What is it I'm failing to grasp?


I come across statements here and elsewhere by guys who say 1) their systems come very close to duplicating the experience of hearing live music and 2) that they can listen for hours and hours due to the "effortless" presentation.  

I don't understand how these two claims add up. In tandem, they are profoundly inconsistent with my experiences of listening to live music. 

If I think about concerts I consider the best I've witnessed (Oregon, Solas, Richard Thompson, SRV, Dave Holland Quintet, '77 G. Dead, David Murray, Paul Winter Consort), I would not have wanted any of those performances to have extended much beyond their actual duration.

It's like eating-- no matter how wonderfully prepared the food, I can only eat so much-- a point of satiation is reached and I find this to be true (for me) when it comes to music listening as well. Ditto for sex, looking at visual art, reading poetry or playing guitar. All of these activities require energy and while they may feel "effortless" in the moment, I eventually reach a point where I must withdraw from aesthetic simulation.

Furthermore, the live music I've heard is not always "smoothly" undemanding. I love Winifred Horan's classically influenced Celtic fiddling but the tone she gets is not uniformly sweet; the melodies do not always resemble lullabies. The violin can sound quite strident at times. Oregon can be very melodious but also,(at least in their younger days) quite chaotic and atonal. These are examples on the mellower side of my listening spectrum and I can't listen to them for more than a couple hours, either live or at home. 

Bottom line: I don't find listening to live music "effortless" so I don't understand how a system that renders this activity "effortless" can also be said to be accurate.   

What is it that I'm failing to grasp, here?  


 

stuartk

The Strata-East copy of Winter in America from GSH and Brain Jackson is stunning.

It’s now expensive only b/c it is on the Strata-East label and possibly the most accessible and best known album in the their catalog. (The Bottle, which is a little later, if I remember right, is the UK equivalent of the same record, and at one time was cheep). Cool, chime-y Rhodes sound. Gil Scott’s vocals/spoken word. Bad-ass sound. And only scratches the surface of the S-E catalog. But well loved here. I can immerse myself in this stuff. And that’s only the beginning insofar as spiritual/soul jazz is concerned.....

Aside from sucky acoustics, and bad sound live, some "live" albums benefit from the energy the band picks up from the audience that is reflected in their playing. I'll take that over a more pristine studio record because of the performance. 

I remember seeing Ministry live in the 90‘s and it was literally a full frontal audio-visual assault on the senses that left you shocked. Something you had to come down from. Not sure it was something you could or would want to produce in your llistening room.

I agree with what ja..ku..bz said,

pop/rock bands went in to a studio, recorded an album, along the way the lead vocal (like Jagger) would add slightly higher, slightly softer, earlier, later vocal layers to fatten up the sound. The engineer would add a layer out of phase to broaden the vocals. Then the band figures out how to play it live and makes some sacrifices or sneaks in some recorded stuff to enhance the live stuff.

so most of the music I heard first as recorded, then eventually as live. In the case of ELP, I knew Brain Salad inside out having wore out the vinyl grooves. When I finally saw them perform that album live, so many things made more sense and by seeing I heard a lot of things I missed.  

On an audiophile level, there’s no way an MSG concert delivers quality. But on the emotional level nothing on a hiding system comes close.

unlike Dead Heads, I could not stomach seeing ELP dozens or hundreds of times live.  I just would not get anything out of it, to the contrary it would bring down the value of each performance. How do I know? I’ve enjoyed concerts so much that after seeing a band I immediately afterwards bought tickets to another show. Second time around always disappointed in that it never had the same impact. Let a year or 2 pass and seeing that band again was freshly exhilarating.

on another level, some performers are only good live (my opinion). Take Frampton, was totally unknown to me. Then comes out his live album, I loved almost every cut. I thought to myself “ who the heck is this, where did he come from, I’m gonna go out and get more of his albums”.  Got his studio stuff, didn’t like a single song, not even the studio versions from   “Alive” album.  

 

how is music supposed to be recorded?

with 2 microphones about 10 rows deep or ..

with a separate mic for the high hats, each cymbal, each drum, the cow bell, etc...

The way music is recorded is the choices and trade-off of the recording engineers...

No way you can improve on his choices, you can only make his choices blurry and meaningless...Or you can make his choices evident....

Only the acoustic control of your room will make his choices revelatory...

Not the branded name of your gear by itself  nevermind their  cost ...

One million dollars system in a bad room is a bad system nothing else...

Sorry....

how is music supposed to be recorded?

with 2 microphones about 10 rows deep or ..

with a separate mic for the high hats, each cymbal, each drum, the cow bell, etc...