> recitation, where the script has been written beforehand and one is
> doing one's best to stick to the script.
i thought we'd already covered human recital and machine recitation?
there are automated script readers. like sequencers. even ones which can
have their script altered in real time.
> Isn't "creation" by definition
> not "recitation"?
recitation can involve creation -at a previous time-. like when you
program the script. recitation can start with a creation. the creation
isn't real time to a performance experience, though.
> In such a setting, throwing the switch that starts the recitation is not
> a performance (or at least not as I would normally think of as
> performance). But if one is throwing switches in order to create some
> new combination of pre-recorded elements, then it's not recitation.
i think you're walking the hazy line of a not very involved performance.
an almost performance. a near recitation. like with your phil kline
flaming lip-ish example, it's more interesting as a conceptual mental
puzzle of what is performance, or possibly enojyable as a
non-performance phenomenon in a performance context.
almost every geek with home taping equipment has done some sort of
interesting experiment with varying phase differences. i'm aware there
are people willing to take that into a performance space, present it as
performance, and have some folks nodding their heads thinking, yeah,
neato performance. this hair splitting is one such reification of which
i speak.
> Where
> of course things get sticky is in non-improvisational live performance
> which includes, to varying degrees of course, the vast majority of live
> musical performance.
only if you think the performance has to be "new." you can create a
script. you can make a performance of its recital. or you can let a
machine recite it for you.
i think you're now confusing improvisation as the nexus of performance.
this is bound to happen when you accept the bare minimum of something
performance-like as exemplary of enjoyable.
3
S. Warner
> http://www.prosoundweb.com/recording/mm/week1/mm.php - highly recommended
if
> you want to see waht really goes on in a major label recording session.
Must... avoid... Mixerman, Lance, and Bitch Slap. It's too addicting. Save
yourself. Just say no.
-scott (hooked)
3.2.3
>
> From: "Tim Harper" <tha...@nc.rr.com>
>
> > http://www.prosoundweb.com/recording/mm/week1/mm.php - highly recommended
> if
> > you want to see waht really goes on in a major label recording session.
>
> Must... avoid... Mixerman, Lance, and Bitch Slap. It's too addicting. Save
> yourself. Just say no.
ok, i just got to the part where mixerman sprained his ankle and i gotta
ask, please tell me this is fiction? i don't know if i can take this to
the end. it's funny but it also hurts pretty badly. kinda like watching
the sopranos.
3
S. Warner
> > > http://www.prosoundweb.com/recording/mm/week1/mm.php - highly
recommended
> ok, i just got to the part where mixerman sprained his ankle and i gotta
> ask, please tell me this is fiction?
http://recpit.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?t=2759
About half or rec.audio.pro think it's a 'best of' collection of studio
campfire stories. Another 35% believe it's all true. The rest either know
Mixerman or are in on the joke.
Not sure where I fall yet.
-scott
3.2.3
> About half or rec.audio.pro think it's a 'best of' collection of studio
> campfire stories. Another 35% believe it's all true. The rest either know
> Mixerman or are in on the joke.
if this is anything close to true, then i think we can lose all sympathy
for 'artists' that we may have held onto through our resentment of
labels.
i guess i just find it hard to believe that so much fucked up stuff
could happen in such a short period of time while costing so much money,
so i'm with the campfire stories group.
i got about halfway through but i don't think i can go on anymore.
3
S. Warner
> i guess i just find it hard to believe that so much fucked up stuff
> could happen in such a short period of time while costing so much money,
> so i'm with the campfire stories group.
Many folks believe that, when it's done, we'll find out that it was actually
the session notes from some great album already released. The point being
that, who'd-a-thunk such greatness could have come from such chaos.
-scott
Tim Harper
> so i'm left wondering how nothing but a guy dressed in black sitting on
> a mostly dark
> stage, smoking, occasionally tapping a key on his powerbook qualifies as
> performance, no matter how enjoyable it might have been. the guy in
> super furry animals was doing basically the same thing, except he had
> super giant screens above stage. but we can agree that is recitation,
> irrespective of how enjoyable it was or not.
>
http://www.arkaos.net/site/en/index.html
This might be a good combo, especially if you can get a midi clock to sync
to. . . or one of those midi keyboard/guitar things
http://www.hollis.co.uk/john/synthaxe.html - Futureman II maybe?
