Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mprvaxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!drutx!drux3!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!mprvaxa!tbray
From: tbray@mprvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: live vs. recorded: a recent experience
Message-ID: <438@mprvaxa.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Jan-84 22:49:51 EST
Article-I.D.: mprvaxa.438
Posted: Sat Jan 14 22:49:51 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 7-Feb-84 14:46:35 EST
References: <4901@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Microtel Pacific Research, Burnaby BC
Lines: 28

x <-- USENET insecticide

The experience of real concert sound being inferior to that available
at home is a common one for those of us who enjoy music that typically
involves electrically amplified instruments.

This is generally true regardless of the care taken by the artist in
question.  I earned my living house-managing for a few years and
there were definite sonic high and low points, but very few occasions
when the stage sound matched the quality of that recorded.

My opinion is that electric bands should realize this and not attempt
to get too fancy.  My most sonically satisfying live electric performances
have been those where the instruments were few and the "orchestration"
stripped down.

Specific examples - Pat Metheny just CAN'T get ECM quality on stage,
but JJ Cale CAN duplicate his lean, sinuous sound.

For non-amplified music, the concert hall introduces a whole new
host of influences.  As I found out when, last year, I followed the
Toronto Symphony orchestra from a dingy, but classic, shoebox-shaped
plaster-walled hall to a towering ultra-modern concrete bowl.  
Even within the same concert hall, being up in the cheap seats is
profoundly different (not necessarily less enjoyable) than
mid-orchestra...

enough spewing... this should be in net.music anyhow...