Thanks for pointing out the importance of live music. The reason it has more of an impact than a recording is due, of course, to the vibrations being absorbed into the body of the listener. But most people think that's too woo-woo and they discount it. Yet there's absolutely no other explanation for the immense power a live performance can have.
Thanks for pointing out the importance of live music. The reason it has more of an impact than a recording is due, of course, to the vibrations being absorbed into the body of the listener. But most people think that's too woo-woo and they discount it. Yet there's absolutely no other explanation for the immense power a live performance can have.
Another great point. Agreed. No recording can actually reproduce what it's like to be in the room as the music is made -- it's just a cunning simulacrum, even if the vibrations seem the same. I'd go even further, however -- to sit in Boston's Symphony Hall, or the Village Vanguard is to be in a specific PLACE, which is part of what all music IS. Again, this is NOT to diss recordings per se, but just to point out how much these differences matter. To actually be present in real time in one of these famous venues is to sense and feel all sorts of things, from the decor to the history to the acoustics to the crowd and of course the music going on in that moment that cannot every be completely conveyed, because so much of it is spontaneous and even aleatory. It is what is happening right there, right then.
All of which puts me in mind of this great poem by Frank O'Hara, "The Day Lady Died," which doesn't try to record an experience so much as evoke exactly what we're talking about....
Live music is like a job interview, you get one chance to get it right. How many takes of "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" did the Beatles record before they had an acceptable
Totally agree. And I love "A Day in the Life" and "Strawberry Fields" and so on -- love them -- but how could they ever even be "performed"? So -- what are they...?
I think it could be done. Rush's live performances were, according to them, an attempt to recreate their recorded music as closely as possible. They have a host of recorded concerts, that, in my opinion, managed to do that. With only three guys. Go figure.
Agree to an extent. Rush wrote and recorded mostly within the limits of what they could do live. But bands like Queen took recording and overdubs to the nth degree, and of course, could never translate that directly to live without playing along with a recording (Bohemian Rhapsody, for example). I believe the Who did that as well for tracks like Baba O'Riley. Sync tracks have been around for a while.
Personally, I prefer when you hear a more live sounding album that can be pulled off live. Ironically, my own music is the complete opposite (I'd need to hire a lot of musicians to translate what I do via recording into live). I guess I kind of see them as different art forms.
Thanks for pointing out the importance of live music. The reason it has more of an impact than a recording is due, of course, to the vibrations being absorbed into the body of the listener. But most people think that's too woo-woo and they discount it. Yet there's absolutely no other explanation for the immense power a live performance can have.
Another great point. Agreed. No recording can actually reproduce what it's like to be in the room as the music is made -- it's just a cunning simulacrum, even if the vibrations seem the same. I'd go even further, however -- to sit in Boston's Symphony Hall, or the Village Vanguard is to be in a specific PLACE, which is part of what all music IS. Again, this is NOT to diss recordings per se, but just to point out how much these differences matter. To actually be present in real time in one of these famous venues is to sense and feel all sorts of things, from the decor to the history to the acoustics to the crowd and of course the music going on in that moment that cannot every be completely conveyed, because so much of it is spontaneous and even aleatory. It is what is happening right there, right then.
All of which puts me in mind of this great poem by Frank O'Hara, "The Day Lady Died," which doesn't try to record an experience so much as evoke exactly what we're talking about....
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/42657/the-day-lady-died
Live music is like a job interview, you get one chance to get it right. How many takes of "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" did the Beatles record before they had an acceptable
finished version for the album
Totally agree. And I love "A Day in the Life" and "Strawberry Fields" and so on -- love them -- but how could they ever even be "performed"? So -- what are they...?
I think it could be done. Rush's live performances were, according to them, an attempt to recreate their recorded music as closely as possible. They have a host of recorded concerts, that, in my opinion, managed to do that. With only three guys. Go figure.
Agree to an extent. Rush wrote and recorded mostly within the limits of what they could do live. But bands like Queen took recording and overdubs to the nth degree, and of course, could never translate that directly to live without playing along with a recording (Bohemian Rhapsody, for example). I believe the Who did that as well for tracks like Baba O'Riley. Sync tracks have been around for a while.
Personally, I prefer when you hear a more live sounding album that can be pulled off live. Ironically, my own music is the complete opposite (I'd need to hire a lot of musicians to translate what I do via recording into live). I guess I kind of see them as different art forms.