There was a time you could put Jascha Heifetz and Arthur Rubinstein in front of a microphone in a New York studio with vague traffic noise in the background and record an album in an afternoon.
And while those performances are still jaw-droppingly awesome, it's increasingly musical archaeologists who will appreciate their qualities, as modern musicians and audiences seek ever new ways to explore music in terms of tech (like immersive audio) and presentation (like Grimaud/Nitin) (2/5) #music
Personally, I've been pulled in both directions for a while – and I increasingly view recordings and live performances as two separate art forms.
Electric/electronic/amplified music make less and less sense to me in a live setting. Music that has been conceived in a studio setting, with all the minute attention to detail and weighed considerations, becomes a faint shadow of itself in a live performance where 2, 4, 6 or 8 hands and a tape roll can only do so much (3/5) #music
You can't simply plug in a Nord with a Rhodes sound and an effect pedal, play an approximation of your recorded tracks, and expect me to be as moved by that as I am on my headphones by carefully crafted soundscapes with tiny adjustments and sound artefacts that an army of musicians and engineers spent weeks perfecting in the studio.
I probably think recordings do a better job at replicating the qualities of a live perf than most live gigs trying to capture the feel of a rec (4/5) #music
Physical presence is a good thing, but electricity still creates distance, in a way. You can, of course, turn your music into something else and more appropriate for a live format, and yet, the electric experience often ruins it for me anyway. But I've always been far more about nuance and detail than feeling the bass in my bones.
Acoustic music performances / improvisations in a live space, on the other hand, move me ever deeper the older I get, and the more I learn about music (5/5) #music