"Love in the Cemetery" is one I uploaded not too long ago and the reason for plugging it again is that it suits the point regarding video and whether music is better without it.
The video has had more hits than any of the others since recovering from the biggest shock of a system crash in decades. A system crash doesn't necessarily mean a disk drive failed as doing something stupid is highly effective for this purpose as well.
So this one gets lots of hits.
But maybe sheeple just get attracted to flashing lights. It starts with a big, highly-visual bang as I know I got that part right but, from the standpoint of audio only, it starts with a bang anyway. My contention - note specifically this is not a point of debate - is that the video makes a bigger bang as there is high drama when all the lights kick up at once.
The reason this is not a debate is blowing people away is not why I do it. I hope people like it but I make this environment because of what I do in it. That's the part that makes it music to me.
I'm telling you there's a place with the Necromancer and music comes from it. I have no idea where it is and I have no idea who he is but in this eerie set of lights I feel more connected. What that actually does to the music is extremely difficult to determine as maybe it would mean playing in this environment and playing exactly the same thing in normal room lights to compare. I know without doing it that it will be different but then it becomes a matter of subjectivity: is it different just because I want it to be different.
Call it narcissism if you like but what I see of it is the pursuit is of a vision which will probably not be gratifying at all as most people want a whole lot more structure in their music ... but it will be gratifying for me in doing it. Therefore, I believe the lights are important and there's another fair question from you is why is it necessary to show the video when the purpose of the lights is for what it does to me. Fair enough.
When I shoot a video and it gets me to a trippy place to make trippy music, it's not required that you see whatever the room looked like when I did it before you can enjoy the music. Cat's point is in one part that the lights are complementary but not required and in some cases they are detrimental due to overloading the senses.
I'll repeat multiple times there is no debate and I am not making a case. Everything is an experiment that's part of the entire exploration. I have no idea what I'm doing ... but that served me for a six-figure salary in computers on which I never knew what I was doing. That is literal truth as my biggest projects were invariably for things I had never done before and did not know how to do them. I use exactly the same approach with music.
Something Cat and I covered earlier is that I don't see lights as mandatory. For example, with Voodoo Shilton I would shoot in a Spanish cafe and his gadgets, as much as possible, would be out of view. I would want to set the scene a little bit as I'm thinking right around sundown and there are sunbeams coming through the windows. You can see them from a bit of dust and smoke, ambient air. In this mixed light, Voodoo starts talking ... and then he plays. I would not light up so much as a single LED in such a scene.
There is a bit of a lie in that image as hiding the electronica is, in effect, saying it doesn't exist. Voodoo is so smooth he can get away with that but no-one wants to be 'getting away' with anything. It's the search for Ultimate Musical Truth and that whole saga.
But Dali was from Spain. Maybe you do need to fold some clocks over the tables. It's all open.
No comments:
Post a Comment