Ringmod wrote:
>Every time you record a track, you
are performing it to the multi-tracker, then the next track and so on
and so on. The multi-tracker becomes much like a sequencer.<
Not exactly. A sequencer controls the synthesizer; a multi-tracker
simply records.
>Now if you were to perform one of compositions live, you would needa
group of musicians or synthesists to play all of the different voices
in your compositions. I'm sure this would be a huge endeavour, you
would have to score each part then rehearse it to a point where it's
presentable to an audience.<
I wouldn't see the point of performing my compositions live--they are
supposed to be heard (inflicted?) in their recorded form. To play
them live would simply be a recital.
>Your taste for structured compositons makes it hard to accept all
the elements of live EM music. I would recommend you go see Robert
Rich or The Orb in a live setting and get a glow happening and absorb
the vibe. Keep an open mind, you may like it or totally hate it.<
It might amuse you to know that I did a live EM performance including
soprano, tape, and slinky spring reverb as a high school project in
1972. Some of the teachers hated it, but I got an A. :-) About
three years later, I "performed" at an experimental art expo using
home-built sequencers and modules (RTL ICs!). The audience dug it,
but I'm sure half of them were high.
And there are records in my collection that would make Yoko Ono sound
tame...
Mind you, I'm by no means anti-sequencer. I just abhore the way they
are generally used. Sequencers are great for switching multiple
parameters quickly. When used as a keyboard substitute, they should
be applied sparingly--as with certain spices. Great for a blip here
or a run there, but robotic and uninteresting as too often heard
today.
Speaking of sequencers, the new MOTM sequencer looks extremely
interesting, but hard to convert to a .com format.
>Not making trouble, just trying to present a different view.<
It was a very interesting post! Thanks.
johnm