Splicetoday

Music
Apr 28, 2008, 09:11AM

Just Pressing Buttons

The increasingly popular use of electronics in music is discounting the importance of live performance. Instead, as this writer points out, the energy of some shows is more theatrical than musical.

Buttons.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

Photo by Damian Cugley

"When a musician plays a dynamic, physical instrument, the movements that he makes directly create a sound. A guitarist, held into a certain position by the instrument and forced to use a pick in one hand, will naturally accentuate the movement that sets the strings vibrating. But the computer programmer, who simply (in the live context) presses a button to create a wall of sound, isn’t physically linked to the production of sound in the same way. In short, a good portion of the work that goes into creating electronic music happens behind the scenes. The product, and all the designed sounds, are endlessly interesting, but the process doesn’t have any meaningful live analogy.

I saw this effect in action in Fuck Buttons’ performance. They opened their set with a chiming, asymmetrically patterned sample of bells. Allowing this to lull the audience into a false sense of security, they twisted a knob to drop a fuzzed-out wall of guitar onto the hapless but tenacious bells. Each time they did so, the band members threw their bodies in some sort of spasm or physical interpretation of the music. The problem was that it felt hollow or affected. It was a conscious choice as much as an extension of the music; it left an impression of theatricality.

Of course, this is a problem that has, at least by some musicians, been solved. Daft Punk transformed their live act into the space-robot, other-world circus that it is precisely for this reason. Their music has always worked, but now they’ve given themselves the visual experience to match.

Unfortunately, the Daft Punk budget is a little steep for your average indie noise two-piece outfit, not to mention divergent from their take on aesthetics. But as more and more young musicians discover electronics as a way to realize the sounds that they are hearing, and as concertgoers continue to demand an exciting live experience, musicians will need to keep looking for a way to provide a little more to look at than dudes in flannel shirts and tight pants pressing a space bar.

READ MORE

Discussion
  • This makes a great point. I definitely feel like a lot of music these days is getting away from anything that can be meaningfully reproduced live. That has nothing at all to do with the quality of the music, but it has a ton to do with the experience of going to see a show. A live performance for someone like Dan Deacon is more like being at a rocking dance party then observing deft musicianship. I guess it's all about what you're looking to get out of the experience as a fan, but the emphasis on "fun" or "interesting" live shows outside of the musical performance itself is definitely a trend. I only wonder if it might be limiting to a certain kind of performer, like Fuck Buttons in this article. Another idea to throw in the mix here is the changing economic emphasis on live shows, where these kinds of performance are the best way for indie musicians to make money these days.

    Responses to this comment
  • Mr. Deities has my vote in his comments, and it was a very good article. One question, though: before a band breaks through, it's de facto indie. I'm sure, for example, that in the 1960's, the Who made their money, however, meager, by live performances, before they hit it big.

    Responses to this comment
  • Using a sampler to generate sounds is really not that far removed from using plucked or strummed strings to generate sounds. They're just different means to an end. Laptop artists are difficult; often, the music is engaging and engrossing live, but the lack of visual stimulation leaves one dissatisfied. The best electronic musicians are the ones who can transcend the limitations of their instruments and put on a great show, musically and physically (Girl Talk, Dan Deacon, Human Host, Black Dice).

    Responses to this comment
  • Nicky, I think you're right about the equal musical validity of laptop artists or sampler artists. What this article is getting at is the difference between successful musical composition vs. performance. Maybe you don't there's much of a difference between the two, but I certainly do. Some stuff, like Dan Deacon, I really enjoy live but hardly ever listen to on my iPod. That's about the performance. On the other hand, I saw Caribou a few months ago and wasn't that impressed by the live show because they used a click track. I think this author is right on: When it comes to spending $10-$15 on a show (plus beer), I want to see more than a dude pressing a space bar. Whether that's actually producing live sounds through an instrument or creating a party atmosphere, its got to be more engaging than button pushing.

    Responses to this comment
  • And I for one love to listen to Dan Deacon in my spare time. His music isn't at all only to be enjoyed live, it's genuinely fun stuff. Same goes for Girl Talk.

    Responses to this comment
  • Whoa, dan_glada. Don't tell people to shut up just because they don't appreciate your poly-instrumental genius. I think what brother Deities is getting at is the evolution of showmanship--of course it takes a particular talent to create electronic music, but watching a guy twiddle knobs isn't the same as watching him sweat out a guitar part, even if he's simultaneously playing a cello, sousaphone, and didgeridoo. I've noticed that club-level concerts by groups like Caribou or even Animal Collective have an overly-cerebral quality nowadays. I wish there were more bands who could just plug in and rock a little without the laptop. And why exactly does it take "balls" to play multiple instruments at once?

    Responses to this comment
  • Hey dan, I was just wondering, do you play music? Because it's hard to tell from your comments, which are sadly lacking in reference to your own abilities. Seriously; can you let us know? Don't leave a fellow splicetoday-reader in suspense.

    Responses to this comment
  • He is being sarcastic you f'n tard

    Responses to this comment
  • I only do tape manipulation. I'm no sellout.

    Responses to this comment
  • No no; you're doing it again dan. The thing we just talked about. Remember?

    Responses to this comment
  • Alright, Glada. We get it. Jesus.

    Responses to this comment
  • electricity is now a days easy to find and use, wooden instruments are over used in the minds of some thinkers, the new dawn of electrical instruments is a part of this century, evolve your sense of an experience with the objects at hand, redefine what 15$ plus beer is worth to you.

    Responses to this comment
  • Dan, you can say what you want. Isn't that what the comments section for Splice Today is about?

    Responses to this comment
  • Has anybody actually read this article? Nobody, not the author, not me, not any reasonable fan of music, is discrediting music made on computers. Ok? We're talking about what, as an audience member, is satisfying to experience at a live show. That's it. Not the comparative Platonic ideals of music made with binary code. There's a difference between what artist creates live and what they can create in their studio/bedroom/loft. That's not exactly a novel point, but it is exacerbated by the increasing use of computers in live performance. I can evolve my sense of an experience all I want, but that difference isn't going to go away.

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment