# What is it about live performances...?



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

... that makes attending them a better experience than staying home and listening to a fine recording. What exactly makes going to a concert into a special event for you? If you do not enjoy concerts and prefer listening to recorded music in the privacy of your home, also please explain why.


----------



## RRod (Sep 17, 2012)

At home:
a) You get no visual feedback
b) You might not be able to (or might be unwilling to) crank the volume as high as you might need
c) Your room acoustics or speakers can stink

At a concert:
a) You are generally discouraged from playing air conductor
b) Clothes are required
c) There is no pause button

The concert grabs your by the throat with the music, is how I tend to feel.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Here are some reasons I like to go to live symphony concerts.

1. Uncertainty

It could be better than any recording ever.

2. Curation

The program of music was planned out, and the music should all relate or flow to some degree.

3. Sound quality

Being there in the room with the orchestra makes a big difference.

4. Visuals

It's cool to see the conductor and orchestra members performing.

5. Being part of the crowd

When you see an amazing performance, it's fun to share that with others. At a concert, you are sharing it with hundreds of other people.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

As a pianist, I find it incredibly useful (as well as enjoyable) to attend concerts that involve the piano, either as a solo or collaborative instrument. Assuming that I have a good view from my seat, I'm able to watch how the pianist uses his or her body. I pay particular attention to wrist movements, posture, arm motions, finger position (curved vs. fairly flat), and pedal technique.

I find it fascinating to listen to the sounds that the pianist is producing, while simultaneously observing the physical movements that are generating those sounds. This "seeing-while-hearing" approach to listening is very instructive; it gives me many ideas for technical approaches that I would like to try (as well as some ideas of what to avoid! :lol 

There are some videos which give me a similar experience, if they involve enough close-ups, give me a similar experience. However, it's hard to find piano videos that have the most useful angles and shots. Nothing beats a front row seat at a piano recital!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The main selling point for a live performance is simply conductor, soloist and orchestral musicians are more motivated in front of a live audience and will play with more intensity. Studio performances, on the other hand, are rather dull mechanical affairs.

If you took a poll among musicians, I believe an overwhelming number of them would rather perform and record live.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

SiegendesLicht said:


> ... that makes attending them a better experience than staying home and listening to a fine recording.


You can't beat live music....no matter how good the recording, it cannot duplicate the sonic quality, plus the visual aspect, plus the excitement of live performance.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Atmosphere pure and simple...


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

Going to a live performance is an event. There is uncertainty that adds excitement, and it is less safe than sitting at home.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

All depends on the performance. Here in Toronto, I've been to a few concerts with the TSO, and a few guest conductors. The interpretations weren't anything special, and I feel are just run throughs. Plus the playing of the TSO is not as great as it can be. There was no enjoyment for me in fact, except in the change in scenery. But when I went to see the DSO, with a big name conductor playing a piece he has recorded previously on CD with critical acclaim, I was definitely more involved (was Neemi Jarvi conducting Martina's 4th). Otherwise I enjoy listening to my favourite recordings of a work over a regular live performance.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Dan Ante said:


> Atmosphere pure and simple...


This sums it up for me too.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

I would much rather attend a live performance. Makes me appreciate their work as musicians much more, plus the sound is much better than through a speaker at home. 

And the concert can be coupled with a nice dinner out before the curtain rises and possibly desert afterwards.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

KH We have to make do with a bottle of red in the interval


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Dan Ante said:


> KH We have to make do with a bottle of red in the interval


Why not champagne?


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

White Zinfandel for me, thanks!


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Love live concerts and recitals. Makes me feel like part of the music. As well as seeing the well-known orchestras, love seeing the local ones. An added bonus is if you get to meet the musicians as I have met Boris Giltburg and Steven Isserlis twice!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

hpowders said:


> The main selling point for a live performance is simply conductor, soloist and orchestral musicians are more motivated in front of a live audience and will play with more intensity. Studio performances, on the other hand, are rather dull mechanical affairs.
> 
> *If you took a poll among musicians, I believe an overwhelming number of them would rather perform and record live.*


That is interesting. I thought it would rather be the other way around. After all, while making a studio recording one can redo it until everything sounds perfect. When playing for a live audience you only got one attempt.


----------



## RRod (Sep 17, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> That is interesting. I thought it would rather be the other way around. After all, while making a studio recording one can redo it until everything sounds perfect. When playing for a live audience you only got one attempt.


Multiple performances


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

RRod said:


> Multiple performances


Yes, but every performance is a unique experience for the listeners.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Pugg said:


> Why not champagne?


