Re: Len Bullard's comments

[Ronald.Girardin@Dartmouth.EDU (Ronald Girardin)]

--- pDaleCampbell wrote:
>I disagree.  Taken to the extreme...what about paintings and sculpture?

>Some art is "performance art" and some is "artifact art".  Technology has made
>it possible for some arts that WERE strictly performance-based to be made into
>artifacts.

Just because the technology has made it possible to "capture" performance art,
it doesn't make thte art form expendible in its purest form.  Obviously, my
friend,
you haven't been to many shows....or at least inspiring shows...

>Do you want your stories told to you live, by a "storyteller"?  That's the way
>it USED to be done, until the printing press.  Do you want your songs sung to
>you live, by a performer?  That's the way it USED to be done, before recording
>technology.

Yes to both.  :-)


>Well, actually we DO still have touring storytellers (not many) and performers
>(not yet passe).  I recall hearing about how Mark Twain did book tours, even
>after his health was poor, reading from his latest work--and I was struck by
>how it was kind of a precursor to today's bands touring their latest album.
>(I wonder if the world lost a book or two by him because of the toll touring
>took on his body?)

I'm not very familiar with Mark Twain but if he toured to read his latest book,
I find that fascinating!    What a great way to put life into his works.


>The Beatles put out albums without touring.  Steely Dan put out albums without
>touring.  It's not UNHEARD-OF.  And if that's how they feel, fine.  If Kate
>doesn't want to tour, fine!  I'm just GLAD to get the albums!

Actually, the Beatles DID tour until late 1966.  They decided to stop touring 
because they couldn't hear themselves sing on stage..there was so much
screaming.
If the Beatles had had a better behaving audience, they would've toured more,
IMHO.


>But then, if she's playing in Cleveland any time soon, I'll be there!

of course.  Nobody in this mailing list would pass such an opportunity.  What
does
that tell you?


>My only true regret would be if too many fans left her because they felt she
>MUST tour, and she was unable to afford to create and release new albums.  I
>agree that not touring has CERTAINLY contributed to her lack of widespread
>fame.

Albums don't have to cost alot of money to make.  But the way Kate likes to
"waste" time in te studio....no wonder she only releases an album every 4
years.


>Actually--it occurs to me...  *IF* Kate toured, that would probably make it
>even LONGER between albums!  "NO KATE!  DON'T DO IT!  PLEASE DON'T TOUR!"

You'd be surprised.   I think live performances enhance the creativity of an
artist.


>I'm rambling...I'm sorry.  But I'm tired of hearing Len's "Litany of Tour".
>Kate doesn't owe him (or anyone) a tour any more than she owes him a roll in
>the hay.

Len has valid point.  If you are tired of reading Len's opinions, then don't
read them.   Don't read mine, for that matter since I agree with Len.  


>To me, it's a sign of a true artist to record albums and not tour, while it's
>a sign of an Old Fart to tour and not record albums.  Is the essence of that
>statement clear?

Actually, no.  please clarify....
   
If you truly think that touring is reserved to so called "old farts" then all I
can answer to that is:  Ignorance is bliss.

BTW,  who do you consider to be an Old fart?   Kate has been in the business
for 20 
years now.   Does that make her an Old fart?   
Perhaps an old fart is someone over the age of....35?....40?....45?....55?  
I'm
confused.    


peace

ron