"live instrument" bands v electronic/dance music bands

[HOT JON]

Guitar music doesnt 'do it' for me (well not since 1994, when I was still into Nirvana and indie music) but am fully appreciative to the millions of folksies out there who do. It's all noise to me mostly...but then again most of the stuff I listen to isnt very pleasant for others to listen to in their opinions.

There are just too many different types of both guitar and dance music to tar under one brush of which is better live or whatever the argument is. You certainly cant compare a pub band to the Foo's/The Who/The Stones/new and improved Coldplay. And you cant compare a bloke on a laptop in a pub to The Chems/Orbital.

The bands we are discussing - the rock gods and the electronic masters who are both worthy of their titles of gods and masters - are so in both camps eyes because they are BOTH masterful at their art...it's just that some of us prefer the sound of knob tweaking to string strumming.

Edited May 14, 2009 by HOT JON

[Craig_G]

oh and pete townsend who almost invented visual guitar playing

[bamber]

Has anyone mentioned Hot Chip in this thread yet?

If not, Hot Chip.

Electronic music, never seem to sound the same twice live, soulful, improvisational and at their best truly one the greatest live bands I've seen. 2007 in the John Peel stage was easily in the top three best live gigs I've ever seen.

Much better than Orbital/Chems/Prodigy/Faithless IMO

[The Nal]

oh and pete townsend who almost invented visual guitar playing

[Felna]

I'm afraid any artist that relies on pre-records and loops more than musical instruments is a big turn-off for me live.

When I see an artist I want some sense that the music is being generated live in front of me, and no matter how much skill, timing and understanding of rhythm is required, artists like the Chemical Brothers are still just pressing 'play'. Saw them a couple of years ago with an open mind (i'd previously dismissed Faithless, but was blown away by them live) and was thoroughly dissapointed, yes the light and sound was really good, but quite frankly they could have stuck a CD in and been playing minesweeper on their computers for all the sense of 'being there' they gave off.

[ukslim]

who was before him?

Edited May 15, 2009 by ukslim

[The Nal]

who was before him?

[rfs]

Music and dance have been around for a long time in a lot of places. It was just done with lutes before guitars.

[The Nal]

Music and dance have been around for a long time in a lot of places. It was just done with lutes before guitars.

[sammysundae]

hmm, its a reallyt interesting question. i am into this kind of thing. sequencing tracks live, and i find that the thing that makes electronic musicians stand out on a live stage , is the energy they put into it. take el guincho for example. he simply sequences his tracks using a sampler, then sings over the top. instead of just standing, he leaves one part out of every song and plays that part himself, be it a guitar, keyboard, bass, drum, ukulele part. then bounces around and gets the crowd going. one of the best live acts around.

Edited May 15, 2009 by sammysundae

[ukslim]

at times like this i really wish i knew how to post youtube links. could someone tell me how?

[The Nal]

have you seen this?

[sammysundae]

all pretty interesting.

I don't see how using samples enables more variety..? You're still restricted to the samples you have, which doesn't give as much freedom as using an instrument.

One of the things that always crosses my mind is what would they do if their computer crashed?

A musician could turn up anywhere, and as long as a musical instrument was there, they could perform.

[Chickenburger]

they couldnt if their strings snapped or drum exploded. there is no difference between flicking a bit of string and pressing a button.

we can be gald these miserable f**kers who hate electronic music are nowhere near the stages when big dance acts are on as wouldnt want a chemical brothers gig turning into one of the miserable dull pyramid headliners like paul mccartney. only one place where the party is!

[dj267]

what if that instrument broke?

Doofus

ahhhhhh, chickenburger beat me to it

Edited May 15, 2009 by dj267

[rfs]

I don't see how using samples enables more variety..? You're still restricted to the samples you have, which doesn't give as much freedom as using an instrument.

