The Logic Off Topic list

> quote from hector <Dance music is totaly preprogrammed
> most of the time and cannot be played live. Those that
> attempt to play live, offer music that is way below
> the standard of their vinyl releases thus
> dissappointing the audience...>
>
> ... you won't mind if i disagreee with you here
> hector? :)
>

Of course I don't mind!   However, in that quote I  should have said :
'...and cannot _easily_ be played live. _Most_ of those that attempt to...'

> i have seen many live techno acts and most of them
> have been extraordinary!
>

Yes, there are some that are live, and some that appear to be live.  But how
many are really live? And what is 'live' in a dance music context anyway?

> take, for instance, underworld (probably the best live
> band of this ilk that i've had the pleasure of
> seeing). they agree on an opening track before hand
> and then improvise the set-listing and the tracks as
> they go along. tracks can merge into other tracks,
> parts that were never there on the vinyl versions are
> added and the whole vibe is like nothing i've ever
> seen! no two gigs are ever the same.

Yes I have read a good Sound On Sound interview with Underworld and in it
they show off their live rig.   It cosists of  a _lot_  of gear,  requiring
roadies,   all way too expensive for the average underground producer.

> then you have people like orbital (who i saw only a
> couple of weeks ago!) who most fans would agree are
> better live than on record...

Again, bands such Orbital, the Chemicals etc... have got the money.   Even
then, when I heard the Chemicals live 2 years ago at Glastonbury I thought
they were dreadful, and nothing like their records.  Some drums and two
analogue synths being tweaked live for an hour.  About was about as
interesting as watching paint dry,  they need not have bothered.

> you might have heard of pob? (on platipus records) ...
> seen them play a blinding live set too!

Yes,  I have a few of their records.   Unless you are a close friend of them
I don't see how you can be 100% sure that they are totally live.   Bands
always say they are live.   It is very easily to create an impression of
being live by showing a sequencer with a moving time-line.   How many
bounced down audio tracks are they allowed before it is no longer live.
There could be an audio track playing the whole song bounced down,  how
would you know?   It's a damn sight less risky for them than relying wholely
on a load of midi gear.

A few years back when I was booking dj's and 'live' acts for a weekly night
at Heaven in London,  I saw loads of different ways of faking it.   These
were underground bands that did not have the money for a live midi setup,
that sounded like their records and would not fail on them.  It was and
still is just not viable unless you are one of the bigger fish.   Not a
single act I booked turned out to be totally live.   The crowd danced and a
good time was had by all.   If somebody had started running round the stage
pointing their finger shouting "Your not live! Your not live!" would anyone
in the crowd have really cared? Demanded their money back? I doubt it.
They would probably have told him to shut up and dance.   In 3 years and 150
odd acts we never received a single complaint.  Some might say it is a
deception,  but I think not.  The punters are not stupid,  most I talked
with understand that live dance music is way more difficult and fraught with
problems than with other non-programmed music styles.  Given the choice
between seeing a good dance band playing off dat/partially live and not
seeing them at all, virtually people all I am sure would choose to see them.

The only major band we had was Apollo440 and they invited themselves to
promote a new single.   I didn't really think their music was close enought
to what we usually played, but we said yes anyway.  We didn't have to pay
them and they were only doing 2 songs.   I can tell you half of Sony Music's
technical division came down.   The stage was _full_ of gear,  the
dancefloor, which is not big,  had a huge engineers platform in the middle,
snakes all over the floor.  All that money and manpower just for 2 songs
that turned out to be less than impressive.  Even the sound quality was no
better than any of our other bands.

> honourable mentions also go out to spooky, system 7
> (who improvise guitar and synths whilst dj-ing),
> pychick warriors of gaia, fluke, speedy j, the aloof,
> red snapper and many more.

