Is the Live Music Reference Correct?


I've gone to a bunch of live concerts in the last year. (Jazz, Classical, Theatrical) Most of these performances were well done from the performance perspective. Unfortunately, each time I get up to leave I have had the same thought. I wish I could have heard the performance on my stereo. Why? Well the performances here in the Denver area are never performed in premo accoustic locations, the performers are beginning to be close mic'd with cordless mics, and the sound you hear is through speakers that don't usually approach mid-fi in quality. Add that to the talking people and the too loud production for even jazz and classic performances you get a sonic performance that is easily eclipsed by a standard quality CD.
I've been to great performances in good accoustic spaces that are truely magical, but the run of the mill average performance is not worth the tickets...or the gas to drive to it.
keis
I agree Jeff. The overproduced pop music leaves me cold. But that over production can be both live and recorded. I was forced at almost gun point to go see RiverDance live. Now that was an over loud, over produced event. Pretty dancers however. Good jazz and classical events where everything is pure accoustically generated is getting harder and harder to find. Example the Preservation Jazz Hall concert at the Boulder Theater last month was a much smaller venu but still there was a mixing consol between my ears and some incredible musicians. The balance was way off. I purchased their CD set and not until I got home did I hear what the musicians wanted me to hear.
While bad stage managers and technicians can ruin a live performance (I still don't understand why they insist on micing the piano at a favorite (VERY small) venue of mine), I still would almost always rather the visceral experience of experiencing the music being made then I would even a very close reproduction. I think that part of the effect is similar to watching a comedy in the theater versus renting it and watching at home. Invariably, people laugh harder and longer when they're surrounded by other people experiencing the same thing. The emotional group dynamic of watching a live performance can never be encoded (even on vinyl). Then again, I'm still reeling from the Medeski, Martin, & Wood show I saw last Thursday.
The last live performance I went to had terrible acoustics and even worse sound production. I saw the Brazilian singer, now I can't remember her name but I have one of her CD's "Sol Negro", at Town Hall in NYC. I knew in advance that acoustics at Town Hall suck so I was prepared. But the sound system they used just made the concert almost unbearable.

Merkin Concert Hall also does the same thing. I saw an incredible concert conducted by John Zorn. He was not playing. He conducted his Masada series being played by a string quartet, no horns. Amazing. Our seat were off center about tenth row. We had this terrible speaker blaring into our faces from that perspective. Since the concert was far from sold out, we moved to second row center and were treated to the most amazing music direct from the source.

The last good concert I went to was at Carnegie Hall, the Tibet House fund raiser with Patti Smith, David Bowie, Emmy Lou Harris, others and some amazing acoustic performances by Tibetan monks and the offshoot of Nusrat Fatah Ali Khan. That concert was excellent. The production was great.

So, I agree that the venue and the production has a lot to do with the enjoyment of live music. Not every live performance is enjoyable even if the music is what you came for. I would like to attend more small venue, like jazz clubs, but the sets are too late for me, the cost is high, and the drink minimums add to the expense. When you add the factor that to your left and right people are probably talking louder than the music, I'd rather stay home and close my eyes and pretend.

I hope I didn't go on too long.
I have to post one more reply because of given this topic some thought. Everytime I do go to a live performance, I listen to the music for a few minutes through audiophile ears. I try to gauge the soundstage, imaging, bloom, etc, all the descriptive terms that we read about in the reviews. There is a huge difference between a live performance (that hasn't been killed by bad equipment) and the best systems that I've heard. I've had the pleasure to hear systems costing up to about 250K. A live performance is still much different.

I just figure that what I get at home I should enjoy. It's my music, my system, and I get to play what I want and have it sound the way it pleases me.

I do think that TAS has it right as far as evaluating equipment. Try to compare to live unamplified acoustic music.
Keis,

Try aiming your musical outings towards smaller, more intimate venues. Maybe even seek out one or two venues where you enjoy the sound/ambience.

For me, live music isn't simply an aural experience. I certainly appreciate a good sounding stereo and good recordings, but both are only simulations. I'd much rather be in a club with 100 to 5,000 other people who are digging what's happening on stage. It's just more......real. I'll sacrifice a bit of fidelity or 'soundstage' for first-hand experience, rather than living vicariously though an expensive series of mechanical boxes.

Sure, every concert isn't transendental. But the great performances I've seen vastly overshadow the disappointments. I think music is art, not science. - Eldon