[sammysundae]

i think you're forgetting the point of something like a sampler.

it can record any possible sound into it. not only this, but you can layer sounds in ways that have never been done before. and a good electronic musician should take advantage of this.

guitar music is still great, but i don;t see how anyone could have something against electronic music. its all music at the end of the day. electronic doesn't neccessarily mean pumpin beats. do we have any bon iver fans here? i bet we do. well, i hate to break it to you, but a lot of his material is recorded using samplers. broken social scene anyone? same! i don't think that electronic instruments could or should ever even try to replace traditional acoustic instruments, i just think that contemporary technological advancements allow for a further potentiation of acoustic instruments, especially at a lie scale. if you disagree with that then i think that is rather closed minded to be honest.

[Craig_G]

How do you put emotion into pushing a button. If you hit it harder does it play louder... no.

[Craig_G]

i realised I was wrong on that...

that's not the same -

[ukslim]

I think samplers and electronic sound sources are fantastic.

I'm just wary of sequencers. Not to the point of saying they should be banished from the live stage. Just that they should take a back seat. If your piece involves a drone, then it makes sense to automate it. It's not much more of a step to sequence the kick and snare, or the bassline, but if you don't stop somewhere, you end up with nothing. I'm sorry, but fiddling with the tone generator settings as the sequencer plays is no more than fine tuning (I do know my way around an analogue synth (

)).

I'm far more interested in expressive ways of controlling electronic sound sources. Piano keyboards are such limited input devices. Electronic keyboards are *slightly* more flexible (with their pitch wheels and aftertouch). Traditional synths can make all kinds of sounds, but the traditional bank of knobs and sliders is far from an ergonomic way to control them -- and it's not particularly fun to watch. The technologists know this. That's why they invent things like the Korg KAOSS pad (a touch pad that affects whatever aspect of the sound you choose -- usually used with synths, but Matt Bellamy from Muse has them built into some of his guitars).

By contrast to a keyboard, look at how much nuance a guitarist can put in. You can pluck the string with a plectrum, your nail or your fingertip. You can strum or pick. The position of your pluck affects the sound. You can mute with either hand. You can bring out harmonics by damping the string in various ways. You can bend the string for vibrato or slides. And much more besides. That's just on an acoustic guitar. With electric guitars there's tremolo bars, there's fiddling with the FX/amplification chain.

Other instruments are just as versatile - brass and woodwind players can affect the sound in all kinds of ways with their breath and mouth shape. Drummers can get loads of different sounds out of the same drum, just by hitting it in different places at different levels (mind you, electronic drum sets do a great job of capturing this).

So I'm longing to see the emergence of a decent synth controller that rivals a 'real' instrument other than the piano. I don't want something that turns someone into a one man band. I want something that allows music to flow from someone's fingertips the same way it does with a guitar.

And I don't think dance music is probably the genre it will come from. Dance music is so strongly influenced by acid house (which I love), which is a genre that came out of instruments like the 808 and the 303, where artists would accentuate the robotic nature of those instruments.

[Craig_G]

do that on a computer

[rfs]

last year, my nephew (who's rapidly turning into rather an amazing guitarist), borrowed someone's guitar at the stone circle (at Glastonbury). After a couple of tunes, a little group of people had gathered round to enjoy the tunes... t'was rather lovely

[Craig_G]

So I'm longing to see the emergence of a decent synth controller that rivals a 'real' instrument other than the piano. I don't want something that turns someone into a one man band. I want something that allows music to flow from someone's fingertips the same way it does with a guitar.

[Craig_G]

I get that. But say, for example, a guitarist is playing something, and suddenly is inspired to play a note or two slightly differently (not just the note, but the way it's played), they can do it instinctively in a moment. If you have to work out the parameters of how that sound is, how you want it to sound etc, that moment will be over.

As I've said, I'm not against electronic music, I have quite a lot of it that I like, but for me, there are fundamental differences, some of which are to be enjoyed in both cases.

[Craig_G]

hehe. I'm only playing devils advocate. I'm a lover of all music and styles. Just a couple of posts critising the validity of electronic music got me going.