The odd live synth noise, allows the band to say they play some live synths.
A few drum pads and a guitar are also common ways of boosting 'live'
credibilty.   Those big fish bands you list above will have varying degrees
of liveness, but there is no clear distintion between what is truly live and
what is not.  Does a couple of improvised instruments over a backing track
constitute 'live'?

So to sum up:
All dance bands want in their hearts to play live.   A lot can't because
they do not have the resources/roadies for a big, reliable and musicaly
faithful rig.  A lot of bands are in that grey area inbetween bounced audio
track/DAT and midi/live instruments.
Whatever they are doing, only a po-faced party-pooper would go round
scrutinising their rigs and kicking up a fuss.

regards Hector.

I have the Underworld Live DVD.  The songs are songs - lengthened perhaps but 
not the improvisorial freedom you discuss. In fact, it seemed that most of 
their musicianship was manning mixing desks - rather than keyboards. They 
fiddle with the faders a bit. 

Many non-techno artists use some degree of sequnencing with some live 
elements - Madonna, Janet Jackson, Depeche Mode. ... even BT. I saw him live 
about 2 years ago - a great concert that appeared to be mostly live actually 
but I read it was all sequenced.

So can some of you outline for us how techno music is made.. things different 
that non-techno?

sorry hector,

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?

[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...]

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...

no, i don't think pob were 'as live' as this... but
they had two personnel on stage, who were both 'doing
something live' the whole time (whether it was
tweaking/percussion/synth lines or whatever). how much
can two people do? (the image of those old
one-man-band guys with bass drums on their backs
springs to mind here, it just wouldn't look right on
stage would it? ;)



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

TazmnianDv@... wrote: <I have the Underworld Live
DVD.  The songs are songs - lengthened perhaps but not
the improvisorial freedom you discuss.>

... i would agree to a certain extent there (this had
to be the case because the dvd project was a huge one
financially, perhaps these gigs were more carefully
planned then their usual ones?) but quite a few of the
tracks differ from their 'recorded versions' quite
significantly (compare 'cups' with the album version)
or have new sections ('push upstairs', 'king of
snake') that didn't exist on vinyl. i've heard them
combine elements of two or three different tracks at
once in a live situation, i would call that
improvisation (especially as they claim to never
rehearse).


<In fact, it seemed that most of their musicianship
was manning mixing desks - rather than keyboards. They
fiddle with the faders a bit.>

... you've hit the nail on the head there, though i  
suspect you didn't intend to. they use the entire
set-up as 'an instrument'. one of the things that most
excites them in a live scenario is knowing that
because everything is bought in on-the-fly like this
anything could happen, so 'bringing in the wrong sound
at the wrong time' would have them improvise around
the mistake and make it 'work'. 

<Many non-techno artists use some degree of
sequnencing with some live elements - Madonna, Janet
Jackson, Depeche Mode. ... even BT. I saw him live 
about 2 years ago - a great concert that appeared to
be mostly live actually but I read it was all
sequenced.

So can some of you outline for us how techno music
is made.. things different 
that non-techno?>

... i would suggest that maybe these acts that you
mentioned (with possible exception of bt and depeche
mode) incorporate sequencing into their live set-up
(usually as a finished arrangement, the other
musicians playing along to the sequencer) whereas the
live techno musicians would improvise the arrangement
with sequenced loops, ie: making up the arrangement in real-time.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

> 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.

> So can some of you outline for us how techno music is made.. things
different
> that non-techno?

It is simply sequenced drum samples, synth lines and other samples throught
a load of fx.   However you do need a whole set of specific skills to make
good dance music.   A good ear for timbre and a love of synthesis is a good
start.  The ability to create and recognise a good groove is also essencial.
Seems like a black art to me.  But I am forced to teach myself.   Even if
you had performance keyboard skills I doubt they would used much in a live
situation.  There is not much natural loose human timing and performance in
the majority dance music.  The synth lines are often so simple and
repetitive that it might even look silly trying to play them.

regards Hector.