Just prefer red, thats all


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Bettina said:


> As a pianist, I find it incredibly useful (as well as enjoyable) to attend concerts that involve the piano, either as a solo or collaborative instrument. Assuming that I have a good view from my seat, I'm able to watch how the pianist uses his or her body. I pay particular attention to wrist movements, posture, arm motions, finger position (curved vs. fairly flat), and pedal technique.
> 
> I find it fascinating to listen to the sounds that the pianist is producing, while simultaneously observing the physical movements that are generating those sounds. This "seeing-while-hearing" approach to listening is very instructive; it gives me many ideas for technical approaches that I would like to try (as well as some ideas of what to avoid! :lol
> 
> There are some videos which give me a similar experience, if they involve enough close-ups, give me a similar experience. However, it's hard to find piano videos that have the most useful angles and shots. Nothing beats a front row seat at a piano recital!


I can relate to that in a way. I love watching singers perform, not only opera, but in recitals as well - so far on video only. I have seen some videos of DF,D and other singers I like, a hundred times probably. Never been to a live recital as yet, but I am going to.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Dan Ante said:


> Just prefer red, thats all


Modest I must say.:cheers:


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Pugg said:


> Modest I must say.:cheers:


Naaaaa just a bit tight.


----------



## itarbrt (Feb 9, 2017)

Whenever I can , live performance . Professional or not : it trains my ears .


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

It must be admitted, that as well as all music was written to be performed live, but the quality of the interpretation depends very much on the artist. Some are better live, some are better in recordings. That said, I find that recordings have some great advantages. You can listen to almost whom you want playing almost what you want and always at the time you want. And in good sound quality as if you were sitting in the best seat in the venue. And to look at the artists may even distract from the experience of the music, particularly when they make faces. If I want to look at anything when listening to music, it is the sheet music. So I prefer recordings, but will not deny, that I also have had a lot of outstanding concert-experiences, when the right musicians played the right music where I lived.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Sure LIVE! It's magic! not just atmosphere 

Now I attend veryyy few , but before at least once a month, recitals, concerts and opera of course. Nothing can substitute live opera performance.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> That is interesting. I thought it would rather be the other way around. After all, while making a studio recording one can redo it until everything sounds perfect. When playing for a live audience you only got one attempt.


Yes, but it's relating to other people and appreciating their efforts that make it all worthwhile. My fiddle teacher is an HIP performer in various ensembles and as I know him well I can see how nervous he looks at the start of a concert and how happy and thrilled he is at the final curtain calls. It's all about love.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

helenora said:


> Sure LIVE! It's magic! not just atmosphere
> 
> Now I attend veryyy few , but before at least once a month, recitals, concerts and opera of course. Nothing can substitute live opera performance.


Better well chosen then all in a hurry.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Pugg said:


> Better well chosen then all in a hurry.


before it was part of an upbringing and pasatiempo


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

helenora said:


> Sure LIVE! It's magic! not just atmosphere
> 
> Now I attend veryyy few , but before at least once a month, recitals, concerts and opera of course. Nothing can substitute live opera performance.


Before moving to Hamburg I used to attend maybe one live performance a year (including Met in HD broadcasts). Now I have tickets for four in the next three months, and planning on many, many more.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

Here's a story I've only told to very few people. Many years ago, I attended a recital by Arthur Rubinstein at Carnegie Hall. My friend, Cynthia, accompanied me. She wasn't very familiar with Classical music at that point. (Being quite young and rather snobbish *sigh* I tended to think I was a great expert.) The event was sold out and we had stage seats. 
Rubinstein was superlative, the applause was thunderous and the atmosphere was electric. As we descended from the stage, Cynthia said "He was good, wasn't he?" I replied, "Saying Rubinstein is good is like saying the Taj Mahal is pretty." There was a short, middle-aged man right next to us and I noticed he looked at me sharply as I said that.
The next day I read a review of the event in the New York Post. The reviewer wrote "Saying Rubinstein is good is like calling the Taj Mahal pretty." 
I was miffed that he didn't write he overheard a pretty young lady say that!!!!!
Anyway, I prefer live performances.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

It is a lot easier to flip a CD into the player than to drive out to the concert hall, but always I have found the sound quality at the concert hall to be exceptionally wonderful and well worth the trip. My last concert, Beethoven's Ninth last month, was absolutely wonderful.

For recordings, I generally prefer live performances, especially for opera, as there is more life in it than with a studio recording.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Florestan said:


> For recordings, I generally prefer live performances, especially for opera, as there is more life in it than with a studio recording.


