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...