>> The difference
>> has nothing to do with the laptop, but everything to do with
>> authenticity.
>
> I don't think it is much to do with feeling you are being made a
> fool of
> or lied to, if that's what you mean. I think it's more that you don't
> know what is going on. Something is happening to make this sound, but
> you can't see what it is.
ah, but it's a matter of trust that the something that happened is a
result of some kind of effort on the part of the performer. So yes,
it's about the potential that you're being lied to and that there's
simply no way to tell for sure. Not that I think that laptop
performers do this intentionally, but simply the fact that the
potential for deceit is there I feel is problematic for laptop
performance (Cascone describes this much more elegantly than I ever
could).
>
> This would be fine if it wasn't for the peculiar arrangement of chairs
> and social conventions that lead to you facing the back of someone's
> laptop, wondering what you're doing there. I have no problem with
> people hiding their screens if I'm not somehow expected to watch them
> doing so.
that's definitely one of the essential aspects of the problem. Many
interesting solutions are possible: I always enjoyed the "Rien a
voir" concerts in Montreal back in the 90's, do they still exist?
>
>> Today, one goes to a live performance more for the
>> event than for the music.
>
> When has that ever not been so?
when recorded music was not widely available. I'm not denying that
the event aspect of music performance was important, but the balance
has shifted since the advent of commercially available recordings.
>
>> An orchestra performance is authentic because it is impossible
>> that it's
>> not.
>
> I disagree, but perhaps I don't understand what you mean by
> 'authentic'.
> To me an orchestral performance is about as artificial a musical
> situation as you can get, although this need not affect your
> ability to
> enjoy it.
what I mean is that an orchestra could never get away with
airbanding, while a laptop performer could (and I know of many laptop
events that have been faked because of last-minute technical
problems!). Back in 1984 or 85 I saw Heart perform live and half the
show was airband. I am convinced that 99% of the audience didn't know
and didn't care. But I was about as furious as a pimply teenager
could be.
>
>> That cannot be said of a laptop performance.
>
> Even if the screen is shown?
now we're on to something interesting. I absolutely agree, however
showing the screen is not necessarily a guarantee of authenticity,
nor that the audience will understand what's going on. Which is why
there have been interesting discussions about what exactly should be
shown on the screen.
>
> Perhaps my request for evidence of human movement and your request for
> authenticity aren't so different, in any case.
I think there surely is a relationship between the two, that one can
reinforce the other. Although with live coding I prefer to emphasize
the act of cerebral effort than human movement.
Marcel
Received on Thu Apr 03 2008 - 14:01:53 BST