earlier this year when beyonce got criticism from white media for "lipsyncing" the inauguration performance,
i made a thread questioning if people's tolerance for choreographed, industrialized "product" in music was waning and if people desired a return to a more "natural" state (i.e. less processing...)

the thread failed to create any kind of meaningful discussion and/or thought.
and like most threads on here (that fall outside of a > b, what's your fav. ___, or lists)
it was the internet equivalent of screaming in the seclusion of the woods.

but i'm making this one because i think i was incorrect.
it's not the technological innovations and "studio magic" that are the culprit, they're just the tools.
it's the concept of risk, or, the absence of it.

i was just watching some old jazz clips from the 60's on youtube.
consider that at one time the standard when you went to see music was to see actual musicians play instruments (i.e. compelling displays of talent).
but outside of the "talent" aspect, what makes that such a compelling sight that is worth paying for?
if everything was perfected planned, choreographed, rehearsed, pre-recorded and dubbed in with the musicians pantomiming their performance - would that still not bear "talent" in it's manufactured timing and perfection... just minus any of the risk?

so, what are people really paying to see?

i've touched on all of these concepts (standards being the key to any "goldern era", the t/s/e model)
but one i've really sort of only grazed is risk.

there's risk in the business sense when talking about revenue, but then there's risk in the general every day usage of the word.

when an nba player seizes a moment to shoot a 3 pointer, there is an element of risk that he could not make the shot that is realized.
from both the audience watching and the player risking the possession on his own talent.

a tightrope walker with no net, the ultimate risk performance.

a fist-fight.

all compelling spectacles regardless of culture, gender, race, religion, etc.

and then risk when applied to music...

why do we revile a "pre-written" freestyle?
a "pre-written" battle rap?
...a "lipsynch'd" performance?

but relish concepts like "done in one take", entirely "off the head"?

i mean we are technically still getting a performance of merit regardless of the details.
but just one that's entirely risk-free on the acts behalf.
and i believe that is what matters to many in how we perceive and judge talent or who we deem "praise-worthy".
if not so much in published content then at the very least in terms of a "performance".

improvisation in music is often upheld as the ultimate mastery because it has the most risk.

a video of someone juggling knives loses it's appeal if the clip has been edited, and i propose the same is true for musical performances and perhaps music in general, once you factor out modern "idol worship" and "cult of personality".

the concept of risk is what many humans ultimately are sub-consciously paying to see in performance.
and the innate reward shared by most humans is in the performer NOT messing up despite the potential to do so.
the potential of failure from a lesser talented man than the artist performing the act.
hence, earning their praise.

---
don't mind me.

risk is what i look for over anything else. the artist that does the note perfect/word perfect recreation of their album live on stage does very little for me - the one that walks the tightrope and brings that element of risk into their live performance is the one that is bringing it to life. many of us live in such a culturally homogenous world and the pre-determined performances are doing nothing to remedy that or contribute to a real cultural growth and expression.

risk brings an infinite range of opportunities and possibilities to a performance if you've mastered your instrument/craft. even 'mistakes' can turn into the most amazing moments and lead the artist and the audience to places no one could have pre-empted or imagined. that's what i live for anyway!

$0.02

--

MARK de CLIVE-LOWE | @MdCL
http://MdCL.tv

i can't help the fact that i wanna say "DUHHHH"!

maybe because i'm equating "risk" with "spontaneity" and (imo) that's the main reason live music has the potential to be so much more moving than canned/predictable performances.

------------------------------------------
latest mixtape:
https://www.mixcloud.com/mistamonotone/music-to-smack-motherfckers-to/

mistamonotone - taboo
http://mistamonotone.bandcamp.com/album/taboo

@mistamonotone
IG: mistamonotone

but this isn't close to my best post imo.

shedding our over-reliance on music was my most important thread.

the top 100 tracks of 2001 was an enjoyable post,
http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=2677760&mesg_id=2677760&listing_type=search

this one,
http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=2687555&mesg_id=2687555&listing_type=search

this one too,
http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=2646814&mesg_id=2646814&listing_type=search

the introduction of the t/s/e/ model as a means for explaining an acts success was important to me,
http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=2680341&mesg_id=2680341&listing_type=search

the post about buzz wearing off and music having to stand on it's own was good,
http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_mesg&forum=5&topic_id=2785293&mesg_id=2785293&listing_type=&page=

countless others from the last 3.5 years that have been deleted.

and i agree, i thought about "degree of difficulty" being subbed in for "risk" and it is somewhat of a foregone conclusion that i've just drawn out.
but i think ultimately difficulty determines the amount of risk (i.e. more difficult, spontaneous = more risk of failure = more innate value).

i don't know.
it's meant to be a re-frame of how we look at commonly occurring concepts, perhaps in a new enlightening way you've never considered before.

certainly when writing it, it was a new POV.

