mjn@teddy.UUCP (03/04/86)
I went to see Laurie Anderson in concert at the Orpheum (Boston) on Feb 28.
This was the first time I'd seen the show in person, though I've heard the
music before (some of the local radio stations are into weirdness). This
article is partly review, partly a report on gadgets used.
Overall impression: disappointment. I'd been led to expect more. Music
lacked spirit, sponteneity (in places), and coherence. She has execellant
stage presence and really captivates the audience. Her multi-media show
was intresting, some of the videos show were reasonable, though most were
mediocre.
The Set Up:
The stage was impressively bare of equipment. Center stage was Laurie's
Fairlight keyboard (the rest was off-stage). Stage right was the back up
synth keyboard (type unknown, possibly DX-7). Stage left was reserved
for two do-wa boys.
In addition to the keyboards, Laurie plays a MIDI violin controler. This
device is very impressive to see. It looks enough like a violin to be
recognizable, but is made mostly of metal. "strings" where short, and did
not run the full length of the neck. No tuning knobs were evident. Various
electronic artifices could be seen underneath. My impression was that it
is a specially made MIDI controller and a prototype. I also think it was
deliberately tech'ed up to look impressive.
The violin was mostly used to control digitally sampled sounds. Its possible
that these were stored and managed in the Fairlight, but it may also just be
another box off-stage. Some good effect was made of sample voice and lyrics,
then played on the violin controller.
Several peices were performed using a Voder. Unknown what kind she uses,
but is gave her an effective baritone, with slight synthesized overtones.
All and all it sounded fairly natural (though off enough to be strange).
Voder was also used to do vocal chorusing.
Use was made of MIDI drum heads in another piece. Laurie has a special
tailored suit (all white) which has drum heads, percussion sensative plates,
and switches built into it. By slapping a tight, a snare drum whack is heard,
stomp the floor for Bass, elbows into sides for more drum strikes, clicker
switches in each hand for cymbols. Choreographed to dance, alone and stark,
is was quite striking. This was re-inforced by a video shown immediately
after of her on stage, doing the same number, but totally silent. Mucho
bizzaro.
Why the disappointment? For all of her expensive gadgetry (which I'd love
to get MY hands on), felt that she was not up to the capabilities of the
technology. Perhaps it was a bit on the minimalist side for my tastes,
but I thought she could do better. Dozens of ideas and concepts came to
me just watching the concert. I think perhaps that she invested much of
her creativity in the visual aspects of the show. All lighting, slides,
videos, etc. where designed and created by her. Laurie also enjoys
interacting with them. But, alas, the music suffers for it.
--
Mark J. Norton
{decvax,linus,wjh12,mit-eddie,cbosgd,masscomp}!genrad!panda!mjn
mjn@sunspotmark@apple.UUCP (Mark Lentczner) (03/06/86)
[] Are you sure you are not mistaking Laurie's Tape Voilin for somthing much more complicated? Having seen Laurie twice before she uses a metallic violin that does control pre-recorded sounds - however: no MIDI, no Sampling! She simple replaces the bridge with tape recorder playback heads, and the horse-hair on the bow with a strip of recording tape, pre recorded with varous sounds (such as her saying "The other day I dreamt I had to take a test in a DariyQueen on another planet." one of my favoirite Anderson sayings...) Now I will be seeing her on this tour this Friday, so I can't say for sure, but I'll bet the tape violin is what she was playing! (p.s. I think I'd much rather have the tape voilin than the MIDI one, although I'd take both...) -mark
nessus@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Doug Alan) (03/08/86)
In article <31664@apple.UUCP>, mark@apple.UUCP (Mark Lentczner) writes: > Are you sure you are not mistaking Laurie's Tape Voilin for > somthing much more complicated? Quite sure! I believe, however, that Laurie Anderson uses a Synclavier rather than a Fairlight. "History is an angel falling backwards into the future" Doug Alan Nessus@Eddie.MIT.EDU allegra!mit-eddie!nessus
mike@pixar (Mike Hawley) (03/09/86)
Laurie has used Max Mathews' electronic violin in some shows (not for the "lllllllllisten" bit though, as far as I know). I believe this also let her hook into to the synclavier. Haven't seen her show for 2 years, though.
