Live vs. Not

Electronic Music Production // Dark Arts
User avatar
muke
Interact. Don't Spam.
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 7:16 am
Live vs. Not

Post by muke »

i'm starting to get pretty into creating my tracks live - just setting up the main sequences and then playing them on the fly. gives it a much looser and more "organic" feel. sometimes i find it's a bit too loose, though... i'm still trying to figure out "how live" i want to play my stuff - like if i want to arrange the main sequences and have the sequencer run through those, or if i want to manually change the sequences as i'm playing, etc.

what do you guys think? are you into WATCHING techno played live? i would love to see karenn play...

b0n0b0
Poo Fingers
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:02 pm
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by b0n0b0 »

I just got into the Eurorack crack, and delving into the world of modular finding more acts that are 'live'.

Problem is if you do it live, from scratch, its almost certainly going to be an inferior track to if you spent a week or two perfecting it in the studio. So for the majority who don't appreciate the production/sound design skill you use to do it live, it runs the risk of just being thrown together and sub par techno.

Its actually quite hard for me to see it from the perspective of someone who doesn't understand how production/synths/drum patterns etc all work, but I think the fact its so niche and quite rare tells you what most of it looks like from that perspective.

I think as with most things in life there is a balance, a laptop with Ableton live and a eurorack system and drum machine going into it seems like a good middle ground which is what I'm playing around with at the moment (purely for my own shits and giggles). That way you can have some predone clips or full/edited tracks in ableton and combine that with live sections between and over the top.

User avatar
UN!T
Lifer
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 4:40 am
Location: Send cash or fuck off
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by UN!T »

I like instruments and i like to play my instruments. My entire live set up is based around playing instruments totally live. Like a band. you know. Although some don't believe this is possible, they mistakenly believe its just mashing buttons and turning knobs. This delusion likely comes from the fact that they themselves do not possess the skills or instruments do so.

My live set up is centred around my Cirklon. Almost anything is possible with this machine. Record parts realtime on the fly with keys. tap out a drum patterns in real time, unmute/mute tracks, change patches, make sequences evolve and mutate, record more patterns, change scenes, transpose some parts. Create an ensemble style instrument. This machine is amazing and getting better all the time. You know it's a top quality product when you look around the developers forum and see quite a few top flight techno producers.

Yeah I like seeing a live set with keys, drum machines and other instruments. 99.9% of people using laptops just totally bore me to fucking tears.
C0REZ wrote:techno 2014 = fascism
:lol:

innovine
hmmmmmm...
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 7:16 am
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by innovine »

Liveness is difficult to define, but for me it comes down to the risk of something going wrong. The more chances of making a mistake the more live it is, often. It's pretty easy to mute/unmute tracks and twiddle a few cutoffs and sends to a delay or something, so I don't think thats very interesting from a live PA point of view. But if someones playing arpeggios or finger drumming on some pads it starts to get interesting. My fave is live rock/metal music, nothing better than watching a group of dudes sweat out every note with the potential for catastrophic train wrecks at every turn. Watching the results of the musicians thousands of hours of practice so they can pull it off is what does it for me. Techno has a ways to go in this regard.. thousands of hours in the studio and just hitting play isn't quite the same thing.

User avatar
UN!T
Lifer
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 4:40 am
Location: Send cash or fuck off
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by UN!T »

innovine wrote:Liveness is difficult to define, but for me it comes down to the risk of something going wrong. The more chances of making a mistake the more live it is, often. It's pretty easy to mute/unmute tracks and twiddle a few cutoffs and sends to a delay or something, so I don't think thats very interesting from a live PA point of view. But if someones playing arpeggios or finger drumming on some pads it starts to get interesting. My fave is live rock/metal music, nothing better than watching a group of dudes sweat out every note with the potential for catastrophic train wrecks at every turn. Watching the results of the musicians thousands of hours of practice so they can pull it off is what does it for me. Techno has a ways to go in this regard.. thousands of hours in the studio and just hitting play isn't quite the same thing.
This is it exactly. What I'm doing is live in this manner. Shit can go horrible wrong. I could play out of time or in the wrong key. Yeah it can end up like a horrible train wreck if I am not on top of what I'm doing. Huge possibilities for error exist and are always present.
C0REZ wrote:techno 2014 = fascism
:lol:

b0n0b0
Poo Fingers
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:02 pm
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by b0n0b0 »

That Cirklon looks very cool, not heard of it before so I just watched a few videos to get a rough idea of what it is.

I have to disagree about the possibility of things going wrong being the key element of a 'live' performance though. If that was it, surely I could just put in a mix cd and keep hold of the CD player while balancing on a chair.

I think what makes it 'live' is the potential for something new to happen, one thing I love about the modular eurorack stuff is when you turn it of and pull the cables, its gone never to return. There isn't a lot of uniqueness or creation taking place moment to moment when someone mixes one song into the next. As you start reducing the songs down to clips, and then to spontaneously created patterns the potential for a new and unique things to emerge increases and the atmosphere and reaction of the people at the performance starts to push those spontaneous things in different directions as the performer reads the crowd.

Techno has this over rock and metal, I've never seen a rock or metal band create a totally unique song there on stage never to be heard again.

I think that has to the be reason to want to play live over pressing play.

User avatar
oddmyth
Anba
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:46 pm
Location: Toronto
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by oddmyth »

b0n0b0 wrote: Techno has this over rock and metal, I've never seen a rock or metal band create a totally unique song there on stage never to be heard again.
Strange I feel the exact opposite way.
Cue 3 2013 - Devil's Advocate.

See what this is all about at oddmyth.ca

Contort
athlete
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:32 am
Contact:
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by Contort »

b0n0b0 wrote:
Problem is if you do it live, from scratch, its almost certainly going to be an inferior track to if you spent a week or two perfecting it in the studio. So for the majority who don't appreciate the production/sound design skill you use to do it live, it runs the risk of just being thrown together and sub par techno.
Yep. Unless you're an octopus that can tweak more than two things at once. Even then it's improv which more often than not sounds much worse than considered and refined decisions over time, without the pressure of a crowd in front of you.
The bits of live stuff ive seen have been really boring for the above reasons. Unless it's only a percentage live, the original track running but with live control over certain parameters rather than entire thing, which is far better I think.

User avatar
nicknack
BANNED
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:17 pm
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by nicknack »

why play live? good question. i think it's just protocol. a gesture. that is, maybe it's become the common practice that has come to be accepted. that coupled with the fact that a few people like to see the person, there in the flesh, performing the act; most likely other artists. even if it's just for appearances. people lip sync on videos all the time now. hardly makes a difference to the audience. as long as they believe the performance is taking place, it's forgotten about. personally i think technology is going to make a big difference in future and current parties. such as djz playing multiple venues simultaneously and remotely along with some video and massive screens. or even just simply streaming a custom mix or production or something pre-prepared and hosted on a server somewhere. or tuning into a web radio broadcast. that's if it hasn't already happened. it wouldn't make a ball hairs difference to me whether someone were actually there performing or not. a lot of the time you can't even see the person. it's the aural experience that counts most. what does that mean for djz? is there room for them in this future? i'm seeing a system whereby clubs and events promoters license a producers material directly and stream it to their systems. register on a web application and select the material online and ready to play that night. of course this brings up the question of copy righting and the unavoidable piracy that it brings. two possible solutions : music producers could 1) live on gratuities/donations -- open source production -- or 2) simply live off the legit royalties they earn off licensing -- big event companies and clubs can't get away with piracy -- and use the current legal system to combat obvious copy right infringements. improvisation is a poor argument for live performances because you can simply improvise the set the night before. lets be honest with ourselves here : the average punter couldn't be juiced as to whether there's someone there twirling or twiddling along to the music they partying to.

that's from my punters perspective. now if i ask myself from my performers perspective, i tell myself to fuck off. it's just way too much of a drop playing music to a crowd and having them love it. but that's just me whose only played a handful of live sets. others with a lot more experience would probably welcome the benefits of non-live distribution; economic and logistic. in the end i do believe that artists have a right to choose how their material is delivered and newer artists will always choose to play live because they're egos are still growing and need proper nutrients so that they can grow up to be big and strong egos. that's my two cetns.

User avatar
Lost to the Void
subsekt
subsekt
Posts: 13518
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:31 pm
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by Lost to the Void »

I think make it as live as you want to be.
Whatever satisfies your desires.
Don't do it for any other reason than to enjoy it, basically

I'm all up for as live as possible, but....... all the 100% improvised nothing prepared in advance live pas I have heard have been shite. It sounds like someone in the studio pushing buttons trying to write a tune and getting there..........eventually.
You need to be able to react and change to the vibe of the floor with at least the same flow as a dj.
It is very easy to get lost in live sequencing, and you might think it's only taken a minute to get your new beat and bassline written in the moment, but more than likely the audience is starting to get itchy having watched you push buttons for 5 minutes where nothing much has actually happened.

So like a band, I think it is better to have some prepared material ie "songs" or tracks, or sequences or parts or whatever you want to call it, so you at least have some direction, throw in some time to go completely off piste if you feel like totally improvising.
Improvised jazz is fantastic, a bunch of accomplished musicians all vibing off each other, improvised techno....... Very hit and miss.
If it a "live event" I think it is a different matter, but at a club night expectations are different. You are probably going to be the only live that night, the crowd will want a certain flow maintained, as you are there partly to lead, and partly to acquiesce to the crowds needs ie give them what they want, as well as what you ink they need.. Whereas at a live event people are there for live music and are more forgiving of "noodling", so you can be a more selfish and self absorbed.

But take it as far as you want, and as far as you feel comfortable with it.
The most important thing is to actually do gigs. You'll learn so much by getting out there and doing it live. You'll soon find out what is practical and realistic, on so many levels. How everything sounds live and loud, how the crowd reacts, how much noodling you can get away with, how much physical space you can expect to have in average, what it's like to play with smoke, in the dark with lights in your face and almost zero visibility, blah blah blah.

Ultimately if you don't rock the club then it doesn't matter how impressive you think you are being playing a drum solo with your dick.
Mastering Engineer @ Black Monolith Studio
New Shit
Techno is dead. Long live Techno.

User avatar
Barfunkel
Smalahove
Posts: 2329
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:27 am
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by Barfunkel »

I love playing live. However, as I do it alone (and most definitely can't afford to hire a few musicians) it's pretty much restricted to premade sequences, mutes/unmutes and some filter/FX trickery. With only two hands it'd be quite difficult to do anything else.

Come to think of it, playing techno completely live (ie. not using any kind of a sequencer) might not even work, or at least it would be very difficult to get it done properly, particularly without a huge budget.
"I don't shower every day, but when I do, I do it after listening to some Barfunkel" - Anonymous

http://soundcloud.com/user4904810
http://www.mixcloud.com/Barfunkel/

User avatar
Lost to the Void
subsekt
subsekt
Posts: 13518
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:31 pm
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by Lost to the Void »

Barfunkel wrote:I love playing live. However, as I do it alone (and most definitely can't afford to hire a few musicians) it's pretty much restricted to premade sequences, mutes/unmutes and some filter/FX trickery. With only two hands it'd be quite difficult to do anything else.

Come to think of it, playing techno completely live (ie. not using any kind of a sequencer) might not even work, or at least it would be very difficult to get it done properly, particularly without a huge budget.
How many bands do you see that play completely improvised music?
Most play premise sequences, ie the parts that make up their songs.
It's really ok.
Think about makin music in the studio, how many of the ideas you have are good ideas and how many do you reject? There's a ratio of shit that never needs to see light of day right, some stuff just doesn't work right?
How many of those ideas took 30 seconds or a minute to come into full fruition of a tune? Probably less than 5 percent.
So why expect to, in a live situation, make up a decent tune that isn't complete balls in less than a minute, and then keep doing that?
That's why 100% improv pas are gash! it just ends up as a bog standard xox drum pattern and some shitty arpeggios on a synth or whatever.

There's nothing wrong with having songs and sequences in your pa, no one is asking for improvised jazz.
Mastering Engineer @ Black Monolith Studio
New Shit
Techno is dead. Long live Techno.

innovine
hmmmmmm...
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 7:16 am
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by innovine »

Making standard techno tracks live is kinda boring, but I think there is room for some creative people to put together live sets anyway. I've seen acid techno and psytrance with didgeridoos live, plenty of stuff with bongos, and even drummers playing jungle, dubstep and drum n bass live. So I think there are techno options too if people think a little bit about it, and aren't afraid to stretch the genre a bit.

innovine
hmmmmmm...
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 7:16 am
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by innovine »

nicknack wrote:it wouldn't make a ball hairs difference to me whether someone were actually there performing or no...the average punter couldn't be juiced as to whether there's someone there twirling or twiddling along to the music they partying to
They would if they went to a metallica concert, and instead of the band, some dude walked out on stage and put a metallica CD on.

What you say is true for electronic music, but that's because it's underdeveloped as a performance art, not because punters don't care.

User avatar
Lost to the Void
subsekt
subsekt
Posts: 13518
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:31 pm
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by Lost to the Void »

innovine wrote:Making standard techno tracks live is kinda boring, but I think there is room for some creative people to put together live sets anyway. I've seen acid techno and psytrance with didgeridoos live, plenty of stuff with bongos, and even drummers playing jungle, dubstep and drum n bass live. So I think there are techno options too if people think a little bit about it, and aren't afraid to stretch the genre a bit.
There are a few amazing live drum and bass bands.
Mastering Engineer @ Black Monolith Studio
New Shit
Techno is dead. Long live Techno.

b0n0b0
Poo Fingers
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:02 pm
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by b0n0b0 »

I don't think for electronic music playing live needs to involve finger drumming or bongos or whatever to be live. Bashing out quick patterns using a sequencer like push or a drum machine sequencer like on the TR8 is still 'live' in my book, get wiggling on the knobs and its happy days!

User avatar
nicknack
BANNED
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:17 pm
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by nicknack »

innovine wrote:
nicknack wrote:it wouldn't make a ball hairs difference to me whether someone were actually there performing or no...the average punter couldn't be juiced as to whether there's someone there twirling or twiddling along to the music they partying to
They would if they went to a metallica concert, and instead of the band, some dude walked out on stage and put a metallica CD on.

What you say is true for electronic music, but that's because it's underdeveloped as a performance art, not because punters don't care.
the obvious response here is to point out that the section of people i'm considering are people who go out to get drunk, or hyped up and dance most of the night away with intermittent periods of rest in chill areas. visual performance is all but lost on such folk. a waste of time and effort. i do accept that techno and performance is a good thing, simply in another far more rare context. as for live bands like metallica or perl jam, it still makes little difference to me whether its a cd, a look alike or the actual charlie. the visual contribution they make to the performance is jack; just some wankers on stage playing instruments. in fact the only reason i'd like to see them there in person, is so that i could show up with a large pair of neon colored headphones so that i could get right up close to the stage or box and play one of my own custom sets, in view of the performer. but that's just me.

User avatar
daunzila
arsehole
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:10 pm
Location: Florianópolis - Brasil
Contact:
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by daunzila »

Lost to the Void wrote: There's nothing wrong with having songs and sequences in your pa, no one is asking for improvised jazz.
Yes, i think is a good thing to have some sequences to get things going, i use some pattern stored and lots of audio clips in live, so i can go and switch to a mood but isnt really a song/track thing, is more o lets make space to that synth loop comes in and light up the music, then i go and use the hardware setup to write around that, and go from there improvising again,

tbh, most of the times i got bored when i see people just reproducing something...

and obviously i love to watch good live techno stuff, but again, im one of those who do live techno shit, so...
WTF?!

User avatar
Lost to the Void
subsekt
subsekt
Posts: 13518
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:31 pm
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by Lost to the Void »

daunzila wrote:
Lost to the Void wrote: There's nothing wrong with having songs and sequences in your pa, no one is asking for improvised jazz.
Yes, i think is a good thing to have some sequences to get things going, i use some pattern stored and lots of audio clips in live, so i can go and switch to a mood but isnt really a song/track thing, is more o lets make space to that synth loop comes in and light up the music, then i go and use the hardware setup to write around that, and go from there improvising again,

tbh, most of the times i got bored when i see people just reproducing something...

and obviously i love to watch good live techno stuff, but again, im one of those who do live techno shit, so...
The simple way to avoid reproducing stuff is to have separate music. Release music and live music.
I've been doing it that way for years, the live stuff is something people can only hear live, and at the end of the year the stuff that has been most successful at gigs will get properly sequenced, recorded and released and at that point it's out of the pa.
People do get a little frustrated because they might say beforehand or during the pa "can you play or will you be playing such and such" but they can't as released tracks are no longer in the pa.

It makes what you do more marketable, punters can't say "oh he is just reproducing releases" and they get to hear something exclusive, which is more reason to see you.

And when the stuff does get released, it has already been promoted by you at gigs.
Mastering Engineer @ Black Monolith Studio
New Shit
Techno is dead. Long live Techno.

disparate
I forgot.... So baked.
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 12:48 pm
Re: Live vs. Not

Post by disparate »

Kinda having that dilemma lately. I've been having fun just recording tracks live-sequenced on my MPC through my mixing desk, but then obviously there's limitations in the complexity of it and it's much harder to go back and change levels, sounds, etc after the fact. I think you need to be pretty confident in your balance/levels before hitting record to really pull that off without a frustrating amount of takes. Been finding a good "best of both" process involving recording each track individually into Ableton once I've got things sketched out on the MPC but that can be a bit fiddly and stop-start itself.


Post Reply