MOTM

>>Answer: dedication to a personal vision of art.<<

I thought that was what CD's were for.  Seems like his vision of art was lost 
on that crowd.

>>Not everyone in this world is focused on "What's in it for ME?!?"<<

It should be "what's the best use of my limited time for creating something new 
and what will be enjoyable to the greatest number of people".  Seems like 
roaming the country and playing for a couple dozen people is more the life of a 
starving muscian.

>>c) Robert enjoys travelling<<

But travelling with a boat load of gear doesn't sound very enjoyable. Maybe 
that's just my vision of hell.

>>d) Robert enjoys meeting people as much as he enjoys playing<<

He'd do better at NAMM.

-Elhardt

>>> Answer: dedication to a personal vision of art.<<
> 
> I thought that was what CD's were for.  Seems like his vision of art was lost
> on that crowd.

Depends on whether the vision involves CDs as an end product, or live
playing, or both. Many people play live to promote CD sales. Many people
play live simply because they enjoy it.

>>> Not everyone in this world is focused on "What's in it for ME?!?"<<
> 
> It should be "what's the best use of my limited time for creating something
> new 
> and what will be enjoyable to the greatest number of people".

"should be" according to whom? You? Some universal law of how people should
spend their time and energy? Why does the "greatest number of people" enter
into it? By that measure we should all be attempting to emulate Britney
Spears and the Backstreet Boys.
 
>>> c) Robert enjoys travelling<<
> 
> But travelling with a boat load of gear doesn't sound very enjoyable. Maybe
> that's just my vision of hell.

He seemed to be enjoying it when I spent the day with him during his last
tour. I'll tell you how he's doing when he passes through here in late July
(if you're interested, but I get the impression you're not).
 
>>> d) Robert enjoys meeting people as much as he enjoys playing<<
> 
> He'd do better at NAMM.

He does that, too. That's where I met him. NAMM's a hard place to have
conversations, though--too noisy.

You seem to be inferring a lot from a second-hand account of one
performance. 
 
--Adam

> Ah ha.  As a synthesist, I synthesize sounds.  If I just used acoustic
> musicians or samples, I wouldn't be synthesist.  Much as a painter 
> paints a
> picture instead of just taking a photo of it.

You got it.

To take it one step further: for some it's about getting to the 
synthesized sound, not so much the sound itself. Like a painter 
understanding light by trying to emulate it. Once you've understood it, 
then it's about bending the rules that bind it to normalcy...

> Uh, because then Paul's statement "What's in it for ME?" is flawed.  
> Now
> that we know Rich loves to travel, play live, talk to people, then he 
> is
> doing it for himself.  If he weren't, then he'd be concentrating on 
> pleasing
> more of his fans with new releases.

His fans get a kick out of watching him live too. I'm flying to another 
state just so I can see him live... Playing live is not like playing in 
a studio. While most electronic music is chiefly a studio form, there 
are electronic musicians who only really shine on stage. I want the 
experience, the other people there, the energy that comes from a 
feedback loop between those on stage and those watching and listening.

> I some cases you don't see them.  In some cases you want to see playing
> technique.  Watching a pianist bang out a complicated concerto for 
> instance.
> That's where you'll have to see my other post about self running 
> drones and
> computer sequencers.

I think it's pretty interesting to watch someone modify a large 
complicated modular synth in realtime to generate new and interesting 
sounds. Even if he has spent the last six months practicing. It's more 
interesting than sitting at home listening to a static CD.   I don't go 
to a basket ball game to watch amateurs, I go to watch professionals 
who practice hard do something difficult. Same thing with a concert.

It's inspiring.

--mikes

Hathan Durham writes:
>>Probably for a similar reason to somebody who spends hours everyday for
weeks on end trying to emulate acoustic instruments when he could easily get
someone to perform his music on the original instruments (and spend that
time and energy on the next composition.)  :-)<<

Ah ha.  As a synthesist, I synthesize sounds.  If I just used acoustic
musicians or samples, I wouldn't be synthesist.  Much as a painter paints a
picture instead of just taking a photo of it.

Adam Schabtach writes:
>>"should be" according to whom? You? Some universal law of how people
should spend their time and energy? Why does the "greatest number of people"
enter into it?<<

Uh, because then Paul's statement "What's in it for ME?" is flawed.  Now
that we know Rich loves to travel, play live, talk to people, then he is
doing it for himself.  If he weren't, then he'd be concentrating on pleasing
more of his fans with new releases.

