Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekchips.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!bmcg!cepu!trwrba!trwrb!sdcrdcf!hplabs!tektronix!tekchips!larrym
From: larrym@tekchips.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.music.classical
Subject: Re: boring live performances
Message-ID: <758@tekchips.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-May-84 21:08:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekchips.758
Posted: Thu May  3 21:08:54 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 8-May-84 00:05:43 EDT
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 27

It isn't clear to me that being live makes or breaks a performance when it
comes to being boring.  There are a few some truly memorable live performances
that I can remember, as well as some great studio recordings.

This issue does bring up a question I have wondered about for some time (it
was started in net.audio, but doesn't seem right to continue there).  There
are some truly spectacular Sheffield recordings, mostly jazz, that have been
used as "ideals" of what recording can be (in the analog vs. digital forays).

How much of that spectacular sound is really due to anything in the recording
and how much is due to the fact the the musicians were really up for the
performance?  After all, they all knew that they had to record a whole side
in one sitting, no editing or correcting allowed.  It was right or it was
nothing.

I have always felt that the wonderfulness of those Sheffield recordings was
due to the energy and excitement that the musicians convey, more than their
sonic clarity.  Maybe if we ban recording editors...

				    Larry Morandi

uucp:	    {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs}!tektronix!larrym
CSnet:	    larrym@tek
ARPAnet:    larrym.tek@csnet-relay
US Mail:    Larry Morandi, Computer Research Lab, Tektronix, Inc.
	    Box 500  MS 50-662, Beaverton OR 97077
Phone:	    503-627-6002