Dave Martin wrote on Wed, 25 January 2006 18:21 |
Here's another question... it seems to me that the heart and soul of being a musical artist is live performance. If you're sitting in your room writing and recording, there's no way to know whether your material actually moves other people. If you're out in front of them, you know right away. And there's another issue - in most cases, I believe that music is a conversation between musicians; if you're sitting at home (ESPECIALLY if you play all the parts yourself), an appropriate analogy is that you're talking to yourself, not to other people. This is not generally to be considered a good thing.
|
There is the hook. _To me_ playing live is not the heart and soul of a musical artist. It is to some for sure. But I treat it how art in general is treated which leads to the next part.
The point of creating music (to me) is expression (usually self expression). One would like others to be moved by their art, but creating the art / expressing one's self would be the main goal.
"This is what I wanted to say"...period. "I hope you can relate, understand, appreciate it but, ultimately, this is what I wanted to convey."
I find expressing that message is better served by recorded audio, as the artist has a better chance to accurately convey that message and if the message has many layers, it will take multiple listens to unlock it all.
This may diverge from the origins of recording (to capture a reasonable facsimile of the live event) but recording has since come to encompass more. I appreciate that quality.
Reasons not to play live:
Some of the above...The messages is not as strong live.
Lack of control (of the sound) due to the environment.
Drunk hipsters.
Hate the setup/break-down part of the evening.
Working around band mates schedules.
Gear gets trashed...tour worn.
The cost of guitar pics.
Best regards,
spoon