In my mind there is a distinction between appreciation and preference. I can appreciate many different artists but definitely have a preference for only a handful.
I think live music and commercial recorded music are two very different things. I enjoy going to concerts and I enjoy highly synthesized music as well. They don't have to be all that related for me to appreciate them for what they are.
After 50 years of concert-going (from classical to pop), I rarely go to a live performance anymore due to high ticket prices, the talent available, and the hassle. I've already heard most of the folks I would want to hear (often multiple times) but am open to newbies. I go to a handful of shows per year at this point, usually someone I know or a newish act on their way up (meaning, not yet too expensive). I refuse to pay 3 figures for an aging rock vet whom I missed in the 60's or the 70's.
For me it's both ways like bisexual :) Exploring new stuff inside the venues -- purchasing media of the artists I liked and visa versa: Listening to the media and than decide to purchase concert tickets. At the same time never really hunting for big names to attend live. Did not care much about Cream of Eric Clapton tour, but purchased tickets to Carnegie Hall on pre-sale announcement. My GF couldn't attend so she asked if I could sell her ticket at the door. When I reached Carnegie Hall, I saw many folks looking for extra ticket and sold both $750. I guess I wouldn't be happier if I attended the concert -- Having records from time to time is OK tho.
I spent some time yesterday listening to some of my favorite music when it occurred to me that all the music I was playing was music that I had seen at a live performance. That is what prompted me to ask the question. Did I go to the live performance because it was my favorite music? Or did I listen to the music because I experienced a live performance that enlightened my appreciation of the piece(s)?
Buconero117, I agree that live shows can be social in nature, but that doesn't mean that good music can't be heard. I'm a big proponent of live performances; the energy interaction between the artists and the audience can result in fantastic performances.
My musical preferences are almost entirely acoustical in nature; the lone exception is probably big band.
Buconero117, Are you referring to rock/pop music? I attend jazz clubs which are overwhelmingly un amplified acoustic instruments. This is an entirely different experience from what you are describing. These intimate jazz venues are a highly valuable template for what I "attempt" to achieve at home. I can understand why we'd have different perspectives.
My musical tastes determine my concert attendance. No concert I have ever experienced was bested by playing music in my home, none.
I would love to have music to play at home that equals the experience I have at live shows; there are times when I think I have been there, but not so often.
Here's the truth for me; I love both. I love playing music in my music/living room, and I love going to shows. I am not sure I could choose one over the other.
A live show is a social event, not one for serious listening to music. All live shows provide high decibel amplified sound, which is a health hazard. So, if you are tying to replicate such music, it is best you consider if you are serious about music.
Definitely the music comes before live show for me and I really prefer more complex compositions. I live way too far out in the sticks to do it any other way. That said, my audio hobby is entirely driven by trying to replicate the best sounding shows I've heard. I've been pretty successful in that direction, too. Several shows I've seen in the past 5 years or so that were driven by chip amps did not measure up to the reproduction I get at home.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
