[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: art and performance



>I am glad that you are stepping out of the devil's advocate role a bit and 
>showing us yours :>)

Huh?  Which devil's advocate role is that?  I thought I'd been really good 
just lately.  ;)


>Yes - I think Pink Floyd is less creative as a performing act because of 
>the reason you state. Their performances are still art, because they cannot 
>reproduce their records *exactly*.  Even if they played the recordings and 
>simply added a visual element they are twisting the recordings into 
>something different-thus art.

Translating from just audio to a physical medium?  I agree that slavish 
reproduction is less creative, and likely boring to highly creative artists. 
  Can't complain about the way David Gilmour plays the guitar, actually.  He 
has a very distinctive style and interprets gorgeously, both of which would 
normally be considered creative in a performer.  I'd say handling just that 
keeps him occupied on stage.


>In The Who, when Pete sings "Its only teenage wasteland!" for the zillionth 
>time it is less creative than a "My Wife" solo.  Both are art.

I'll agree with that.  "Baba O'Riley" is done to backing tapes, so it would 
be one of the numbers where they're constrained in how they can vary it.


>I think that the dynamic in The Who is that Roger is more of a performer 
>and Pete is more of an artist.  Roger lusts for the spotlight and the 
>performance, Pete longs to create.  John just wants to rock out.
>
>Whats your take?

Too simplistic here.  All of them are artists, and John complains more than 
anybody about dull bass parts.  He's been responsible for inventing a whole 
new repertoire of bass technique, as well as solo bass work (if I'm not 
mistaken).  He always improvises around the chord structure that Pete 
provides.

You can't say that Pete avoids the spotlight as a performer, either.  The 
history of The Who has been a competition between Townshend, Daltrey and 
Moon on stage.  (John being known for dressing in costume and standing 
still.)  I've read some comments that Pete is less creative than John with 
his guitar work on stage, preferring to work solos out ahead of time.  He IS 
one of the most creative songwriters going, though.  How many of them will 
improvise an entire song in concert?

It's harder to comment on Roger's creativity as a musician, as he generally 
just sings someone else's songs, or else hides the fact that he's written 
them (likely not wanting to be compared to Pete).  He does interpret other 
people's songs to suit himself, though, which Pete says is often a surprise, 
and sometimes this amounts to improvisation.  Also, it appears that Roger is 
talented as an arranger, and has a very good feel for whether a performance 
is working or not.  He's always had a tendency to apply lots of passion, but 
lately he's produced a few bluesey and/or orchestrated renditions that are 
very effective.  Roger is also very talented at the theatrical aspects of 
the rock operas.

How's that for a discussion?

LB


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com