Live or Recorded; A Faustian response

As a practical matter, I'd have to choose recordced music over live concerts. I can buy a lot more recorded music for a given amount, and if you select your recordings carefully you often get better performances than many live concerts.
Also, recordings allow repeated listening, which live concerts do not.

Others will, I'm sure, argue that live performances are the only way to go, particularly if you are lucky enough to live in an area like New York City, which has a wealth of wonderful performances each year to attend.

Your question poses a Hobbesian choice, particularly for someone like myself whose main music interest is jazz. There is no question that jazz is meant to be heard as a live presentation, and the best jazz is definitely of the "live" variety. Still, for me, I think I'd have to choose recordings over live concerts.

I agree Sdcampbell.

I put out the word that I wanted to see Ella Fitzgerald, Bill Evans and Billie Holliday in concert. No one has come up with any tickets yet.

I couldn't even score Jimi Hendrix tickets, and I know a guy at a local radio station.

Guess it's LP's for me.

I third the motions above for the reasons advanced. Adding to Albert's quest for tickets, may I also add Furtwangler, Backhaus, Richter, Ferrier, Walter, J Campbell, Hooker, Waters, and many others.

I'm with Greg and Albert for the same reasons.

I am not sure. Muddy Waters live at the Main Point in 1970....Rolling Stones live at the Spectrum 1969....
Mahler's 7th Tonhalle Zurich Zinman conducting last Sept 18th.....my next door neighbor's daughter practicing Brahm's cello sonata. They are all packed with an emotional content
beyond recorded music. It is a moment in time that will never happen again. Maybe its the interaction between
audience and performer, a social aspect that recorded music
does not have. LIVE is life, existential being (Heidegger).
Listening to recorded music is a passive response.

Just my opinion!!!