Les Mizzell writes:
>>Uhhhh...why go see the London Symphony play "The Firebird" when you've got
the CD?<<

I some cases you don't see them.  In some cases you want to see playing
technique.  Watching a pianist bang out a complicated concerto for instance.
That's where you'll have to see my other post about self running drones and
computer sequencers.

>>Maybe I placed too much emphasis on the one jerk in the group that didn't
need to be there,<<

Or the large portion who walked out.  But that was before Rich performed as
you mentioned.

>>Third, I'm sure there are much better audiences for his shows than down
here in the "Freebird Lives Forever" South.<<

Yes, it was the target audience that also didn't seem right.

>>Hey, it was worth the three hour drive for me! You should have been there,
then maybe you'd understand.<<

I'm already familiar with some of his music.  I prefer more conventional
music that is composed and structured with melody and whatnot.  Infact
Robert Rich had a link on his site to another group I quite liked that I
need to get back to.  But even if it were that, I'm not driving across an
entire state to see it.  Although I could visit Bob Moog and teepee his
house.

-Elhardt

mikes wrote:

>I think it's pretty interesting to watch someone modify a large 
complicated modular synth in realtime to generate new and interesting 
sounds.<

But that's not performing; that's twiddling.

I honestly don't mean any disrespect to RR--I just don't get it. Can 
you imagine somebody actually *writing* and performing 80 minutes of 
music?  It would be a monumental task--like Bach's B Minor Mass or 
something. Why would people travel long distances to hear a sequencer 
go chugga-chugga-thump-thump with a twiddle here and there?  

I love the recording quality of "Bestiary" (it is so clean you can 
eat off of it) but where's the structure?  I just hear a lot of 
amorphous sound effects and droning--and that quickly grows tiresome.

Did Subotnick et al. raise the bar too high too early on?  I'm 
begining to wonder.

johnm (not making trouble--genuinely confused)

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "konkuro" <konkuro@a...> wrote:
> mikes wrote:
> ....that's not performing; that's twiddling.
> 

That's a good point.

I try to get to any electronic music concerts I can, and find that 
many of them are marred by a lack of attention or skill in the area 
of performance. 

People have a good idea of what's going on when you pluck a guitar 
string or blow a horn, but people have no idea what's going on during 
a lot of electronic music performances. The performer needs to fill 
that void, or it is twiddling.

A exciting performance isn't just hearing great music played live. 
There's a lot more to it: visual elements, being in a unique acoustic 
spaces, the sense of risk, spontaneous invention, and the social 
feelings of being part of an event, or of being with like-minded 
people. All of these things can contribute to a good concert. 

I've seen very few great performers that did not take advantage of 
the visual aspect of performance. Most use there faces and bodies to 
express the same feelings that they are expressing through music. Too 
many EM performances look like you're watching a lab experiment, 
rather than something that's full of passion. 

EM performances often lack the sense that something difficult is 
going on. It's exciting to see virtuosity, even to hear a few 
mistakes, and feel that struggle to make something beautiful come out 
of a hunk of wood and metal. 

If you ever get a chance to see Tangerine Dream, you'll see what I 
mean. They put on a good show, but it's sometimes a little clinical 
or lacking in passion because they spend most of their time 
triggering and mixing sequences at consoles.

About 2/3 through the show, though, they strap on their guitars, come 
to the front of the stage and rock out over the sequenced backing. 
The audience eats it up, because suddenly there's a person doing 
something expressive visually, you know they're doing something 
difficult, and they're improvising, so who knows what could happen?

Performances can also be special because of things like the acoustics 
of an interesting performance space, or just being with other people 
interested in this stuff...

:: But that's not performing; that's twiddling.
:: Why would people travel long distances to hear a sequencer
:: go chugga-chugga-thump-thump with a twiddle here and there?

I would say that Robert's live performance had vastly more structure and
"meat" than "Bestiary" or "Outpost" (both of which do have structure, you
just have to listen for it). I'm not as familiar with the works earlier than
"Bestiary", but there were sections of the show that evoked a spacey "Last
Temptation of Christ" feel, percussion and all. I figured what I got was a
very carefully constructed "best of" medley of the high points of a number
of works.  I've started a dialog with Robert on exactly how he structures
the show flow and stuff. I'll add to the discussion on this later when I've
more time.

