suhre@trwrba.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) (12/15/84)
I believe that one of the things that contributes to a live
performance is the interaction between the audience and the
performer. The soloist performs, the audience applauds (to
indicate that they "got" the performance), the performer bows
(to indicate that he "got" the applause/acknowledgement), and
the audience observes the bow and sees that he "got" their
acknowledgement. This is closure (at least in a Gestalt Therapy
sense.)
I don't think shelling out $9.98 (or whatever) for an LP gives
you the same feeling of interaction with the performer and his
performance.
While my words suggest males in recital, I do not intend for this
to be a sexist posting and I have used "he" because of an inherent
dislike for "he/she". The same arguments apply for all female
symphonies, or female conductors, or whatever.
Maurice
{decvax,sdcrdcf,hplabs,ucbvax}!trwrb!suhreericksen@unc.UUCP (12/20/84)
. With all the interest in 'what's the attraction of a live performance', i thought i'd put in my two cents worth. one cent: > So when a performance is given, even if a peformer takes > great liberties with the score ... That's one thing i go to a live performance for ... in that situation i EXPECT to hear a freer interpretation of the music than one hears on record. (By the same token, i expect a comfortable, conservative approach on a recording.) other cent: A major difference between music and, for instance, painting is the temporal element inherent in music. When music is 'frozen' on vinyl, that temporal element is some- what lost (after all, if i really want to, i can play the same three bars over and over for twenty minutes). With this in mind, live music is a much more present-time phenomenon than recorded music. I should point out that i am not disparaging recorded music; indeed i am one of those people who likes to hear music played without mistakes, with the advantages of recording studio acoustics and technology. I just wanted to point out some of the positive aspects of live music. I feel these comments are equally valid for either classical or rock music ... but since this discussion was in net.music.classical, that's where my article is directed. Jim Ericksen Dept of Comp Sci UNC Chapel Hill
sdo@brunix.UUCP (Scott Oaks) (02/16/85)
[] >Are there any netters who go to concerts regularly (or perhaps irregularly)? >Or does everybody sit home and play their audiophile LPs and CDs through >stereo systems which draw only slightly less power than ENIAC I? > >Amidst all this talk of new releases and "why my CD doesn't reproduce a >44kHz square wave" and "who cares if your CD doesn't ...", everybody seems >to have forgotten the incomparably greater thrill of being where the >music is made. Or maybe those who do are too busy going to concerts to >post news... Would that I had a system which drew only slightly less power than an ENIAC I! Or a CD player. Yet even if I did, there's nothing that could entice me into staying at home when given the oppportunity of going to a live concert: the gulf between recordings and concerts simply is too large to ignore. Part of this is because a live concert creates a certain tension which recordings can never recreate--and not simply because there's a chance that the performers don't have the benefit of splicing together 12 different takes of a difficult section (of course it a perfect recording--even I could get it right given enough attempts!). It's more the knowledge that this moment is unique which gives to a live concert the intangible advantage over even the best recording. Also is the fact that whenever one listens to a recording, it cannot surprise one (except on first hearing). One always knows how the piece is to be interpreted, just how the soloist is going to play the cadenza, just how much cresendo will accompany this section. . . I have innumerable recordings at which I can marvel every time I hear them simply because the music can never fail to stir me or the performance is so satisfying--and I wouldn't give them up for anything. But it's much more satisfying to hear a different (even if only slightly so) approach to the piece: even if it's a mediocre performance or an interpretation with which I disagree, it can never fail to give a different aspect to a piece of music. Recordings are severly limited in this respect. Unfortunately, Providence is hardly the music capitol of the world. But Boston is only 50 miles away, and if it's sometimes difficult to get there, it's always well worth the effort. Now, if I could just convince the graduate school here that expenses here really ought not be allowed to deplete my already too small bank account. . . On another subject: Is anyone out there fond of Michael Tilson Thomas? And can they tell me why he has such a brilliant reputation? I have never really liked him, and became convinced last summer (during a series of concerts at Ravinia) that he has made his reputation merely by being always available when other conductors become sick (and that his reputation is undeserved is witnessed by the fact that he has no permanent position with anyone). I was surprised to find that all of my friends agreed on this point, and wondered what everyone else thought. Scott Oaks Brown University {decvax, ihnp4, allegra}brunix!sdo
