Do we really know what "Live" music sounds like?

Of course! If the article weren't so silly, it would be hopelessly pretentious. Jimi Hendrix at Monterey Pop isn't real music? The Philip Glass ensemble doesn't play real music? And Taylor Swift and MF DOOM and Bob Dylan (rumors are that he went electric), not to mention all the contemporary fusion and hybrid quartets.... And we need to show our bona fides to prove that we're ... *serious* about music?? (For over fifty years I've heard unamplified classical concerts in virtually every major hall in Boston, NYC, and Chicago, so count me in.) And don't get me started on soundscapes and ecomusicology....

I assume that the article is tongue-in-cheek. Of course there's nothing like the Takacs Quartet playing Bartok in a small venue (a pleasure!) or a throaty jazz sax or a fiddle opening up that high, lonesome sound. I'm there, too. But it's absurd to think that one person loves or understand music more than another, just because they've heard unamplified music (or they have a $50k sound system). 

Fun to argue about, though!

Mostly amplified metal and rock shows. All of them sounded better on the record/cd. I'm not into classical/symphony type music but can appreciate it for sure. My daughter who is 6 already loves classical music. That said she is going to be WAY smarter than me or her mom. Maybe that's saying something. 

What I do enjoy live is 1 guy with an acoustic guitar in small bars with no amplification. Saw some really good ones over the years. I think I know what that sounds like. I play acoustic guitar as well but I suck pretty bad!

I was in a rock band from like 17-20. We did some local live shows in Dayton and I played bass. The name of our band was very fitting. Simple. Lol 

It was the very reason I got into selling the stuff. Played trumpet professionally and then got into audio. Always attempting to chase the windmill of producing the energy, dynamics and presence of live music.

Close had to be "good enough".

I think the "visual aspect" of "seeing" someone play an instrument ties in with the sound and I believe part of the reason for failure to duplicate with audio equipment. 

It's more than an "auditory" thing i discovered.

Do we really know what music sounds like?
There are as many different answers to that as there are listeners.
Every succeeding generation finds its following one's music to be lesser, even unlistenable, compared to their own (classic rock perhaps being an exception), so grading the aural qualities (or lack thereof) is difficult.

For many, unamplified classical, bluegrass, jazz, etc is not what they consider music to be at all. This spreads further when you include the plethora of ethnic musics, at times with instruments unrecognizable to those from elsewhere.

On top of these differences, a music reproducing system often is to live music as a photograph is to standing in front of and seeing the subject - a brilliant reflection/approximation at best. As beauty is said to be in the eye of the beholder, music is what is in the ears of the listener.

Nobody know what live music sound SAVE with his own specific ears and history...

We were programmed to recognize human voices apparatus for million of years , sound coming from any direction...

No one is programmed in life to distinguish live music and playback music, it is an acquired skill and never exactly the same for everybody, SAVE for musicians practising the same instrument and exhanging impressions between them...

But even for them live music and playback music are different birds...

We can only compare the playing micro-structure of the tonal timbre of only one instrument at a times to improve our audio system.... Or use choral voices....

Pretending live instrument an recorded one sound the same make no sense...

A recorded instrument can sound natural for sure so much that even a musician can be surprized... But even a virtual 3D movie where we will be someday would not fool reality for an astute observer...

 « "Reality" is God kingdom smell's in us »-Anonymus Smith