I know what you're saying, and I tend to agree....with live performances, or "one-take" recordings, you can hear the flow, the continuity of the musical performance...some of the greatest conductors loved to record whole works, movements or sections, non-stop...Toscanini and Reiner were two such. There is an uninterrupted flow, musical line that is readily apparent in so many of their recordings...
The studio recordings can really excel, of course, but sometimes the process can stifle the music...I remember talking with a Philadelphia Orch member who described recording with Ormandy - "10 measures, and stop...10 measures and stop" then they'd splice the whole thing together....drove everyone nuts, tho they certainly liked the $$!! I always felt that PhilaOrch sounded much better live, than on those recordings. the constant stopping took the life, the flow out of the music.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Heck148 said:


> I know what you're saying, and I tend to agree....with live performances, or "one-take" recordings, you can hear the flow, the continuity of the musical performance...some of the greatest conductors loved to record whole works, movements or sections, non-stop...Toscanini and Reiner were two such. There is an uninterrupted flow, musical line that is readily apparent in so many of their recordings...
> The studio recordings can really excel, of course, but sometimes the process can stifle the music...I remember talking with a Philadelphia Orch member who described recording with Ormandy - "10 measures, and stop...10 measures and stop" then they'd splice the whole thing together....drove everyone nuts, tho they certainly liked the $$!! I always felt that PhilaOrch sounded much better live, than on those recordings. the constant stopping took the life, the flow out of the music.


Maybe better they don't know they are being recorded--if that is possible.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

A detail from the "Golden Ring" documentary about the famous Solti set of The Ring might be of interest. They did not just sit down for 4 hours and play through and record a whole opera at a time. Instead, the broke it up into many carefully planned sessions, with the goal of each session being to get 15 minutes of "good" material in the can. (That is based on my recollection of watching the documentary, so please forgive me if I am off somewhat on a minor detail.) One of the challenges, obviously enough, was trying to recapture the spirit and flow of a given performance between sessions, particularly for longer sections of the score. I also seem to remember a documentary about Von Karajan that noted how obsessed he became with tinkering with recordings in post-production. He was excited by the very idea that he could, if he chose, record a separate instrument and insert it into a recording already done, if he wanted to do so. The idea of that level of control was very appealing to him, but it might also be that so much control can produce very artificial results (although such results may or may not be desirable). 

Many actors have commented on preferring stage work because in film there is no audience and scenes are played in small bits and mostly out of order. For a stage play, it is all happening together, and in the natural flow of the material, with the energy and appreciation of an audience to provide immediate feedback for what works and what doesn't. For some modern films, with all of the technical wizardry available, some scenes with two actors are shot on different days and even in different studios. (For Peter Jackson's The Hobbitt series, Christopher Lee was too ill to travel during his final scenes and shot them alone at a studio in London, and was added in with the other actors. Admittedly, that is fairly apparent when one sees the final result.) 

My suspicion is that the very fact that in a live performance there is no option for just stopping and starting over (although there are instances of that being done) give the performers a very different focus. The problem with a live performance, of course, is that there always seems to be at least one person who gets a coughing fit right at a key moment of the music. (I understand that some engineering planning can help to prevent that kind of noise from being recorded if the performance is live but also intended for release on CD.)


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Florestan said:


> It is a lot easier to flip a CD into the player than to drive out to the concert hall, but always I have found the sound quality at the concert hall to be exceptionally wonderful and well worth the trip. My last concert, Beethoven's Ninth last month, was absolutely wonderful.
> 
> For recordings, I generally prefer live performances, especially for opera, as there is more life in it than with a studio recording.


The very best performance I think I ever heard of Beethoven's 3rd Symphony was in a live concert which, sadly, was not apparently recorded. (Of course, my memory of it might have grown somewhat in reputation over the years, and it cannot now be tested.) And yet I more or less gave up going to concerts many years ago, in part because it was expensive and very inconvenient (parking being a special problem), but mostly because I grew tired of having to sit through two pieces I hated to hear one that I like. I particularly liked to see well-known, or soon to be well-known, performers doing their magic right there on the stage in front of me, but I think the final straw might have been when James Galloway came and ended up playing only one piece, Corigliano's Pied Piper Fantasy. I absolutely hated it. (The program said that it was a "fun" and "theatrical" piece, and he did come out wearing a hat and small cape over the shoulders of his suit, which was about the extent of the "fun" and "theatrical" part. To this day, whenever I see anything promoted as being "fun" and "theatrical," I cringe slightly inside.)

I am, on the other hand, attending a live concert in April for a very good classical guitarist named David Russell, and I am very much looking forward to that.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Florestan said:


> Maybe better they don't know they are being recorded--if that is possible.


for an orchestra performance, you pretty much figure that everything is being recorded, even if only for archival purposes.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

JAS said:


> I also seem to remember a documentary about Von Karajan that noted how obsessed he became with tinkering with recordings in post-production. He was excited by the very idea that he could, if he chose, record a separate instrument and insert it into a recording already done, if he wanted to do so. The idea of such control was very appealing to him, but it might also be that such control can produce very artificial results (although such results may or may not be desirable).