Robert spent the majority of the show either playing one of his many bamboo
flutes or his steel guitar, so he was performing most of the time and not
"tweaking".  At times, Elhardt, this was very melodic and beautiful and had
a definite verse/chorus/bridge/verse type structure. There would also be
another instrument in the mix doubling his flute melody or providing
counterpoint from time to time, proving that he wasn't just "noodling". He
spent very little time actually tweaking the MOTM, and when he did, it was
usually a practiced but quick tweak between getting from point A to point C.

Unlike the lethargic "drone guy" playing before him that moved at the speed
of a 3 toed sloth, Robert had to keep up this very carefully choreographed,
almost frantic, dance between the different instruments, often having a
flute tucked under his arm as he adjusted the MOTM or was playing his steel
guitar so he'd be sure to have it ready when needed. He moved around a lot
and was actually quite entertaining to watch.

As mentioned before, this was a great experience to me to see how somebody
else pulled it off, which he does an amazing job of. I've got a better idea
how to do what I want now. Best idea of style I can give anybody - throw
some Harry Partch, Tangerine Dream, Robert Rich, Kit Watkins, Michael Sterns
and Debussy into a blender and see what comes out... Why would I want to try
this live instead of just recording in the studio? First, I'm completely
nutz. Second, I *need* to.  I can't explain that to anybody buy my wife, who
being a choreographer/dancer, understands. Third, I *know* there at least a
few folks out there that will appreciate it, and I could care less about
anybody else. Forth, because I think I can actually pull it off!

I've also got a second "live" ambition, and don't laugh, but I'm considering
forming a sorta "neo-classical" ensemble that would cover a pretty wide
range, from (oxymoron alert!) serious  Mannheim Steamroller (Minus the
cheeze! ACK!) to some light chamber music and such. No sequencing or tape
playback please!  I believe this would be pretty light hearted and just
darned fun to do, and would actually be able to make some money! Besides,
I'd maybe get to drag out my tenor recorder, which I need to be rehearsing
on more...

My 2 cents worth at this point in time.

Les

> If you ever get a chance to see Tangerine Dream, you'll see what I
> mean. They put on a good show, but it's sometimes a little clinical
> or lacking in passion because they spend most of their time
> triggering and mixing sequences at consoles.
> 
> About 2/3 through the show, though, they strap on their guitars, come
> to the front of the stage and rock out over the sequenced backing.

I'd find that rather disappointing. I mean, if I wanted to see a
guitar-playing rock band, I'd go see a guitar-playing rock band.

I'll admit, though, to losing interest in TD when "Optical Race" came out.

--Adam

To reiterate what Les pointed out:

The MOTM is used as the "rhythm section". Robert plays 3 other keyboards, the flutes and the
pedal steel all in real time. Without redoing "The First Moog Quartet" thing, how to you 'play' a
multitimbral, polyphonic modular in real-time?

And I'm sorry if Elhardt got the impression Robert was just mimicing the CD note for note. What
he does in concert is play really a montage of sorts spanning 15 years of work. If you are a big
fan and have many of his CDs, what you realize is that every one is *different*. They still sound
"like Robert Rich" but some are tuned in JI ('Numena'), some are abstact ('Bestiary' and 'Below
Zero') and some are 80's New Age ('Humidity'). In order to "pull it off", it IS a very rehearsed
show. But so was watching Virgil Fox pound the hell out of his Allen organ in 1978. Doesn't mean
I didn't enjoy it.

Beside....how many OTHER people can you go see this year with a modular on stage?

Paul S.

>
> Beside....how many OTHER people can you go see this year with a modular on stage?
>
> Paul S.
>

 Actually Robert will be the second person this year with a modular on
stage at the Soundscapes Concert Series in Bethlehem, PA. :-)
Fact: 3 of the 5 Soundscapes concerts featured MOTM as the
main modular analog synth. These MOTM synths really get around!
Some pics from the "Ice House" Soundscapes #1 and #3 here:
http://www.geocities.com/orbitaldecay_99/playingmotm.html
And a few dark pics of the MOTM live on WXPN (Starsend)
studio in Philadelphia,PA.
http://www.starsend.org/orbitaldecay.html

Robert will appear at Soundscapes #5 on July 12.
I'll be there.
http://soundscapes.us/

Terry (The Casio Kid)

Excellent post, Les (elle, too). I shall ponder all of those points. 

