Thats what its about isn't it?
It's about creating music. Everything else is ancillary. I hate to use the term 'rockist' but that's kinda the vibe I'm getting here. Like, music should be made heroically through manual effort and this effort should be proved on the stage. People just putting together tunes in their bedroom are somehow not real, they lack a certain essential quality. They should play live even if they have to recruit like five extra musicians, buy extra gear etc. or even if it's just someone sitting with a laptop pressing 'play'? Like, most of my music, there is no performative element at all, I never designed the stuff to be played live, so why would I do it?
As for bands and artists that don't play live, many black metal bands (including some pretty big ones ie Burzum, Xasthur), many electronic artists of various genres, lots of one-person projects in general. Some people start touring after years or only tour very sparsely. Jandek and Coil come to mind; both projects existed for decades before there were any live shows. Did those artists suddenly become more real because they played live? Conversely, people like Scott Walker, Kate Bush and Rudimentary Peni haven't played live for years. Are they now less real?
Like seriously there is no way live performance should be integral to being a band or a musician any more than being on a record label or releasing music as albums, ie not at all.
Not at all, I wasn't trying to suggest that those who make music in their basement are somehow less valid as an artist. Like I said, for me the music totally speaks for itself - I don't really care how it comes to me, music is the enjoyable creative aspect of it all. I was simply stating that, as traditionalist as it may seem, touring is an important part of the music. Yes, you can reach thousands of people through LPs, but from a band point of view touring gives that ability of getting your fans together, people celebrating your music in person, with a physical presence, so that they don't just become another number on a chart saying how many records you've sold.
I might be wrong, but isn't it said nowadays that touring brings in money for the artist while records just generate money for the record company?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every band that has ever put out an album NEEDS to tour. If it is totally unnecessary for a band to do it then I wouldn't say "become bankrupt so that I can see you". But I guess I'm talking in more of an actual band format, where the songs that they write can be performed. For example, bands like Rush have a shit-load of sequencers and arrangements that they manage to pull off in a live show. Other bands make it so that the studio albums are polished while the live renditions carry a more raw and primitive quality.
One person projects is obviously a different category altogether, but I refuse to be labelled as some antecedent, ignorant person who quesitons the reality of a band based on their live performance. They are not "less real" if they don't tour, but for me, personally, it is something I would normally expect. We are in a totally different era now and yes, touring is not the only way to get noticed. But I think it is essential to get a proper band-fan connection established. Many people here would say that they were blown away, surprised, etc by bands that they've seen live, a totally unexpected 3 hours of their life that they don't forget in a hurry. An album only gives you so much of that experience. This experience is not really quantifiable and me trying to justify it seems pretty redundant but for me, in my opinion, touring is a vital part of a band's progression.