Tim
Jeremy Smith
"3.2.3" wrote:
> some few painters put on a performance as
> they paint. is the painting a performance? only as 60's conceptual art,
> which is the source of my objection:
>
Check out Snake Oil Medicine Show next time they are in town. Live
painting on stage, on a real canvas, with real paints. No mouse-Paint
through a projector, either.
:)
Nathaniel Florin
--- Chris Toenes <toe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> re: 24 Hour Party People, at the Carolina in Chapel
> Hill
I saw this back in July, and enjoyed it a lot. It's
very rock and roll, which means that it's funny and
energetic and self-aggrandizing and stupid and
occasionally cringe-worthy. For the first half it's
basically a comedy about Joy Division, and the guy who
plays Ian Curtis really gets him down. The Happy
Mondays are made to look appropriately moronic. Mark
E. Smith makes a two second screen appearance. The
actor playing Tony Wilson is funny. It's filmed in
this sloppy digital video, which looks great in the
night and indoor scenes, and terrible during daylight.
Maybe I just liked it because I was a depressed 15
year-old wearing an "Unknown Pleasures" shirt in the
1980s, but, well, maybe you were too. If so, it's
definitely worth a couple hours of your time.
nf
3.2.3
> http://www.ableton.com/
>
> http://www.arkaos.net/site/en/index.html
>
> This might be a good combo, especially if you can get a midi clock to sync
> to. . . or one of those midi keyboard/guitar things
>
> http://www.hollis.co.uk/john/synthaxe.html - Futureman II maybe?
what this points to is how to turn a sequencer into a performance
tool/instrument. that would help.
although past use by dimeola and holdsworth is not encouraging.
in the early 80s there was a guitar synth made by arp called an avatar.
a friend of mine rigged one up with a cv-trigger/midi device we made.
i lost interest in that sort of stuff, though, as triggering sequences
and later samples was not much more interesting than just programming
them. i've heard a few exceptions. but the paucity of such examples is
not encouraging.
like many modes of music production, it just gets to be the triumph of
money over sound control, which is the thing most draining on my
appreciation.
3
Chris Rossi
i've never really listened to joy division, so wouldn't know if it would
be worth my time at all.
rossi
Walter Davis
>
> Walter Davis wrote:
> > In the example I gave, the guy tapping keys on the powerbook was
> > improvising, creating music in the moment, simply doing so by triggering
> > sound samples rather than strumming strings. This to me qualifies as
> > "performance."
>
> so, if he was tapping a key "occasionally" what were the keys doing?
> triggering a pre-conceived sequence? changing a parameter of a sequence
> generator?
Any and all of the above and a few other things beside. And I'm not
sure the term "sequence" is quite accurate here. The point is that the
changes were being decided on the fly (near as I could tell).
>
> > Regardless of whether it qualifies to others as performance, I fail to
> > see how it qualifies as "recitation." "Recitation" to me is, well,
> > recitation, where the script has been written beforehand and one is
> > doing one's best to stick to the script.
>
> i thought we'd already covered human recital and machine recitation?
> there are automated script readers. like sequencers. even ones which can
> have their script altered in real time.
But only in preconceived ways (or via programmed randomness I suppose).
>
> > Isn't "creation" by definition
> > not "recitation"?
>
> recitation can involve creation -at a previous time-. like when you
> program the script. recitation can start with a creation. the creation
> isn't real time to a performance experience, though.
Right, so recitation is not creation. Yes, what's recited was at one
time created, now it's being recited. Therefore if the creation is
going on at this moment, it is not recitation.
My point being that improvisation is, pretty much by definition, not
recitation (which is not to deny the existence of favorite licks or
hackneyed improvisation).
Whether non-improvisational music "performance" counts as recitation or
not is another question to which I won't hazard an opinion since I see
little point in making the distinction. But it still sounds to me like
Tim is making musical choices in the moment and therefore it's
definitely not recitation. Whether we want to consider Tim's pensive
look as he decides what sample to trigger next "performing" is a
different question.