Good point - this tinkering, spot-miking, individual enhancement can produce some very bizarre results - in the 70s and 80s, some recording companies got into this, rather excessively, IMO...Decca - esp the Mehta/LAPO recordings had some very strange effects from this - you would hear little or no trumpets for measures on end - suddenly, it sounded like 50 trumpets just jumped out of the orchestral fabric, right in your face...CBS did the same, I remember their touting that they had spot mikes on every instrument for some NYPO recordings - awful - totally artificial sounding...



> The problem with a live performance, of course, is that there always seems to be at least one person who gets a coughing fit right at a key moment of the music.


most orchestras at present use live recording, but it may be a composite of several different repeat performances. One performance is used primarily, but other takes may be plugged in to cover up an obvious goof, or excessive noise...IMO, this produces some very excellent results.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

In general I prefer listening at home because:

-My back isn't made to sit at theatre seats longer then 15 min 

-I get distracted by other people

-usually life performances aren't loud enough for me (unless a romantic symphony or something with a very large orchestra)

so for me it's hard to keep my attention at live performances so I prefer my home stereo and couch.

BUT

Some moments can be magic at live performances, depending on the piece and performance.


Here's a story to illustrate that AND Beethovens' superiority:

I once again decided to give it a go for a performance of a string quartet (Arcanto Quartet). The program was Schuberts' Quartettsatz, Mendelssohns 2nd string quartet and Beethoven opus 132, so expectations were high to say the least. It started of with a bit of an incident that wasn't really encouraging attention wise. The guy next to me, an older guy, clearly a grandpa, was watching some noisy clip on his smartphone of some toddler playing around and making noise (probably his grandchild or something), no harm done so far but when the quartet comes on to stage he clearly wasn't able to stop the clip and when the opening applause was gone and the musicians where getting ready to start, the only noise you could hear was that terrible annoying clip of a child crying, the guy was clearly in a panic because he really couldn't find a way to shut up his smartphone and the musicians were looking at each other with an expression on their face that said "what the hell is going on here". Eventually the guy left the theatre with his smartphone still crying out the first words of his grandchild. I'm used to an audience at classical concerts with an average age of at least 30 years older than me and that's totally fine but when they start bringing their smartphones.....
Ok, a bit of a false start but anyway the musicians started to play. First Schubert; not bad but not really something worth the money or the drive to the theatre, although it being quite a passionate piece of music. Then Mendelssohn; in the middle of the quartet I was thinking: "gee, I'm really not made to go to concerts, my back started to hurt, I wasn't really getting into the music, thinking this was probably the last time I would go to a life performance and so on.... Then there was a short pause and I was thinking that the Beethoven probably wouldn't bring any consolation, especially because opus 132 is a more laid back piece of music than the Schubert and the Mendelssohn so I though it would need more effort attention-wise. To my surprise the opposite was true. From the first note to the last of opus 132 I was completely into it, my back-pain was totally irrelevant, the reminiscence of the incident: gone, my attention: completely absorbed by the music. I could see the joy of the 4 musicians on their faces and you could probably see it on mine too. It was as if they had been waiting for the Beethoven to really start playing for real.
So there you go, I still prefer listening at home but now and then I will give a go at a life concert. There probably has to be Beethoven on the program though


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Razumovskymas said:


> -usually life performances aren't loud enough for me (unless a romantic symphony or something with a very large orchestra)


I have not had that problem at Hill Auditorium in Ann Arbor, Michigan, but sometimes the soloists are not quite loud enough.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Razumovskymas said:


> From the first note to the last of opus 132 I was completely into it, my back-pain was totally irrelevant, the reminiscence of the incident: gone, my attention: completely absorbed by the music. I could see the joy of the 4 musicians on their faces and you could probably see it on mine too. It was as if they had been waiting for the Beethoven to really start playing for real.
> So there you go, I still prefer listening at home but now and then I will give a go at a life concert. There probably has to be Beethoven on the program though


I went to a concert last month that featured the Budapest Festival Orchestra at Hill Auditorium in Ann Arbor, Michigan, playing all Beethoven: 1st symphony, 4th piano concerto, and the Ninth symphony. Symphony 1 was okay, but the piano concerto was trying (partly because I am not really into piano concertos and am unfamiliar with that particular work) and time was seeming to drag. Then the Ninth and it was total bliss. The Ninth seemed to go way to fast because it was so good and I was so absorbed into it that the time flew by.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Florestan said:


> I went to a concert last month that featured the Budapest Festival Orchestra at Hill Auditorium in Ann Arbor, Michigan, playing all Beethoven: 1st symphony, 4th piano concerto, and the Ninth symphony. Symphony 1 was okay, but the piano concerto was trying (partly because I am not really into piano concertos and am unfamiliar with that particular work) and time was seeming to drag. Then the Ninth and it was total bliss. The Ninth seemed to go way to fast because it was so good and I was so absorbed into it that the time flew by.


