] [Thread Prev
Re: Logic amatuer
It's really simple. If the music sucks, it sucks. If it's really great, we will sit through it.
I've heard that BT uses a laptop live and pulls it off with great panache. For me personally, it's all a huge nuisance pushing pedals and all that. I think we need some plug ins in the back of our heads so we don't even have to think about it.
I saw Hendrix live. I don't think he would have had a laptop on stage with him any more than Keith Richards has all his gear onstage with him. It's the man behind the curtain who runs all that kind of stuff. They don't wanna have to deal with buttons and knobs. When I saw Prince live he had someone backstage loading samples and running them. OR so it looked. So in a way the debate about whether he would have had a laptop onstage isn't too relevant. If it distracted him from communicating with the audience, he would have lit it on fire and left it there to burn. Or, more likely, he would have relegated the operation of it to a stage hand.
Would Hendrix have used the technology? Probably. The good news is, he didn't need it to get the job done.
glassWing farm and studio
vancouver island, b.c.
On 14-Jun-07, at 3:06 PM, samba - wrote:
You're right. I didn't qualify my statement as opinion,'particularly interesting' is not a state of being,but a description of my responses to certain experiences,which I then exatrapolated to a generalized category . I hate it whe people do that.
So, when you said "One clear advantage to not using a laptop is that people
laptops are not particularly interesting to watch"....were you generalizing
your personal opinion of only the sit-down laptop users you've seen, or
making a specific
claim about only a sub-set of sit-down laptop users? That statement was not
to discern your intent.
Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm