yeah, lets move on.
I don't think it was any HH vs. TNB thing anyways. One could easily talk about for example Giancarlo Toniutti. He had no live sound, only quadraphonic live mix of pre-recorded sounds. Could it be done more "live" ? Or was it as live as live gets? Of course it was live, since the sounds he created - even if physical origin, only exists in that form as recorded material. No substitutes, but playing them in form they exists. Same could be said about Con-Dom. It was backing tapes and vocals as usual. But if sound doesn't exists in any other form than "loop tape", how else it should be played live? It can be only played by using the (loop) tape where sound is and it is as live as it gets. Trying to find some electronic gadget to generate sound in many ways isn't different than electronic gadget that plays the sound. It's more about intent what you aim for.
Of course I must say that looking back couple years at LAFMS event, I was slightly annoyed by John Duncan set. You know, I liked what I heard, but when I saw that it really was just DJ CD players where he played one CD and then faded in the other CD and that's that... But then you think why should he bring synths or shortwave radios and push couple more buttons of something else.. and not one button of CD player and move the slide? I know it should not really affect my feelings since I liked what I heard, but how you fight intellectually against authentic gut feeling?
It is perhaps most of all aesthetic issue. You travel across the europe, and then someone plays you CD. In the end it may be only possible solution, but still the physicality of live action and the human touch in general is what makes it interesting. While you can (should?) try to detach from trivial technological issues and focus on experience as whole (-> maybe the sound you hear?), I find myself very very interested in the craftmanship and charisma of creator. That can't be separated from what comes out of speakers.
Bands can naturally explain their intentions, but if they succeeded or failed is really subjective experience which can be discussed. Artists explanation may clear confusion, but probably not change experience so much. I mean, lets say TNB member explains all mistakes, all shabbiness and all failures were intentional. What does it change? If failing is bad, I don't see much different in pretending to fail. It doesn't become absurd genius work all the sudden. Lets say STAB electronics now says his microphone problems and random glitchy noises was all planned stage show. Would it become better? I would think not. It would merely explain little bit why it happened.