Maybe time to start the piano concertos search?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

"LIVE": A chance to hear a once in a lifetime exciting or exquisite performance, given a few technical blemishes along the way.

"Studio Recording: Guarantees technical perfection. Chances of making a great performance: SLIM.


----------



## RRod (Sep 17, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Yes, but every performance is a unique experience for the listeners.


Sure, but if the horn flubs a note on Saturday and prefers the result on Sunday, engineers can do wonderful things.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Pugg said:


> Maybe time to start the piano concertos search?


Naaah. I would go piano sonata first. What has LvB, about 32 of them? That would keep me busy a while. I have them all, but from various and uneven sources, so a good complete set would be something to cause me to--if nothing else--make another online box set purchase.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I enjoy a good live performance...don't make it often with small kids...but I enjoy it.

To be honest though I prefer studio recordings more than live recordings, or at least equal depending on the performance. I don't really hear the extra energy everyone discusses with a live recorded performance. I have the Leontyne Price and Carlos Bergonzi live Ernani due to rave reviews about the live energy, and I felt the frequent cheering served to break up the action and take me out of the moment. If audience noise is a minimum, then I like a live recording just fine.


----------



## FLighT (Mar 7, 2013)

In my experience (with around 200 live performances attended over 50 years) the sound of a live orchestra in a concert hall cannot be duplicated by any collection of electronic boxes, wires, or transducers in the home regardless of cost or technology. When I go live the dynamic range from the softest sound to the mightiest crescendo is always startling. The clarity to hear the subtlest of details and ability to differentiate instruments as individuals and as groups even when a massed wall of sound comes from every section of the orchestra simultaneously can be overwhelming. And yet it all comes across with such a sense of ease compared to any recording / playback system I've ever heard. Even with smaller ensembles, quartets etc., and solo performances, the tonal qualities of individual instruments live are unmatched.

My sense of involvement with the music is heightened when live. It's an organic whole, not a collection of best bits or an engineered note perfect run through.

Recordings do, however, give me the option to listen to what I want when I want. They give me the ability to hear performances by orchestras and soloists I might never be able hear otherwise. To compare the same work as interpreted by different conductors and played by different orchestras from different times in the history of recorded music may illuminate aspects of a composition enhancing my appreciation of it.

It's nice to have both options.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Does it happen to anyone else that after a particularly good live performance you have no desire to listen to any music for a day or two - just carrying the memory of that live performance inside you for a while?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Does it happen to anyone else that after a particularly good live performance you have no desire to listen to any music for a day or two - just carrying the memory of that live performance inside you for a while?


For me it works the other way around, either trying to get in a second time or if not possible on the CD player.....


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Does it happen to anyone else that after a particularly good live performance you have no desire to listen to any music for a day or two - just carrying the memory of that live performance inside you for a while?


Yes, that happens frequently with me....it's almost like I "re-hear" certain parts in my head for several days afterward....it's a good thing...very pleasurable.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I keep listening but the memory of the live concert can be very strong. In listening to the same work, it become apparent how much better the live performance sounds than a recording. So the recording can then be somewhat of a disappointment at first until the memory of the live performance begins to fade some.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Of course a live concert experience can not be beaten, and IMO a CD of a live performance beats the clinical atmosphere of a studio recording.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

FLighT said:


> In my experience (with around 200 live performances attended over 50 years) the sound of a live orchestra in a concert hall cannot be duplicated by any collection of electronic boxes, wires, or transducers in the home regardless of cost or technology. When I go live the dynamic range from the softest sound to the mightiest crescendo is always startling. The clarity to hear the subtlest of details and ability to differentiate instruments as individuals and as groups even when a massed wall of sound comes from every section of the orchestra simultaneously can be overwhelming. And yet it all comes across with such a sense of ease compared to any recording / playback system I've ever heard. Even with smaller ensembles, quartets etc., and solo performances, the tonal qualities of individual instruments live are unmatched.


Yes! The dynamic range in live performance is enormously wider, isn't it? - I mean in a scientifically measurable way. And the spacial separation of the sound sources is important too. And you feel the vibrations in the walls, your seat and your bones! For me it is the difference between _reality_ and virtual experience. No comparison. Obviously, I spend vastly more time hearing recordings, but in doing so there is always a process of imagining how such a thing might really sound.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Since I rarely get to concerts any more, and my audio equipment isn't the best, I've become accustomed to the equivalent of color reproductions on paper of oil paintings, and hardly miss the full sensual presence of the real thing. When I do hear an orchestra or even a chamber ensemble live, it's almost a born-again experience!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Live performances are okay, but I much prefer listening at home to great music on a fine audio system. I don't tend to concentrate well when in an audience, especially if there is an enticing female in the area. On the other hand, I have been impressed with some of the music buildings in Europe. Overall, I just find music a very individual experience. Stay away!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> Live performances are okay, but I much prefer listening at home to great music on a fine audio system. I don't tend to concentrate well when in an audience, *especially if there is an enticing female in the area.* On the other hand, I have been impressed with some of the music buildings in Europe. Overall, I just find music a very individual experience. Stay away!


