Performers and performances in reproduction: a history spanning decades. The use of registered backing tracks is useful in certain circumstances, as it simplifies production, but is often perceived as “fake”. In 1975 I Queen refused to sing along to “Top of the Pops”: this is how the video clip “Bohemian Rhapsody” was born, which is considered one of the first in history; as revealed by Brian May and Roger Taylor in the mini-documentary series Queen: The Greatest, the band was invited to the program, but “we didn’t really like the idea of being on one of those little stages in pretend to play such a complex piece,” said Brian May.
And now, under the direction of Bruce Gowers, Queen shot a video for “Bohemian Rhapsody.” to be broadcast during the program. It was then serialized and modeled by other artists and the record industry. The rest is history with a capital letter. This is to remember how far the use of playback has always traveled down the path of burning coals, with artists who use it and others who refuse to use it. Often, when he is forced to use, the singers ridicule him: it happened with the same ones. Queen in San Remo (Mercury intentionally keeps the microphone away), and Blur always performs at the festival with a cartoon on stage. Or like Muse’s famous performance in “Quelli che il calcio” when the band members switch roles (with Matt Bellamy on drums).
Point of Marrakesh
The theme is ever-present – it was only last winter that it resurfaced in Rihanna’s performance at the Superbowl halftime show: the show’s intricate production machine led to suspicion that the vocal performance was pre-recorded. But so far we have cited television examples: at a concert, it’s a completely different matter. Often, of course, pre-recorded bases are used, but is it possible to “sing” also in playback? They really discussed Travis Scott’s recent performances in Milan and Rome: a world-class star capable of moving masses, which, however, in terms of technique on stage leaves much to be desired. We wrote this: Travis raps and sings very little, he makes the most of bases and sequences, he is above all image, movement, energy. His performance, paradoxically,
seems to be oblivious to music. He is supported by a DJ, a classic form in the history of hip-hop, but his performance is more inspiring than method: fans love it because the end result, this also needs to be emphasized, works in his case.
They Magazine, about criticism of Travis and his constant use of replay, published an Instagram post titled “Is live replay really a problem?” which, minus the position taken by the magazine, which does not want to demystify the pre-recorded ones, brought the topic back to the center. All with dubious claims that reproduction was only perceived as a “problem” in pop rock, not rap. In fact, dissatisfaction was caused by the passage of a post that says “everyone uses”what I wanted to answer personally Marrakesh, who in recent years has contributed to significantly raising the bar for live rap in Italy: “To say ‘everyone does it’ is just a lie and devalues instead those who are trying to make a live performance that is really alive. We’re not so xenophile that if Travis does it, then everything is fine? Rap has always stood out as an “inferior” genre in live performance compared to other genres such as rock. I don’t think replay will help with that.”
Other rappers including Gemitaizunder the post, wanted Express your thoughtsalmost always against using replay. Psalmanother artist who has always been at the forefront of creating high quality acted, sung and live performances stepped in with a series of stories in which he explains that there is no word “concert” without “rapping and singing live” and also remember how the level of many American rappers of the new generation is “low”.
To suggest that this is a knot only present in the modern world of hip-hop would be to limit the scope for debate: even the new generation of rock, like Travis Scott, is targeting this aspect. Yungblud decided to publicly respond to a fan two years ago. on social media, he wrote, “pretend to play guitars that aren’t even attached.” “Pay attention to your ears,” wrote the voice of the “Funeral” – it’s a wireless amplifier so it doesn’t need cables. That’s why he doesn’t have them. I also play the guitar riff that doubles the track of the song. So I can finish playing early so I can sing because the bass is covering me. I will always defend my art and never had to explain myself to anyonebut the internet is full of assholes, so keep it up.”
What does “live” mean?
He is right Knight when under the Essay post he writes: “I’m watching Kendrick Lamar live and my feeling, however subconscious, is that no one in the world could technically and concretely reproduce what I observe“. This is exactly the point: it’s wrong to humiliate travis scott and his way of conceiving the performance, but at the same time cannot be sampled. It also cannot be “cleared” as a live tout court simply because it is not. Does it have a reason to exist? Yes, it is interesting? Yes, but more like a phenomenon of social aggregation than like a concert. It is correct to highlight some of its nuances, but why not highlight some obvious limitations at a critical level?
At the same time, perhaps, it is necessary to understand the word “live”: today hardly anyone is completely “alive” in the classical sense of the word. There are those who, like Enrico Ruggieri, have been arguing for years that artists should play without a backing track (“I consider them a low-level device to deceive the most naive, reducing musicians to extras”). This is a radical position, feasible only for certain types of concerts: today “live” is a complex and technological machine, which often cannot do without pre-recorded parts. However, at the same time, a concert that wants to convey a sense of uniqueness, cannot ignore interpretive, singing and performing techniques. A blend that can do it true and bright even in smudges, as in the show. A question we don’t want to answer too hastily, but leave it as additional food for thought: for some new generations, the musical performance of a concerto is still the measure of evaluate its validity and strength? Or does the show and the personal (not “live”) vision of the artist reign?