Hector

You justify almost everything you do by what the punter wants!
It's good of you to justtify fraud. In my experience in europe, the 
average punter did not know that almost everything they were 
seeing when they went to see a "live" gig, was faked!
Why not advertise it truthfully?
Something like.... come see the faces of the people who made
these tracks, stand in front of you and pose and pretend their 
playing live while they play the record in the backround.....
But i guess that wouldn't bring in the same crowds....so
that would be unnacceptable for you....
It's all about large crowds =ing "good" in your opinion???
Large crowds used to gather for public executions....
According to your logic, because large crowds would attend, 
maybe we should bring back the public executions.....
Think of it, you could dj at the gig, make a few bucks and satisfy
the publics wants all at the same time.
Mcdonalds and nike need your morals now!
I would post your resume ito them f i were you.

john
 


--- In logic-ot@y..., "Hector" <hector@n...> wrote:
> > quote from hector <Dance music is totaly preprogrammed
> > most of the time and cannot be played live. Those that
> > attempt to play live, offer music that is way below
> > the standard of their vinyl releases thus
> > dissappointing the audience...>
> >
> > ... you won't mind if i disagreee with you here
> > hector? :)
> >
> 
> Of course I don't mind!   However, in that quote I  should have 
said :
> '...and cannot _easily_ be played live. _Most_ of those that 
attempt to...'
> 
> > i have seen many live techno acts and most of them
> > have been extraordinary!
> >
> 
> Yes, there are some that are live, and some that appear to be 
live.  But how
> many are really live? And what is 'live' in a dance music context 
anyway?
> 
> > take, for instance, underworld (probably the best live
> > band of this ilk that i've had the pleasure of
> > seeing). they agree on an opening track before hand
> > and then improvise the set-listing and the tracks as
> > they go along. tracks can merge into other tracks,
> > parts that were never there on the vinyl versions are
> > added and the whole vibe is like nothing i've ever
> > seen! no two gigs are ever the same.
> 
> Yes I have read a good Sound On Sound interview with 
Underworld and in it
> they show off their live rig.   It cosists of  a _lot_  of gear,  
requiring
> roadies,   all way too expensive for the average underground 
producer.
> 
> > then you have people like orbital (who i saw only a
> > couple of weeks ago!) who most fans would agree are
> > better live than on record...
> 
> Again, bands such Orbital, the Chemicals etc... have got the 
money.   Even
> then, when I heard the Chemicals live 2 years ago at 
Glastonbury I thought
> they were dreadful, and nothing like their records.  Some 
drums and two
> analogue synths being tweaked live for an hour.  About was 
about as
> interesting as watching paint dry,  they need not have bothered.
> 
> > you might have heard of pob? (on platipus records) ...
> > seen them play a blinding live set too!
> 
> Yes,  I have a few of their records.   Unless you are a close 
friend of them
> I don't see how you can be 100% sure that they are totally live.   
Bands
> always say they are live.   It is very easily to create an 
impression of
> being live by showing a sequencer with a moving time-line.   
How many
> bounced down audio tracks are they allowed before it is no 
longer live.
> There could be an audio track playing the whole song bounced 
down,  how
> would you know?   It's a damn sight less risky for them than 
relying wholely
> on a load of midi gear.
> 
> A few years back when I was booking dj's and 'live' acts for a 
weekly night
> at Heaven in London,  I saw loads of different ways of faking it.   
These
> were underground bands that did not have the money for a live 
midi setup,
> that sounded like their records and would not fail on them.  It 
was and
> still is just not viable unless you are one of the bigger fish.   Not 
a
> single act I booked turned out to be totally live.   The crowd 
danced and a
> good time was had by all.   If somebody had started running 
round the stage
> pointing their finger shouting "Your not live! Your not live!" 
would anyone
> in the crowd have really cared? Demanded their money back? I 
doubt it.
> They would probably have told him to shut up and dance.   In 3 
years and 150
> odd acts we never received a single complaint.  Some might 
say it is a
> deception,  but I think not.  The punters are not stupid,  most I 
talked
> with understand that live dance music is way more difficult and 
fraught with
> problems than with other non-programmed music styles.  
Given the choice
> between seeing a good dance band playing off dat/partially live 
and not
> seeing them at all, virtually people all I am sure would choose 
to see them.
> 
> The only major band we had was Apollo440 and they invited 
themselves to
> promote a new single.   I didn't really think their music was 
close enought
> to what we usually played, but we said yes anyway.  We didn't 
have to pay
> them and they were only doing 2 songs.   I can tell you half of 
Sony Music's
> technical division came down.   The stage was _full_ of gear,  
the
> dancefloor, which is not big,  had a huge engineers platform in 
the middle,
> snakes all over the floor.  All that money and manpower just for 
2 songs
> that turned out to be less than impressive.  Even the sound 
quality was no
> better than any of our other bands.
> 
> > honourable mentions also go out to spooky, system 7
> > (who improvise guitar and synths whilst dj-ing),
> > pychick warriors of gaia, fluke, speedy j, the aloof,
> > red snapper and many more.
> 
> The odd live synth noise, allows the band to say they play 
some live synths.
> A few drum pads and a guitar are also common ways of 
boosting 'live'
> credibilty.   Those big fish bands you list above will have 
varying degrees
> of liveness, but there is no clear distintion between what is truly 
live and
> what is not.  Does a couple of improvised instruments over a 
backing track
> constitute 'live'?
> 
> So to sum up:
> All dance bands want in their hearts to play live.   A lot can't 
because
> they do not have the resources/roadies for a big, reliable and 
musicaly
> faithful rig.  A lot of bands are in that grey area inbetween 
bounced audio
> track/DAT and midi/live instruments.
> Whatever they are doing, only a po-faced party-pooper would 
go round

