adamsfriendjoe

As music continues its progression with ever increasing genres, subgenres, artists, subartists, there has been one consistent movement that has gathered pace over the past decade: the use of technology within music. By this, I mean computers offering people more and more musical freedom and expression. On stage bands no longer need drummers because they have drum machines, bands do not need consistent members because you can just record a riff onto a computer. Teenagers aspiring to be in a band do not need friends because there are infinite pieces of software that will create a more exciting, dynamic sound than a friend just learning guitar ever could. One spotty adolescent can create the sounds of an entire orchestra within their bedroom.

However, it makes us question: what exactly is live music nowadays?

At first this may seem like a stupid question. Obviously, live music is an artist or band performing live on some form of stage, preferably to an audience. However, if that artist is using laptops, pre-recorded synth lines and drum patterns (as more and more artists do) then is this actually live? As you watch some new rising musician sitting behind his laptop on stage, how do you know he’s actually doing anything other than pressing play and then continuing his game of Civilisation 4?

The simple answer could be that the majority of bands no longer perform live. A live performance, one may say, allows you to hear the music straight from the instrument without any technological intrusion; it is a simple equation of musician and audience with the musician strumming a guitar and the audience hearing the unadulterated result. However, these performances just do not exist anymore. Even your standard acoustic set is packed with technology – wires, amps, PAs, mixers, DI boxes – that all affect the way that music is heard. At any decent gig every individual sound the band creates has its separate channel on a mixer, ensuring that the music can be equalised to give the best possible representation of the band. So if an overly excited bassist hits his strings louder than he usually would, it doesn’t matter because there is a technician there on the mixing desk able to change the levels accordingly.

So if technology is being used to improve the performance anyway, is it that much worse to use pre-recorded riffs? Surely, it is unfair to expect an aspiring musician, who uses a vast number of instruments, effects and so on, to have to hire in an entire session band in order that they can perform live. Therefore, it makes sense to use laptops, drum machines, samplers in order that the musician can play ‘live’ at all. Perhaps the problem, though, is where to draw the line. For example, Final Fantasy is a solo artist who uses all types of instruments and drum patterns for his songs and when he performs live he does it in a way that is simply fantastic to watch. While he plays some pre-recorded lines, he will then add to them and record further riffs live, consequently sampling them over the top to eventually create this full sound on stage. Watching and listening to him build his songs makes his music even more exciting than when listened to on CD. However, another artist I recently saw performed an entire set on laptop and sampler. The songs built up in a similar way, but I was nowhere near as excited and I believe this was because I could not actually see it being done. This would then mean that a live performance depends on you trusting that some element of it is happening in the present and the problem is that with laptops you cannot tell for certain if this is happening.

However, someone could make it look like they are doing more than they are necessarily doing. You could have a complex drum beat already recorded and then just add a few more drums over the top. That way you can jump around and look like you are physically doing something, putting on a live performance. This though seems to be too dangerously close to the likes of Spice Girls miming at a ‘live’ concert and people overlooking it due to the amount of different dresses they wear and the spectacle of the show. The spectacle alone cannot be what constitutes a live set.

Could the answer be that a live set needs room for change, spontaneity and error?  I do not mean that the audience are standing there hoping the guitarist will make a fatal flaw at which point they can deride said guitarist, but more the fact that the bands you watch have the ability and freedom to change their songs, providing something slightly different to the recorded version you heard. It is the chance that they will throw a guitar solo in the middle of your favourite track or extend an intro to really warm up the crowd. The likes of Hot Chip, regardless of their use of laptops, synthesizers and the latest electronic instruments, can perform brilliant versions of their singles that are completely different from how you may have heard them. On a different level Mars Volta are similarly brilliant at providing new interpretations of their own songs live, quite often perfectly blending songs into each other during the set. Once again though, we enter controversial territory. Would a performance by an orchestra not be considered live? It is unlikely and unfair to expect an orchestra to alter Beethoven’s ‘Piano Sonata No.8’ with some crazy drum solo thrown into the centre. Similarly, even if a DJ outfit, such as Justice or Daft Punk, considerably alter a song, even have two songs mixed together, how do you know that mix is not just pre-recorded as well? However, if it simply comes down to the potential of error then you can’t necessarily dismiss DJs either. While a guitarist may briefly hit the wrong fret it can be covered the noise of the rest of the band, but with a DJ, control all the music at once. Therefore, if they do not loop a section properly, it will be jarringly obvious to the audience. Similarly, is there anything more obvious than a CD skipping while playing? In this particular regard, a DJ would not even have to be doing anything for something to potentially go wrong. In this respect, a DJ, although playing all pre-recorded music, is putting on a truly live performance simply by the act of pressing play, which surely demeans the whole idea of ‘live’ music.

It seems that the idea of ‘live’ cannot be categorised into any set idea anymore, if it ever could. However, we could probably agree that a ‘live’ performance requires a combination of at least a couple of the elements mentioned above. I believe that a DJ is performing live even if he is using a laptop and other people’s music. If he is adding loops and effects, changing tempo, mixing songs together then he is undoubtedly performing live. He may be using other people’s music, but he is creating a live sound that is arguably transient. Similarly, I do not reckon a band should have to alter their songs just for it to be constituted as a live act. The very act of performing is a live act. However, I think the key issue here is the idea of performance. Any act that is being performed live on stage makes it a live performance, but this means that the artist must be doing something other than pressing play and ensuring the volume is okay. Whether they are a DJ, band, acoustic artist, they must be doing something other than checking their email. They must be contributing to the music that is currently being heard at the ‘live’ gig. Generally, I believe any artist knows whether they are performing live or not if they answered truthfully so it is ultimately an easy question to answer. However, the problem lies with the audience believing they are at a live performance and, unfortunately, as music becomes more and more electronically based, they will always require the artist to reassure them that it is so. It is then with the artist to decide how.