greg@oliven.UUCP (Greg Paley) (02/20/85)
I have to disagree with the negatives on Michael Tilsson Thomas. I find him a conductor with the clarity and power to impart a shape and coherence without sacrificing grace and flexibility that reminds me of old recordings of Guido Cantelli. I've heard him give outstanding performances live (with the San Francisco Symphony) of Beethoven symphonies, among other works. Of his recordings, I find his Stravinsky "Petrouchka" and Debussy "La Mer" (not, unfortunately, of any audiophile stature sonically, despite the glossy packaging) to be outstanding performances in that he was able to maintain coherence while bringing out the individual strands of the music with remarkable clarity. Friends of mine were very impressed by his "Fidelio" at Houston last fall. - Greg Paley
wjm@lcuxc.UUCP (B. Mitchell) (02/23/85)
Frankly, despite having a reasonable hi-fi system, I still feel there is no substitute for a live performance. Fortunately, I live fairly close to NYC so I can hear most of the world's great orchestras when they are on tour in one of the world's top concert halls (Carnegie Hall). (Yes, I agree with the opinion that Boston's Symphony Hall is in the same league - I spent many pleasant evenings at the BSO and the Pops when I was living in Boston - it was a pleasant escape from my graduate EE studies at MIT.) There is something about a live performance that even the finest recording cannot reproduce - you are THERE and can devote all your attention to the musicians and the music they are making-no distractions or temptation to walk across the room and read, computer hack, etc. (also no phone calls or other distractions) There is also a certain energy in a live performance, which only direct-to-disk recordings capture. Somehow the knowledge that bloopers can be removed in the editing does something to one's perfomance. Regards, Bill Mitchell (ihnp4!lcuxc!wjm)
dep@allegra.UUCP (Dewayne Perry) (02/27/85)
[of course, i prefer my lines live]
I must grant you that sitting down to an evening of cds and lps
is a lot easier than trundling into the city to see a live
performance, but there are a lot of compensating factors.
Las Friday, we went into the city (New York City in this case)
to see Die Meistersinger at the Met. To give you a feeling for
the magnitude of this undertaking: we left home at 4pm (we live
about 25 miles west of the city), shot down rt 24 past Newark
airport, over the Pulaski Skyway (the Popes road to heaven),
snaked our way through the backroads of Jersey City in order
to avoid the pileup at the Lincoln Tunnel, through the tunnel
after having barely excaped with our skin from arrogant bus
drivers who refused to merge with the "little" traffic, up tenth
avenue and slickly into a free parking spot (thereby saving
13 dollars) right around the corner from the met - all in one
hour, good time indeed (once I was trapped in the lincold tunnel
for 45 minutes). All in all, a great deal of pain.
The performance started at 6:30 and lasted until midnight (with
all the curtain calls) and we returned home at about 12:40.
An evening of over eight and one-half hours!! BUT, I'll do
it again, anytime.
Some advantages of the live performance:
1. Even with a very good high fidelity system, the sound
in the concert hall is better.
2. While this was an opera and obviously the visual aspects
important, the same holds true of instrumental concerts
as well. With opera, the theater is equally important
with the music (and of course the dance parts dont come
through very well, even on the cds) and Beckmessers antics
are delightful.
3. The live performance demands (and sometimes recieves)
active participation on the part of the audience. You
dont have the option of getting a snack, reading a book,
etc, or in general ignoring what is going on which you
can easily and often do with your home music system.
In return you get part of the electricity that is so
often absent from recordings - even when the performance
is merely a good one, not even a spectacular one.
4. You have a greater understanding and appreciation for the
physical aspects/demands on the artists that are incurred
by the live performance. I felt for Peter Hoffmann when
he got a bit wobbly on his high notes in the prize song.
I get wobblier than that, without having sung the previous
five hours of the opera.
All in all, live performances are the next best thing to doing
the actual performances yourselves. Recordings are yet one more
remove from the real thing.
Enjoy - Dewayne