---
don't mind me.

>certainly when writing it, it was a new POV.


new?

lol.

new.


wow.

Gotta be someone making fun of David Bammer. And doing a good job.

---
don't mind me.

are humans entertained by the overall "display of talent"?
...or by the fact that the performer didn't fuck up while attempting something seemingly difficult, knowing the RISK of failure was a possibility?

---
don't mind me.

"smooth criminal" is a brilliant video.
the fact that every shot was scrutinized before you saw it is part of the appeal.

the bad tour is MJ's best series of concerts.
the dancing and singing is live.

different performances
are graded with different ears.

I don't watch Madonna concerts
for the same reason I listen to jazz performances.

and music would be boring
if i expected the same thing from all artists.


>are humans entertained by the overall "display of talent"?
>...or by the fact that the performer didn't fuck up while
>attempting something seemingly difficult, knowing the RISK of
>failure was a possibility?

"Free Jazz" was so admired at one point (according to Miles Davis) famed highly skilled/trained musical legend Leonard Bernstein jumped up at a Ornette Coleman free jazz concert and exclaimed: "this is the best thing to ever happen in jazz!!!"

So....

Was highly skilled/trained musical legend Leonard Bernstein jumping up over the way Ornette Coleman and his fellow "free jazz" bandmates were "avoiding mistakes" in their performance of "free jazz"?

edit: this should have been a reply to reply #4 since in reply #4 you write of musicians: "doing something difficult" and not "messing up".

So.....

Can a free jazz performance have any mess-ups by definition?

Does that make free jazz "risk free" or more difficult to "do it right"?

but perhaps the reason free jazz never caught on in any major way is because the lack of structure makes many people feel the artist is circumventing ALL risk by essentially saying "yeah i mean to do that...".

that sort of "chaos" isn't everyone's cup of tea and certainly there are limitations on who gets a pass and who doesn't.

people know ornette coleman the same way people know jackson pollack...
but what about their peers and contemporaries practicing similar styles?

from a capitalist perspective.

minimize the risk, increase the reward.

the use of $ as the reward metric particularly because it is quantifiable makes arguing against it difficult.

'it sounds better' doesn't matter because 'the financial reward isn't as high'
'that's just copying someone else's success' doesn't matter because 'it's a proven formula that works.'

the power to pushback is 'soley' in the audience's hands as they have to 'prove' that the low risk stuff doesn't turn over $$ hand over first.

but they are too being manipulated to support the metric. part of the formula. the key to any industry remains - control the product, control the means of distribution and control the demand. the last flows directly into control the audience. a materialistic society remains fascinated by the material aspect of music.

there's an oxymoron in that last sentence can you pull it out?

the material aspect of music requires no great effort/risk be taken on the talent end of the spectrum so that there is little risk to that damaging the material image of the artist. they don't want you measuring their ratists up against the musicianship of the past, de-emphasize that. put the emphasis on the presentation of the material and use that as the metric, as after all that is how they value it in the first place.

the real question is whether those artists who do take risks will find the support they need in the niches to continue their pursuits. one may not be able to beat 'em, but joining them is one sure way they will beat you.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

taking risks in the direction of your output and image is definitely important, but i didn't mean "risk" in that way.

i mean the actual risk of fucking up being sub-consciously the driving force behind the entertainment value in music or at least musical performance.

---
don't mind me.

but people don't hear that shit
anyway, I see artistic risk as something that an artist should use to explore ideas, but it needs to be tempered and not allowed to roam free
if GangStarr put out a coon tunes album, for example, with a frame of reference it may be a great album because GS are on the short list of Hip Hop artists that excel at making both great songs and great albums; if they decided to go that route it wouldn't be without understanding the pros and cons of an effort like that
on the other hand if it's just something that they do to try to get more sales I wouldn't be with it because it throws all of the previously mentioned out of the window and the album's success would be weighed by just how popular it was or wasn't (which in my opinion doesn't gauge whether or not the risk was worth it)

__________________________________________
CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!!
------------------------------------
Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell
Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this

in the sense of taking chances with the direction you push your career.

i mean taking a risk like doing a live performance on the spot and nailing it.

why do people scoff at lipsync or pre-recorded?

no risk.

---
don't mind me.

people want to see how the artist is going to freak the songs they perform
in the minds of a lot of people they feel that if they wanted to hear a canned performance they could put the album on
of course you don't get the showmanship on the album, but that's the usual attitude of those that don't go for it
of course you have those that will go for anything that their favorite artist does no matter what, so I guess they don't factor in, but from what I get that's the usual reason

__________________________________________
CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!!
------------------------------------
Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell
Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this

when john mayer plays live, he'll shred on electric guitar.
or he'll add a key change and take the guitar solo you heard on record to another level.
or he'll add an intro you don't hear on the album.

he'll do something that adds to the experience you had on the studio album.



i think the point bammer wanted to make
is that kids these days only want to hear the song replicated in concert,
vs wanting to hear a new chapter.


