Is the Live Music Reference Correct?

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

I think Eldon has a point. Music as art and entertainment. Audio as art and entertainment. A few examples:

1. A Schubert piano piece is played at a concert. That musical piece is art(as defined aesthetically by music critics/historians). However the performance is poor due to
bad playing or the room might be poor acoustically. The
piano piece is still art but the entertainment value is not very high.

2.A grunge group is playing at some hole in the wall. The
music is not particularly artful(again aesthetically valued), but everbody is dancing, having a great time. No art but very high marks for entertainment value.

3.A 1944 recording of Bruckner's 8th Symphony in Berlin by the Berlin Philharmonic with Furtgangler conducting. By musical standards very much art(the people that were there say this was one of the great performances of all time).
But with a great system like Confedboy's Avalons and kilowatt Boulder amps the 2db dynamic range and tape hiss
galore would make this probably a very painful experience,
not very entertaining indeed!! An not art by audio standards
either.
4. A famous singer/pianist records some pop songs, the
recording has fabulous soundstage/imaging cues, clarity,
you name it, the recording has it. Is it musically, art,
as defined by aesthetics probably not. But by audio
standards it is both art and entertainment.

What's the point:Audio is an art form itself and does not necessarily need music as art to make it so. Harry Pearson
proves that point, his musical lists are almost entirely
void of music that I would consider as art, again as defined
by aesthetical values. However as Audio as art the recordings he chooses are very much art and therefore
audio becomes ipso facto art. Comments???