Les: please note that although Elhardt likes to substitute for me 
when I'm away (who can blam him?)it was I and not he who made 
the "twiddling" comment.

Maybe I'll attend the next RR show in the Bay Area.  But please, no 
Bestiary!  :-)

johnm

Hi,

:: )it was I and not he who made the "twiddling" comment.

Yep, but it was Elhardt that made the "I only like music with a melody"
(probably a slight misquote - sorry!) comment earlier! I was just showing
that some of Robert's stuff does indeed have nice haunting melodies!

This has been a very good discussion so far, and nobody has gotten around to
slinging anything thing at anybody else either!!!  I do believe it's been
pretty educational for those following it.

>> I think it's pretty interesting to watch someone modify a large
> complicated modular synth in realtime to generate new and interesting
> sounds.<
>
> But that's not performing; that's twiddling.

I think your definition of performing involves instruments that play 
notes. This probably excludes things like turntablists, trigger 
samplers, faders, and knob twiddlers. No offense ment here, but I think 
that's a rather limited view of what constitutes a performance. Knob 
twiddling and turntablism are about "a sound" and the qualitative value 
of a sound. Not notes. This is something that seems to be hard for 
people to wrap their heads around, especially the older generation that 
didn't grow up with it. To get a real appreciation for this I suggest 
trying it. It's a lot harder than it looks....

> I honestly don't mean any disrespect to RR--I just don't get it. Can
> you imagine somebody actually *writing* and performing 80 minutes of
> music?

Yes, I can. 80 minutes, if you've ever performed live, is a flash in 
the pan. You set up a basic structure that binds the set together, and 
then you improvise to the crowd and the moment. It's intoxicating.

> It would be a monumental task--like Bach's B Minor Mass or
> something. Why would people travel long distances to hear a sequencer
> go chugga-chugga-thump-thump with a twiddle here and there?

I don't think you will find the answer to that in a news group. If you 
truly are interested I suggest finding some electronic acts and see 
them play live. i highly recommend the Orb, Dub Tribe, Simon Posford 
(in various forms), and the Chemical Brothers. They're all knobs 
twiddlers (and some keyboardists) but they can bring the house down.

> I love the recording quality of "Bestiary" (it is so clean you can
> eat off of it) but where's the structure?  I just hear a lot of
> amorphous sound effects and droning--and that quickly grows tiresome.

The structure is in the sounds. If you're looking for arp lines, highly 
rhythmic structure and chords then this music is probably not for you, 
there is plenty to cover that realm. If you can let go of of the 
traditional western music structure for a moment and instead think 
"music as qualitative sound" you might find whole new realms to 
explore. I like bestiary for the same reason I like "Lifeforms" by 
Future Sound of London. Because it creates another "world" of sound. I 
like hearing new stuff.

> johnm (not making trouble--genuinely confused)

I will forever be fascinated by the short comings of communication via 
email. So much is lost with out the vocal and facial expressions.

If you truly are interested in finding out, go exploring. Trying a 
concert you wouldn't normally like/enjoy/go to and try to get in the 
audiences head. I went to a Suicidal Tendencies concert once.... it 
was.... interesting.

^_^

--mikes

On Saturday, June 21, 2003, at 5:32 AM, elle_webb wrote:

> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "konkuro" <konkuro@a...> wrote:
>> mikes wrote:
>> ....that's not performing; that's twiddling.
>>
>
> That's a good point.
>
> I try to get to any electronic music concerts I can, and find that
> many of them are marred by a lack of attention or skill in the area
> of performance.

Amen. There is something missing from *most* electronic acts. But not 
all...

I think something is lost when you don't have to bang out every single 
note on stage. But there are performers that really shine on stage 
twiddling knobs over sequences. The Orb come to mind. Mixer + DJ + 
Keyboardist. Man, I've never seen anyone *play* a mixer like their mix 
master. His hands just fly around like a crazed bouncing monkey. You 
can feel the music being mixed. Live. Mistakes and all. It's one of the 
better shows I've ever been too..

Re: post by Mikes:

Er.... Did you read all of the replies to this subject before posting?

I just want you to know that I'm showing uncharacteristic restraint, 
as your post demonstrates just how low the bar has dropped. But this 
forum isn't my normal haunt, so I won't go on a six-page tirade.