mark@apple.UUCP (Mark Lentczner) (03/10/86)
[] Yes, I saw Laurie Anderson on Friday and the new violin is definitly not the old tape violin. I didn't see it do anything that indicated that it was MIDI at all, my guess is normal (or close to normal) strings each with it's own pickup and pitch extractor. This based on the observations that: a) the sound lasted slightly longer than the bowing on hard bowing, hence string still vibrating, b) the resultant sound had that pitch extractor type warble to it and what sounded like a pluse train (from the string itself?) added to it c) different sounds were on different strings. actually, I missed the tape violin, since it did much more than this new instrument does (perhaps she just got it - still working with it). -mark
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (03/22/86)
In article <2212@teddy.UUCP> Mark J. Norton writes: >I went to see Laurie Anderson in concert at the Orpheum (Boston) on Feb 28. > >Why the disappointment? For all of her expensive gadgetry (which I'd love >to get MY hands on), felt that she was not up to the capabilities of the >technology. Perhaps it was a bit on the minimalist side for my tastes, >but I thought she could do better. Dozens of ideas and concepts came to >me just watching the concert. I think perhaps that she invested much of >her creativity in the visual aspects of the show. All lighting, slides, >videos, etc. where designed and created by her. Laurie also enjoys >interacting with them. But, alas, the music suffers for it. This is the impression I got of Laurie Anderson in general. Lots of cute gimmicky ideas, but they don't deliver. Personally, I'd rather go see someone that just bangs trashcan lids and rocks together if it sounds good. I think Laurie Anderson is suffering from what I've found to be a somewhat typical 'academoid' approach to music. I've found much to much *philosophizing*, *analyzing*, and *conceptualizing* of music in some circles, some of which spend more time talking about the merits of *good* *music* and not enough time *listening* to it to see if it *really* sounds good. Just because you've got a cute idea for a plastic violin that uses a bow with mag tape instead of horsehair, dosen't mean you can generate stuff that's worth listening to. Don't get me wrong though, I think high tech can be great stuff (especially samplers like the Farilight). I remember a time when if you used a fuzzbox and/or wah on the guitar some people thought you were using your effects as a crutch. I consider that the other end of the spectrum, and during that time I was experimenting with fuzz and wah. All I'm saying is, just listen to the music. If it sounds good, what difference does it make if it was made with Cray's and lazer beams or rocks and trashcans. Unless of course, the music isn't the point, and we're talking some kind of *performance* art, in which case, the only way I know how to compare it is by how many people walk out during the *performance*. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd # cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa
jsl@potomac.UUCP (John Labovitz) (03/24/86)
Keith Doyle (cadovax!keithd): > I think Laurie Anderson is suffering from what I've found to be a > somewhat typical 'academoid' approach to music. I've found much to much > *philosophizing*, *analyzing*, and *conceptualizing* of music in some > circles > [ ... ] > Just because you've got a cute idea for a plastic violin > that uses a bow with mag tape instead of horsehair, dosen't mean you can > generate stuff that's worth listening to. > [ ... ] > Unless of course, the music isn't the > point, and we're talking some kind of *performance* art, in which case, the > only way I know how to compare it is by how many people walk out during the > *performance*. In case you didn't know, Laurie Anderson *is* a performance artist. Have you ever seen her in live? She doesn't do concerts, she does performances. It is *extremely* different from listening to the record. At least up until ``Mr. Heartbreak,'' her music came from the performance, not the other way around. Almost all of ``Big Science'' is from her ``United States I-IV'' performance, which you'd see if you buy the ``United States'' album set (6 records). Most of her stuff makes a whole lot more sense and is more ``enjoyable'' if you've seen her live. All the ``cute'' effects and so on *do* have some point. For instance, the words on the tape violin are part of a story, but taken by themselves make no sense. (I think the words on the tape are ``Have you ever taken a test in a Dairy Queen on another planet?'') -- John Labovitz ..!{rlgvax,seismo}!bdmrrr!potomac!jsl -- Don't act so embarrassed It's a family trait -- Robyn Hitchcock
janzen@pldvax.DEC (Tom J. LMO2-1/E5 279-5421) (03/27/86)
>somewhat typical 'academoid' approach to music. I've found much too much >*philosolphizing*, *analyzing*, and *conceptualizing* of music in some I have never heard laurie andesron philosophize, analyze, or conceptualize. Please give examples with quotations and references. She's just doing what she feels like. Carefully. Tom