Detailed sound? Real?

I thinks that's going too far, and although that may be a working definition for some in a very narrow sense, it's not very useful. "Live" music would be slim slice indeed for that camp.

I believe a more usable definition for "live" is any music which is not recorded in it's entirety and played real time. Therefore, some musicians use pre-recorded vocal, background singers, synthesizers, etc... are less live than others, but would still consider it "live". There are shades of grey in live.

Maybe the term Live music would be better if it was termed Live performance. Most rock music gets mixed, equalized and compressed in the studio. This doesn't happen on stage, so it never really sounds like the recording.

The stereo systems purchased by some on Audiogon cost far more than the equipment purchased and used by musicians in a live performance. Therefore, your stereo may sound "cleaner" but because of the human interaction and emotion, etc, the live event can never be duplicated. I have only heard one live concert where the live performance sounded exactly like a recording. Even at that particular event, no stereo system could replace "being there". Even a live performance at a Sunday church service with a not so good sound system is usually better than listening to the duplication of something on a quality home audio system. Live is more soul stirring. Just my opinion.

Most rock music gets mixed, equalized and compressed in the studio. This doesn't happen on stage

False. Every pop/rock commercial venue I've ever been to had some sort of mixer/PA system for music. In the pop/rock world live, unamplified sound is virtually non-existent. Amplified concert performances should not be used as a reference for how real music sounds.

There are times when a recording engineer is actually trying to accurately capture exactly what a musician playing a real instrument in a real acoustic space sounds like. But this situation is really not that common (at least in commercial music production). Recording is more akin to making a commercial Hollywood style movie than a documentary film. In movies to make something look or sound real is the result of dozens of crafts people doing everything but what actually appears on the screen. It sounds silly, but things have to be more real than reality or else it doesn't appear real on the screen. Filming a scene that is supposed to take place in the rain is a perfect example. Real rainfall doesn't film well -- you need fake rain. It's a very similar situation with recording music. If you just placed two microphones midway back in a concert hall and recorded the output, it probably won't sound very good, nor will it sound real.

Just like anything you can push this fake reality too far. The trend in audiophile sound reproduction over the past two decades has been toward an overly detailed sound. It's as if we want a nearfield listening experience sitting 10 feet from the speaker.

real interaction vs simulated. apply that to anything. reading a good book doesn't put you in the jungle....it may however enrich your life.