So either we buy into your proposed dichotomy of performance vs.
recitation and conclude that Tim is performing because he's definitely
not reciting; or we ditch the notion that peformance and recitation are
opposite ends of the same spectrum and go back to deciding what we
consider performance.
And while I don't have much interest in deciding the boundaries of
performance vs. non-performance, I would propose the lemma that if
there's creating going on, there's performing going on. That is not to
say that if there's not, there's no performing. And that's really all I
was trying to say.
>
> > In such a setting, throwing the switch that starts the recitation is not
> > a performance (or at least not as I would normally think of as
> > performance). But if one is throwing switches in order to create some
> > new combination of pre-recorded elements, then it's not recitation.
>
> i think you're walking the hazy line of a not very involved performance.
Involved/not involved strikes me as so thoroughly subjective as to be a
non-starter really. Do you mean involvement by the musician or
involvement by the audience or both? By involvement, do you mean
physical activity or mental activity or both? If there's a high level
of mental activity but a low level of physical activity, does this
qualify as "very involved"? How many points do we give for pogo-ing?
And of course are "not very involved performances" still performances?
And the nutter for all us improv-heads, if you mean involvement by the
musician, how can we as an audience really know for sure?
But clearly there are hazy lines all around us. The only notion I'd
dare propose as un-hazy is "if there's creating going on, there's
performing going on." OK, I'll add a second: "simply sticking a cd in
your stereo at home and hitting the play button does not make you a
performer." I leave the hazy fog that envelops those two to others to
argue over.
> an almost performance. a near recitation. like with your phil kline
> flaming lip-ish example, it's more interesting as a conceptual mental
> puzzle of what is performance, or possibly enojyable as a
> non-performance phenomenon in a performance context.
But here I'd disagree, at least with regards to Kline's "performance."
Yes, the description makes it sound like all the things you said.
Was it performance? Open question. Was it more interesting as music or
as a conceptual mental puzzle of what is performance? For me, by far,
the former. (But when did "interest" become a criteria to be considered
here?) Especially the first piece of 12 boomboxes. The second piece I
can't really comment on since I was carrying around one of the boomboxes
so I mostly just heard what was blasting out of mine (and I'd say I
found that not interesting if such now matters). I however did
"perform" by being the only one to walk into the bathroom at the Cradle
(functional art as I had to pee), for which I received a classic Bo
Williams giggle. I suppose that would be a performance in a
non-performance context.
And of course Transmission's bread and butter was/is non-performance
phenomena (or at least low-performance phenomena) as we would "normally"
consider them, so it would have been a non-performance phenomenon in a
non-performance context and, well, just how interesting would that be in
and of itself? (though again what interest is doing in this discussion,
I'm not sure)
Don't get me wrong. Had you asked me this before folks like Keenan and
Chuck (in Ivanovich mode) and others had introduced me to such
performances, I'd have been in much greater, perhaps complete, agreement
with you.
Before you're tempted to push that back into the "see, you're saying
enjoyment=performance" camp, I can assure you that I did not enjoy these
early forays into this particular area of music. But exposure to it in
a live setting certainly convinced me that, what on record may sound
like either recitation or randomness, is the result of what I'd call
"performance." In this case, "performance" preceded enjoyment by a
number of months.
>
> almost every geek with home taping equipment has done some sort of
> interesting experiment with varying phase differences. i'm aware there
> are people willing to take that into a performance space, present it as
> performance, and have some folks nodding their heads thinking, yeah,
> neato performance. this hair splitting is one such reification of which
> i speak.
Ummm, I'd say the false dichotomy of "performance" vs "recitation" was
the reification that got this all started. If you're not interested in
splitting hairs, why the hell have this discussion to begin with? Tim
started this and he would seem to be in hair-splitting territory as far
as you're concerned (though not, near as I can tell, as far as I'm
concerned).
And why are you making a distinction between home taping geeks and Phil
Kline? I'm certainly not. If there's creating going on, there's
performing going on. If home taping geeks are only performing for
themselves and their cats, so what? It's just more punk that way.
>
> > Where
> > of course things get sticky is in non-improvisational live performance
> > which includes, to varying degrees of course, the vast majority of live
> > musical performance.
>
> only if you think the performance has to be "new." you can create a
> script. you can make a performance of its recital. or you can let a
> machine recite it for you.
