How much “suspension of disbelief do you need?”


We (or most of us) believe that it’s very difficult if not impossible to hear an exact representation of the the sound of a live performance on a recording.
The question is how much do you have to delude yourself into thinking it’s the real thing your listening to, to satisfy yourself.
To some it has to to be as close as possible. But others can make allowances for defects in the sound in order to enjoy the presentation.

‘How much do you need?

 

128x128rvpiano

Showing 4 responses by fuzztone

Big difference between live and studio recordings. Most recordings were not mastered to sound live. More likely to sell, for a car, jukebox, boom box, Echo etc.

The recording industry started off mono which could NEVER sound live unless you lost an ear.

(Upside the head Murray style?)

(Firecracker in a phone booth?)

(.44M in a basement?)

(Blue Cheer?)

Is Adele in the room? You ARE deluded.

That’s the beauty of Direct to Disk. How ya doin’ guys?

Waiting For Columbus is good. Dissimilar to when I saw ’em at the Riviera. Excellent point that the live PA mix was/is mono. Unless you are fifth row seats like I got for ZZ in ’74, that’s all you hear at a reinforced show.

The point is why would one want to trick themselves into thinking that a Cosmic Crisp is a blood orange?

"You got to keep ’em seperated."

Unless pretending works for you.

The only goal for me is to enjoy the music.

She’s the cannabis hag. 

A little dab ’ill doya.

If he can’t get blasted without raising a stink he’s in the wrong century.

Movies are are sketchy example. Most writers lean away from real world in favor of sensational. Count me as one who don't care. It's nice when it happens "really" but the performance is more important. That said I'm big fan of Nightfly Live which never sounded like that except in the Donald's head.