MJ always gave you another chapter. (a breakdown section of billie jean).
mayer gives you another chapter.

kids don't want that now.
(for whatever reason.)

that isn't a blanket statement, either-they literally don't want to have to do more than than enough to get through shit
even the things they love doing, it's almost like you have to retrain people to listen to music again so they can appreciate it for something other than just acting like fucks to

__________________________________________
CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!!
------------------------------------
Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell
Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this

it might be,
but for all i know the pop the kids are listening to now
has dimensions i can't pick up on because i don't have ears for their music.

i'm not saying you're wrong.
i just don't think i know enough to express an opinion, really.

it's a different era, and my time has passed.
kids have their own requiremnts.
we'll learn what they think is great in 20 yrs.

basically as long as it's there and they like it, they don't even need a reason why they like it
which tells me they don't seek to understand themselves in ways that only music can show you, which is a bit sad in my opinion

__________________________________________
CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!!
------------------------------------
Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell
Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this

>why do people scoff at lipsync or pre-recorded?
>
>no risk.


lip syncing doesn't feel "organic."
it's jarring.

MJ on the "bad" tour felt more real than MJ on the "dangerous" tour.
because you can "feel" him dancing based on the way his breath control
sounds like somebody dancing at the same time.

it feels real because you can sense the vocal improvisation that differs from the record.

those little moments don't happen during a lip synced recording.



i think live has an appeal because it sounds more in the moment.
but i never feel tension that MJ is about to fuck up the song.
what i feel is the improvisation and the little moments he wouldn't think to create
if he was using a prerecorded track.

>i think live has an appeal because it sounds more in the moment.
>but i never feel tension that MJ is about to fuck up the song. what i feel is the improvisation >and the little moments he wouldn't think to create if he was using a prerecorded track.

I agree with this. something that has the feel of being created before your eyes, where even the performer doesn't know what's gonna happen next, is inherently compelling in a way ultra-rehearsed, completely choreographed shows aren't, no matter what the performance is. I think that's what people appreciate, not necessarily the tension that a mistake could occur--that's kinda like people watching a hockey game and hoping for a fight.

Do you want to see Beyonce hire 20 dancers and just have them show up on stage and start dancing without choreography?

When they ask about wardrode she should say 'surprise me.'?

People don't go to see MJ or Beyonce shows to see improvisation. They go to see 'a show'. I work in the entertainment business. If there is any 'risk' in a show like that it is doomed for failure. The art of that type of format is to ELIMINATE risk....not embrace it. And it's also sometimes part of the artistry to showcase the performance to give an ILLUSION of risk when there is none. ie tightrope walkers. In music performances, this happens all the time in different contexts such as 'Essaywhuman??' by the Roots.

The supposed 'risk' you are talking about isn't even usually present when artists have an improvisational format. I played in a band for 6 years that used to go on stage and just wing it. There still wasn't a risk....because that's what we did. We winged it. It's not a risk if that's what you do.

As usual...you are an outsider trying to be an expert on something you really don't know anything about. And attempting to speak with authority. yawn

>I work in the entertainment business.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_py5tK1uQg

---
don't mind me.

Seriously though. Music is not what you think it is. It's much bigger than that. It's a really big thing.

__________________________________________
CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!!
------------------------------------
Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell
Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this

I agree that a big time spectacle show like Yonce or Rihanna or Gagz is very tightly choreographed but I disagree that there is no risk in a show like that. I've performed on stage myself and so I think I get it - even when all of us on stage think we know what will happen the unexpected can and does happen. The ppl involved trusted themselves and each other to deal with that. Someone might miss a step or a line and the rest of us had to support that person and keep the show going like there was no error. That possibility of a mistake was the electricity that kept the show alive. That's the energy that drove us as performers. There was definitely risk involved in each performance. That was the thrill.

fuck you.

some of it boils down to "different strokes...".

but while there is definitely "risk" in a grandiose arena concert for a pop act.
i think many people inherently see those shows as extremely choreographic/rehearsed (which they are).

i would suggest that someone performing some amazing spectacle solo on an instrument would "wow" many people more than the smoke & mirrors of an arena pop show.

however... something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTca2nrIn4U

completely choreographic and rehearsed but because of the level of difficulty and the tied risk involved in successfully executing it - it becomes something really astounding to behold.

if big-budget arena concerts attempted tall feats like that marching band - they would likely be looked at in higher regard and not treated as status quo perhaps.

regardless of what or how the audience feels, the performers during a big time choreographed spectacle show experience some risk i imagined based on my own performance experience. i said this in response to denny saying there is no risk during that kind of show.

fuck you.

...

To people like US, a record is a piece of history. A moment in time.
Most people don't get it.