>
So now performance and recitation are not a dichotomy. Fine. Then drop
recitation from the discussion and proceed to what constitutes
performance.
I wouldn't say that performance needs to be new. But then I generally
wouldn't bother taking the time to decide whether something is
performance or not, and if I did I think the answer I'd come to the vast
majority of the time is I don't care....which explains why I don't
bother asking it in the first place.
The stressing of "recitation" would seem to suggest that performance
needs to be new.
> i think you're now confusing improvisation as the nexus of performance.
Hardly. Well, "hardly" if you mean "nexus" as in "center". You
proposed the dichotomy of performance vs. recitation. Recitation
necessarily involves repeating previously existing material in a
predetermined fashion. Improvisation is simply a clear example of
something that's not a recitation. By his description, I take that
Tim's public appearances do not involve recitation. Ergo, by your logic
(or what I took to be your logic), he must be performing.
I offer improvisation not as the nexus of performance but rather as what
strikes me as an obvious example of performance. You offer recitation
as an obvious example of non-performance. Or at least it sure seemed
you did until a couple paragraphs ago.
To be honest, I'm having a difficult time understanding what would not
constitute a recitation in your eyes.
> this is bound to happen when you accept the bare minimum of something
> performance-like as exemplary of enjoyable.
Where did this come from? Do you mean "exemplary" as in THE EXAMPLE or
"exemplary" as in an example. If the former, I've never said any such
thing. If the latter, you've already said that non-performances can be
enjoyable and I assume we're in agreement that enjoyment is subjective
and doesn't really have a place in this discussion. But either way,
it's got nothing to do with accepting improvisation as the nexus of
performance even if I accepted such a thing.
3.2.3
> Ummm, I'd say the false dichotomy of "performance" vs "recitation" was
> the reification that got this all started.
no, i originally wanted to respond to a visual vs non-visual dichotomy
by way of examples where visual is not necessarily performance.
> Improvisation is simply a clear example of
> something that's not a recitation.
i wouldn't go that far. i've seen plenty of improvisation that was
simply the recitation of chops. :)
3
Kevin Darbro
use it? I'd love to see it in action to see what all the buzz is about.
Apparently, it's very well thought out for the loop "performance" artist.
Although that's not really my thing, I'd love to see what it's capable of
for live performances. Personally, I feel all the world's a stage, and
everyday, people are performing. I'd love to see a gifted laptop kid do his
thing. I remember way back at Indiana University when I had a neighbor who
DJ'd. Way back then, a lot of people didn't consider that an "art" or
"performance." I can't help but to beg to differ.
So who locally does this kind of performance, and when are they playing?
- Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Harper [mailto:tha...@nc.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:17 PM
To: Chapel Hill Music Lovers
Subject: Re: DJs vs. guitar players was Re: [ringside] This week @
Ringside (fwd)
Tim Harper
working a show at Lulu and they were performing some other software crashed
but the Ableton Live rig ran without a hitch.
Tim
"Kevin Darbro" <kda...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:HBELKELDOKOGDJAJCM...@nc.rr.com...
Philip Ayers
3.2.3 wrote:
> Walter Davis wrote:
>reification
...nice word, and not at all reificatious.
Paul Sanwald
>
>> Improvisation is simply a clear example of
>> something that's not a recitation.
>
>i wouldn't go that far. i've seen plenty of improvisation that was
>simply the recitation of chops. :)
>
my feeling is that improvisation is the exact opposite of recitation.
if the performer is playing the exact same thing they've played 10
million times before, it's not improvised, whether they're on stage
with the best jazz band in the world or playing drums for a punk band.
--paul
Ludkmr
>million times before, it's not improvised, whether they're on stage
>with the best jazz band in the world or playing drums for a punk band.
practice makes perfect
kmr
3.2.3
> practice makes perfect
just recombine past perfect in future ways and voila!
3
Walter Davis
>
> > Improvisation is simply a clear example of
> > something that's not a recitation.
>
> i wouldn't go that far. i've seen plenty of improvisation that was
> simply the recitation of chops. :)
I said pretty much the same thing at some point (i.e. something like
"which isn't to deny the existence of favorite licks and hackneyed
improvisation.")