> scrutinising their rigs and kicking up a fuss.
> 
> regards Hector.

Hector

You justify almost everything you do by what the punter wants!
It's good of you to justtify fraud. In my experience in europe, the 
average punter did not know that almost everything they were 
seeing when they went to see a "live" gig, was faked!
Why not advertise it truthfully?
Something like.... come see the faces of the people who made
these tracks, stand in front of you and pose and pretend their 
playing live while they play the record in the backround.....
But i guess that wouldn't bring in the same crowds....so
that would be unnacceptable for you....
It's all about large crowds =ing "good" in your opinion???
Large crowds used to gather for public executions....
According to your logic, because large crowds would attend, 
maybe we should bring back the public executions.....
Think of it, you could dj at the gig, make a few bucks and satisfy
the publics wants all at the same time.
Mcdonalds and nike need your morals now!
I would post your resume ito them f i were you.

john
 


--- In logic-ot@y..., "Hector" <hector@n...> wrote:
> > quote from hector <Dance music is totaly preprogrammed
> > most of the time and cannot be played live. Those that
> > attempt to play live, offer music that is way below
> > the standard of their vinyl releases thus
> > dissappointing the audience...>
> >
> > ... you won't mind if i disagreee with you here
> > hector? :)
> >
> 
> Of course I don't mind!   However, in that quote I  should have 
said :
> '...and cannot _easily_ be played live. _Most_ of those that 
attempt to...'
> 
> > i have seen many live techno acts and most of them
> > have been extraordinary!
> >
> 
> Yes, there are some that are live, and some that appear to be 
live.  But how
> many are really live? And what is 'live' in a dance music context 
anyway?
> 
> > take, for instance, underworld (probably the best live
> > band of this ilk that i've had the pleasure of
> > seeing). they agree on an opening track before hand
> > and then improvise the set-listing and the tracks as
> > they go along. tracks can merge into other tracks,
> > parts that were never there on the vinyl versions are
> > added and the whole vibe is like nothing i've ever
> > seen! no two gigs are ever the same.
> 
> Yes I have read a good Sound On Sound interview with 
Underworld and in it
> they show off their live rig.   It cosists of  a _lot_  of gear,  
requiring
> roadies,   all way too expensive for the average underground 
producer.
> 
> > then you have people like orbital (who i saw only a
> > couple of weeks ago!) who most fans would agree are
> > better live than on record...
> 
> Again, bands such Orbital, the Chemicals etc... have got the 
money.   Even
> then, when I heard the Chemicals live 2 years ago at 
Glastonbury I thought
> they were dreadful, and nothing like their records.  Some 
drums and two
> analogue synths being tweaked live for an hour.  About was 
about as
> interesting as watching paint dry,  they need not have bothered.
> 
> > you might have heard of pob? (on platipus records) ...
> > seen them play a blinding live set too!
> 
> Yes,  I have a few of their records.   Unless you are a close 
friend of them
> I don't see how you can be 100% sure that they are totally live.   
Bands
> always say they are live.   It is very easily to create an 
impression of
> being live by showing a sequencer with a moving time-line.   
How many
> bounced down audio tracks are they allowed before it is no 
longer live.
> There could be an audio track playing the whole song bounced 
down,  how
> would you know?   It's a damn sight less risky for them than 
relying wholely
> on a load of midi gear.
> 
> A few years back when I was booking dj's and 'live' acts for a 
weekly night
> at Heaven in London,  I saw loads of different ways of faking it.   
These
> were underground bands that did not have the money for a live 
midi setup,
> that sounded like their records and would not fail on them.  It 
was and
> still is just not viable unless you are one of the bigger fish.   Not 
a
> single act I booked turned out to be totally live.   The crowd 
danced and a
> good time was had by all.   If somebody had started running 
round the stage
> pointing their finger shouting "Your not live! Your not live!" 
would anyone
> in the crowd have really cared? Demanded their money back? I 
doubt it.
> They would probably have told him to shut up and dance.   In 3 
years and 150
> odd acts we never received a single complaint.  Some might 
say it is a
> deception,  but I think not.  The punters are not stupid,  most I 
talked
> with understand that live dance music is way more difficult and 
fraught with
> problems than with other non-programmed music styles.  
Given the choice
> between seeing a good dance band playing off dat/partially live 
and not
> seeing them at all, virtually people all I am sure would choose 
to see them.
> 
> The only major band we had was Apollo440 and they invited 
themselves to
> promote a new single.   I didn't really think their music was 
close enought
> to what we usually played, but we said yes anyway.  We didn't 
have to pay
> them and they were only doing 2 songs.   I can tell you half of 
Sony Music's
> technical division came down.   The stage was _full_ of gear,  
the
> dancefloor, which is not big,  had a huge engineers platform in 
the middle,
> snakes all over the floor.  All that money and manpower just for 
2 songs
> that turned out to be less than impressive.  Even the sound 
quality was no
> better than any of our other bands.
> 
> > honourable mentions also go out to spooky, system 7
> > (who improvise guitar and synths whilst dj-ing),
> > pychick warriors of gaia, fluke, speedy j, the aloof,
> > red snapper and many more.
> 
> The odd live synth noise, allows the band to say they play 
some live synths.
> A few drum pads and a guitar are also common ways of 
boosting 'live'
> credibilty.   Those big fish bands you list above will have 
varying degrees
> of liveness, but there is no clear distintion between what is truly 
live and
> what is not.  Does a couple of improvised instruments over a 
backing track
> constitute 'live'?
> 
> So to sum up:
> All dance bands want in their hearts to play live.   A lot can't 
because
> they do not have the resources/roadies for a big, reliable and 
musicaly
> faithful rig.  A lot of bands are in that grey area inbetween 
bounced audio
> track/DAT and midi/live instruments.
> Whatever they are doing, only a po-faced party-pooper would 
go round

> scrutinising their rigs and kicking up a fuss.
> 
> regards Hector.

