The Logic Off Topic list

> i don't remember it being stated that the live acts
> had to be 'underground' artists? i thought we were
> talking about live dance acts in general... i didn't
> think we were sub-dividing dance artists into
> financial genres as well?

When I originally posted I was subconsciously just talking about the bands
that I knew.   I had not thought about the bigger ones at that point.

> [for the record when underworld started they would
> take white labels of their tracks to record shops in
> the back of a car... that's pretty 'underground' isn't
> it? ;) they played live around this time too...]

Yep,  everybody starts thats way.   I wonder just how live they were back
then.

> but 'what constitutes live dance music' is a hazy area
> isn't it? there is no 100% live in the conventional
> sense of the word with dance music... (unless you have
> ten people playing instruments) but i would classify
> the mixing desk/fx/riding the faders/improvising on
> the arrangement as 'the instruments' with this sort of
> music. anyone who has tried to arrange a track
> on-the-fly in this way (rather than automating it all
> on the sequencer) will know how much practice it
> takes...
>

For me, 'live' would be  some midi tracks, not too many,  a lot of audio
tracks and some synth lines actual being tweaked in real time.  Just 1 line
per person at a time.   The sequencer would have to be slaved to a rock
solid external timecode generator.   Also slaved would be a timecoded dat
with the complete set which could be be brought up on the faders instantly
if the sequenced stuff went pear-shaped.

regards Hector.