Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.music.synth
Subject: Re: Laurie Anderson
Message-ID: <1023@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Mar-86 19:08:38 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.1023
Posted: Fri Mar 21 19:08:38 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Mar-86 03:57:44 EST
References: <2212@teddy.UUCP>
Reply-To: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Distribution: net
Organization: CONTEL CADO Systems, Torrance, CA
Lines: 40

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