You're expected to face forward during a concert. 

Of course, if it's Yuja Wang...

Yeah, better stay home.

(You aren't the Bulldog from "Frasier," by any chance?)


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> You're expected to face forward during a concert.
> 
> Of course, if it's Yuja Wang...
> 
> ...


Can't say I recall any bulldog on Frasier.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I admire those of you who get chills at a live performance. Personally, I haven't had that many of those moments at classical concerts. Jazz and mariachi (yep, mariachi, especially at weddings) performances, definitely; there is tangible audience interaction, even if it's, as Jack Kerouac said, "reacting without showing it." 

My problem is, when I pay for a concert, first I worry if something last-minute will come up and I won't be able to make it (I have that kind of a job). Then I worry if I'll have a headache or be too tired, and all that money will be wasted. My wife can't go because she has a tendency to have coughing spells at these things, so I have to sit in the dark alone. But when I'm with someone, I worry about how they are reacting or if they're bored. I am also 6 foot 4, so I realize I am ruining the view of anyone sitting behind me. When it's happening, my eyes flit across the stage, and I sometimes miss the broad strokes by looking at something like a cello's bow. When something exciting happens, I have to contain the enthusiasm, because everyone else is sitting like a statue. And at the end, at least in Nashville, there's that obligatory standing ovation regardless of the performance. I really despise that. And then afterwards, everyone just ups and leaves; there is no afterglow of a shared experience. 

After the concert, I usually forget what I heard and only remember little things, like the red dress of the Brahms Requiem soprano or the head gestures of the 2nd violinist in the scherzo of Beethoven's 9th.

Then there's the relative lateness of the hour. I have to get up early, so even being home by 11 is too late, because I can't just hop into bed; I have to do a post-concert wind-down. 

I used to attend concerts frequently, but I haven't been in a couple of years. 

Because of all this, I sometimes feel like one of the children of a lesser god, because I know I'm missing something special. Oh, well, maybe that explains why I have such a tall CD stack.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I used to love attending NY Philharmonic Subscription Concerts-I had a front row seat overhanging the stage, right side, during the Boulez and Mehta years.

I coulda spit on the double bass players, but I didn't want to.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Dan Ante said:


> Of course a live concert experience can not be beaten, and IMO a CD of a live performance beats the clinical atmosphere of a studio recording.


I am 100 % with you on that recording point.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Pugg said:


> I am 100 % with you on that recording point.


Thanks, another thing regarding concerts is the acoustics of the venue the best that I have experienced is a university concert hall and the worst is a theater, both in the same city.
If I remember correctly the Concertgebouw used to have dull acoustics but has now been fixed as did the Royal Albert Hall until they fitted the suspended reflectors.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Dan Ante said:


> Thanks, another thing regarding concerts is the acoustics of the venue the best that I have experienced is *a university concert hall* and the worst is a theater, both in the same city.
> If I remember correctly the Concertgebouw used to have dull acoustics but has now been fixed as did the Royal Albert Hall until they fitted the suspended reflectors.


Most concerts I attend are at Hill Auditorium on the campus of the University of Michigan. It has excellent sound!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Can't say I recall any bulldog on Frasier.


Bulldog wasn't a dog, he was the sports show dude who always screamed "Someone stole my -----, this is total BS!"


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Florestan said:


> Most concerts I attend are at Hill Auditorium on the campus of the University of Michigan. It has excellent sound!


I attended both a Claudio Abbado/BPO concert and a Giuseppe Sinopoli/Dresden Staatkapelle concert there back in 2001. Don't you think the DSO Symphony Hall has better acoustics than Hill Auditorium?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

jdec said:


> I attended both a Claudio Abbado/BPO concert and a Giuseppe Sinopoli/Dresden Staatkapelle concert there back in 2001. Don't you think the DSO Symphony Hall has better acoustics than Hill Auditorium?


I did not care for DSO's Orchestra hall, but have only attended one concert there so can't really say how the sound is. The sound at Hill Auditorium is very good and I like that the back row has an area behind it where I can stand, which I did for the most part last Tuesday, and keep my legs from getting too cramped. Orchestra Hall had the back row seats against the back wall.