But here's a hint: Instead of using a turntable as a sound effects 
device, try listening to the original material that is on those 
records. There really is a difference between creating something and 
regurgitating it. 

johnm (breathing very deeply)

I went to a Suicidal Tendencies concert once.... it 
> was.... interesting.
 --mikes

I LOVE Suicidal Tendencies!  Are they still haunting Venice?

Um...can we now start a discussion about synthesis?  Honestly, there
are so many talented musicians in this group (seriously, I just got my
morning dose of Dave Trenkle's "Piss Ankle Brothers", so I'm feeling a
bit punchy...) that have very cool synths.  Many of you have very cool
IDEAS as well.  This would make far more interesting intercourse than
the subject being beaten to death here.

If anyone wants an MMT-8 or a circuit idea, you know where to reach me.
I'm working on a VC digital noise/random control voltage source while
listening to a gentle "environmental" patch on the Engine of Chaos.
Thus begins my Sunday!

Chub

hello all,
i think this is such a personal subject for many
i feel very lucky to have worked with the orb from 89 to 95 (on and off
towards the end) at their label / management / tour management, i think the
thing that got them going was the ability to translate their (originally)
sample based material into a full live band (not forgetting the great
projections) , while many other artists (with the exception of late 80's
meat beat manifesto) were still trying to find ways of making keyboard
playing look sexy.
it really all depends on your outlook - i mean, a gig i went to in the mid
90's involved a local chap and 3 dats machines of noise, obviously that was
'acceptable' and 'experimental' to him, but not to me who did laugh out loud
when the tripping 'decor' person pulled the plug on the p.a. while mucking
around with some crap lights - but to me it was still a worthy experienc,
and moved me to utter 'we'll show em' to my partner in crime, the result
being our own no midi gig about six months later - you must remember though
that i can'y play keyboards, we resolved to have no backing track, and this
was pre-modular, so i had a big heap of signal generators. un-suprisingly
the gig turned out like early cabaret voltaire - which for me was a bonus...
...however, this brings me onto my personal bug bear - wanting to play music
live, means i have to do it properly, which means i gig on average once a
year. i saw a now famous 'retro synth' band a couple of years ago - the
bastrds mimed the whole way through - the reason i worked this out is that
they had the gall to mime filter sweeps on a korg ms20 which obviously
wasn't plugged in - we'll show em sprang to mind again, and so we planned
another gig (post modular this time) the whole thing was unrehearsed except
that it was in 'c' as i'd also resolved to leave not only any sequencers at
home, but also my keyboard - that was a fun, but very scary show, and the
crowd loved it
so where does this leave us - i think there's a genuine place for knob
twiddlers, after all, where would we hear them that loud, and how would they
satisfy their urge to play 'live' - i think at the end of the day it's a
matter of how cynically the music is presented...
well, they were my thoughts anyway

cheers
paul b
sheffield / uk
planning the next stars on 23 show as we speak...

Les Mizzell writes:
>>I would say that Robert's live performance had vastly more structure and
"meat" than "Bestiary" or "Outpost". Robert spent the majority of the show 
either playing one of his many bamboo flutes or his steel guitar, so he was 
performing most of the time and not "tweaking".  At times, Elhardt, this was 
very melodic and beautiful and had a definite verse/chorus/bridge/verse type 
structure.<<

Paul Schreiber writes:
>>What he does in concert is play really a montage of sorts spanning 15 years 
of work.<<

If this is the case, perhaps a CD of his live performance would be more 
interesting than his regular studio CDs. At least it would be kind of a Robert 
Rich sampler.

Les Mizzell writes:
>>I've also got a second "live" ambition, and don't laugh, but I'm considering
forming a sorta "neo-classical" ensemble that would cover a pretty wide range, 
from (oxymoron alert!) serious  Mannheim Steamroller (Minus the cheeze! ACK!) 
to some light chamber music and such. No sequencing or tape playback please!<<

If I liked performing live, that would be more up my alley.  Stick with 
Steamrollers first 4 albums for their more serious side.  They started drifting 
in their ways after that. This also reminds me of a live synthesizer performing 
ensemble I recorded off of the radio 22 years ago.  The group performed 
Beethoven's 8th Symphony and some Tchaikovsky.

>>Besides,
I'd maybe get to drag out my tenor recorder, which I need to be rehearsing on 
more...<<

I'll fill in soprano recorder with my motm + breath controller.

-Elhardt