Julian Rohrhuber;
> Ok, but I would like to continue to ask around a bit:
>
> * what is thought ?
> * what is public thought ?
> * what is the difference between playing, acting, and thinking ?
>
Let me try to address this by sidestepping the literal questions, semantics
and natural language tends to become quite messy quite fast.
What I find especially attractive about improvised live performance and in
particular about electronic improvised live performance is seeing the
performer run into trouble, look for a solution and solve the matter. This
can come down to questions like "how do I go from this dense (musical) loop
to a break in a clean way?" or "why don't I hear my leadline?". Often we'll
see the performer struggle, try some stuff, then smile, hit some buttons and
the music will change. Ideally as a audience we will feel his emotions to
some degree. To me this is one of the most appealing aspects of watching
live performances and I hurry to say you can see the exact same thing happen
in some DJ sets, particularly when watching two "tag-teaming" DJ's or
acoustical ensembles.
However it may not always be clear what instruments are being played or how
they are connected and configured ehnce tthe nature of tthe question may not
be clear. We can follow some of this process from the facial expressions and
body language of the performer as well as in the music itself but the exact
nature of the problem experienced by the performer and it's solution may
well be unclear.
Livecoding on the other hand could be said to focus on opening up and
emphasising this exact aspect of improvised performance. I find this process
more appealing to witness then a demonstration of a previously developed
technique (though that too can be very pleasant).
Once again; I realise this doesn't answer you exact questions but I do
suspect it addresses the underlying issue.
Yours,
Kas.
Received on Thu Jul 10 2008 - 13:43:34 BST