At 17:38 Uhr +0200 08.07.2002, serverxyz wrote:

Hi,

I mostly agree with the stuff you write, but could you please edit your
replies?

Thanx,

Tobias

John wrote:
>In my experience in europe, the
> average punter did not know that almost everything they were
> seeing when they went to see a "live" gig, was faked!
> Why not advertise it truthfully?

Because once again there is that middle-ground grey area in which most bands
reside.  As has already been discussed in some detail,  it is very hard to
judge just how 'live' a lot of them are.     One could try to put a figure
on it, advertising band X as 40% live but that is obviously a ridiculous
thing to do.   These days most bands make an effort to run at least a little
midi gear from a sequencer, backed up by bounced audio tracks.  Few rely
entirely on a dat.   It is my opinion that no band that needs a sequencer to
process and use performance information is 100% live.

It really isn't as clear cut as you think.   For that reason, accusations of
fraud toward these bands, from certain minorities, are pretty much
unavoidable.

Regards Hector.

Hector, if some musicians did not break some rules and not
cow tow to the "crowd"  your beloved trance music would never 
have come about in the first place! Try thinking about this, and try 
realising how similar your ideas are to that of the current right 
wing.
  thanks
   john

--- In logic-ot@y..., "Hector" <hector@n...> wrote:
> John wrote:
> >In my experience in europe, the
> > average punter did not know that almost everything they were
> > seeing when they went to see a "live" gig, was faked!
> > Why not advertise it truthfully?
> 
> Because once again there is that middle-ground grey area in 
which most bands
> reside.  As has already been discussed in some detail,  it is 
very hard to
> judge just how 'live' a lot of them are.     One could try to put a 
figure
> on it, advertising band X as 40% live but that is obviously a 
ridiculous
> thing to do.   These days most bands make an effort to run at 
least a little
> midi gear from a sequencer, backed up by bounced audio 
tracks.  Few rely
> entirely on a dat.   It is my opinion that no band that needs a 
sequencer to
> process and use performance information is 100% live.
> 
> It really isn't as clear cut as you think.   For that reason, 
accusations of
> fraud toward these bands, from certain minorities, are pretty 
much

> unavoidable.
> 
> Regards Hector.

Thoughts from the mind of serverxyz, 08-07-2002:

>According to your logic, because large crowds would attend,
>maybe we should bring back the public executions.....

Now here's an idea...  I know some people...

:-)

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

> Hector, if some musicians did not break some rules and not
> cow tow to the "crowd"  your beloved trance music would never
> have come about in the first place!

_All_ musicians break somebody else's rules, some do it more than others.
There are no written rules. What is a rule in one person's mind is not
necessarily a rule in another's.   There were _no_ universally accepted
rules.  People did as they wanted in studios,  and genres were allowed to
form because of that.

It is a shame I should be having to repeat myself.  The words below are
quoted from my own previous posting.    Did you  read them?

'just look at the genre 'psychedelic trance'.  There is and has
been an enormous amount of sonic innovation/experimentation. Sure, you could
do so much to a track that it becomes virtually unrecognisable as being part
of a particular genre.  But a lot of producers don't want to and prefer to
stick _loosely_ to styles that they know and love.  Just because there are
many people that like to take their music to completely new/original
structures and styles, it does not mean that _everybody_ has to do this and
should
be criticised if they don't.'

'The truth is that most DJ's, like myself, fall
into a middle-ground or grey area where _some_ risky new stuff is tried out,
but most music played is in a style that the crowd wants and expects.'

'It is perfectly possible to, within the course of a DJ set, to be
innovative/creative  _and_  play a lot of what a crowd wants to hear. The
tricky bit is
getting the balance right.'

The two quotes above referring to dj'ing apply just as much to bands.

Regards Hector.