Hill Auditorium is know for excellent sound (from Wikipedia article):



> Hill Auditorium's acoustics have been widely praised. The University of Michigan website that describes the recent $33.5 million Hill Auditorium refurbishing and restoration states:
> 
> "When it opened in 1913, Hill Auditorium was hailed as a 'monument to perfect acoustics.' The excellent acoustics, a result of collaboration by architect Albert Kahn with noted acoustical engineer Hugh Tallant, are known world-wide and have made the auditorium a favorite venue for legions of famous musicians and other artists, as well as numerous noted speakers."
> 
> "Careful attention will be given throughout the renovation to maintaining the acoustic quality of Hill, said Henry Baier, associate vice president for facilities and operations. In addition, further work will be done to reduce street and lobby noise by building a "sound lock" between the lobby and the auditorium."


Here is DSO's Orchestra Hall:









Acoustically, I think Hill has the better design in a half shell shape vs the more squared off Orchestra Hall.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Before moving to Hamburg I used to attend maybe one live performance a year (including Met in HD broadcasts). Now I have tickets for four in the next three months, and planning on many, many more.


So far I have been to four in the last six weeks - Beethoven, Strauss, Bach and Mahler - and have a list of a dozen more I would like to attend. More Mahler, Bruckner, Wagner, Schubert, Schumann, Beethoven - just about all the Teutonic gods. Getting to hear so much of my favorite music live (even if it is not always world-class orchestras) is fantastic!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Just about the only problem with live performances is that you cannot replay your favorite passages again and again, as I like to do.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

The worst part about live performances is that some are so wonderful you want to repeat it over and over, but you can't, and eventually the memory fades.


----------



## MissKittysMom (Mar 2, 2017)

Robert Fripp of King Crimson said it well: "A studio recording is like a love letter, but a concert is like a hot date."


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Florestan said:


> The worst part about live performances is that some are so wonderful you want to repeat it over and over, but you can't, and eventually the memory fades.


... And sometimes you read the reviews of that wonderful performance you have just attended and think: "Wow, I did not quite notice all the little details!" and wish you could hear it once again.


----------



## Jacred (Jan 14, 2017)

Florestan said:


> The worst part about live performances is that some are so wonderful you want to repeat it over and over, but you can't, and eventually the memory fades.


So true. Yet there is something special about the atmosphere at a live performance that outweighs the inconveniences.

And besides, even if the details are faded, you still retain the impression that you had witnessed a good performance.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

MissKittysMom said:


> Robert Fripp of King Crimson said it well: "A studio recording is like a love letter, but a concert is like a hot date."


Good one, must remember this one.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

MissKittysMom said:


> Robert Fripp of King Crimson said it well: "A studio recording is like a love letter, but a concert is like a hot date."


I wonder what the analogy is for a live recording then.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Florestan said:


> I wonder what the analogy is for a live recording then.


Maybe a video of a hot date...?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Bettina said:


> Maybe a video of a hot date...?


As long as it's not a hot date video link.......


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Another live-performance related question (that may be deserving a thread of its own): do you go primarily for the works or for the performers? Which would you prefer: a concert by someone you admire performing music that you do not know or do not care for, or a concert of well-loved music performed by musicians you have no particular sentiment for?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Another live-performance related question (that may be deserving a thread of its own): do you go primarily for the works or for the performers? Which would you prefer: a concert by someone you admire performing music that you do not know or do not care for, or a concert of well-loved music performed by musicians you have no particular sentiment for?


Works that I like performed by musicians that I admire.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Live concerts remind us that music is participatory, and is not created in the vacuum of solitude. A good conductor like Bernstein who is not afraid to appear ridiculous can draw us in to the emotion of the music, even in a video. It reminds us that music is made by living, breathing human beings. The same with a good solo performer, like Itzhak Perlman or Van Cliburn.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> *Live concerts remind us that music is participatory, and is not created in the vacuum of solitude. *A good conductor like Bernstein who is not afraid to appear ridiculous can draw us in to the emotion of the music, even in a video. It reminds us that music is made by living, breathing human beings. The same with a good solo performer, like Itzhak Perlman or Van Cliburn.


That's an excellent point - but sometimes I want to _forget _that music is a social, embodied experience. I want to pretend that it is a transcendent stream of sound coming straight out of the composer's head! When I'm in that sort of mood, I close the curtains and turn on my CD player.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Bettina said:


> ...sometimes I want to _forget _that music is a social, embodied experience. I want to pretend that it is a transcendent stream of sound coming straight out of the composer's head!


Well, that certainly takes care of that "people" problem. Now we can worship the Platonic ideal of "the genius." This goes right along with most people's present day experience of music from computers, with earbuds.


----------



## Schumanniac (Dec 11, 2016)

hpowders said:


> If you took a poll among musicians, I believe an overwhelming number of them would rather perform and record live.


If they'd hire a handful of intimidating burly men with cruel, bloodstained canes to walk among the audience, ready to drag any poor soul into the back alley as well, that would be the ideal approach :lol: I've often been dumbstruck by how much constant noise audiences can produce, as if each individual is singlemindedly hellbent on disrespecting every single other person in the venue.

