Why I like my home system better than live music

"I recall reading somewhere that this was one of the (many) factors that dissuaded The Beatles from performing their later material live. There are many recordings that I love which need to be pretty thouroughly reinterpreted for live performance."

That was true at the time. With modern technology however, not so much the case.

I've heard various Beatles cover acts that are able to deliver performances of later Beatles works these days that are designed specifically to sound as much as possible like what is on the records. It is still of course not EXACTLY the same, but as close as you can in a live performance delivered in real time.

Classical symphonies can sound better live than all but the best home stereos, depending on the hall and where you sit. But often things which should be unamplified, like classical guitar, are run through a p.a., so you do not really hear the beautiful tonality of the instrument. Rock almost never sounds very good at a live event, except in a few smaller venues. Stadium rock always sounds terrible. Mordante is glossing over all the jerks at rock concerts,and standing up for hours at a time, surrounded by drunks (or worse) is no fun. For some reason, people at rock shows seem to think a quiet song is their big chance to talk loudly about trivia, spoiling the show for everyone interested in the music. At least classical fans have the decency to shut up while the music is playing. We go to shows for many reasons, but quality of sound is usually not high on the list.

@Lloydc

You will find jerks at any concerts. I have some experience working as a volunteer behind a bar. I prefer a rock audience over a jazz crowd.

With rock/metal concerts I talk about acts like My Dying Bride, Slayer, Machine Head, Opeth etc.

It's interesting that this issue was just posted -- the "As We See It" column in the most recent issue of Stereophile was on this very subject.

I suppose that there are photographs of the Grand Canyon that could be said to look better than the real thing. You know, the kind of photo where a photographer camped out for six months waiting for "the" moment as opposed to a real life experience on a lousy day. But come-on, to even suggest that a photos are preferable to the real thing, per se, is nuts. Likewise with this thread IMO.