Personally i allways prefered music at home, though my country isn't blessed with a Wiener Philharmoniker, and only tried 2-3 concerts to check it out. The Danish National Symphony Orchestra is serviceable, even good in some works, but athmosphere alone wont make it a world class performance thats allways available right next to me, this very instant.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The _synergy_ between the performers and a live audience is bigger than the sum of its parts. Both are in a collective energy field that's alive. At home, the listener gets the music, the sound, but not a living energy field except what one can sense through the speakers. For me it doesn't have the same impact at home but of course is still enjoyable.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> The _synergy_ between the performers and a live audience is bigger than the sum of its parts. Both are in a collective energy field that's alive. At home, the listener gets the music, the sound, but not a living energy field except what one can sense through the speakers. For me it doesn't have the same impact at home but of course is still enjoyable.


I don't see this as an either/or. There are times when the synergy is electrifying. There are other times when getting deep into the music with no distractions is profound. To a certain extent it depends on my frame of mind.

I would add that I am fortunate to be in a situation when I have the option.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> The _synergy_ between the performers and a live audience is bigger than the sum of its parts. Both are in a collective energy field that's alive. At home, the listener gets the music, the sound, but not a living energy field except what one can sense through the speakers. For me it doesn't have the same impact at home but of course is still enjoyable.


This is why I like live recordings it does give a sense (even if tiny) of being there complete with coughs and associated ambient noises compared to a sterile studio recording.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Attending a live performance is a unique experience, but to me there are also some disadvantages.

Performance/interpretation: wherever, whenever you go, chances are high that the pieces you will be hearing have been performed/recorded in higher quality in the past. I was let down a few times, having such a clear picture of the piece in mind, with such high expectations from listening to various great recordings. Sadly, some live performances couldn't live up to that at all.

Distraction: so many people, movement and noises around me. It's distracting. The lights go out and it's still not dark enough. My ideal live performance would be when I'm the only member of the audience.

Soundwise: live performance sounds very natural, obviously, but there is also distance... The music feels more distant in a concert hall, unless you sit very close to the orchestra, but then you will get an overall distorted image. I guess a good spot is essential. But a good pair of headphones has its own charm. You can get more inside the sound, inside the music.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

DeepR said:


> Soundwise: live performance sounds very natural, obviously, but there is also distance... The music feels more distant in a concert hall, unless you sit very close to the orchestra, but then you will get an overall distorted image. I guess a good spot is essential. But a good pair of headphones has its own charm. You can get more inside the sound, inside the music.


I think it is rather the other way around. Perceiving music through your headphones is one thing. Quite another thing is when you are seated inside the concert hall, hands folded over your purse, and suddenly the purse begins to tremble because the sound coming across from the orchestra is so powerful, and you can feel it in your entire body. I've had moments where I felt I could almost walk on the sound waves, like Jesus walked on water: the finale of Mahler's 8th Symphony and the glorious crescendos of his 9th, the "Auf dem Gipfel" moment of Strauss' Alpensinfonie, the Transformation music of Parsifal...

I started this thread back in March before I ever attended any live classical performance in Hamburg. Since then I have gone to more than I had attended during my entire life before moving here. I have become in a way addicted to that feeling of being in the immediate presence of music, from the instrument to the ear, without any distance at all. And the entire ritual of attending a live performance is magical: the dressing up, the joyful anticipation, listening to the sound of the tuning orchestra while walking to my seat inside the concert hall, the conversations in the pauses and after the concerts.... Even more so since I find the main classical concert venue of Hamburg - the Elbphilharmonie - to be a magical place all by itself. It is a great joy just to be there, every time. The lights go down and there is nothing else left in the world, except the music. It is the sweetest addiction on Earth. In fact, just before writing this reply, I was busy planning my next visit....


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> The _synergy_ between the performers and a live audience is bigger than the sum of its parts. Both are in a collective energy field that's alive. At home, the listener gets the music, the sound, but not a living energy field except what one can sense through the speakers. For me it doesn't have the same impact at home but of course is still enjoyable.


This depends on the performer. Some feel most comfortable in the recording studio, others have the capability to exude much living energy through the speakers, and often their recordings are preferable to their live performances.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Wonderful post by SiegendesLicht. Hard not to envy her concert life in Hamburg. :wave:


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> Wonderful post by SiegendesLicht. Hard not to envy her concert life in Hamburg. :wave:


Agree 100%. 
Those that prefer studio recordings and worse still through head phones should get out more into the real world, if they think it is the musician that produces a perfect recording perhaps a visit to (or even reading about) a recording studio would change their minds you get situations where a recording of a single work may be spread over several days and hence have different orchestral personnel over the complete work, it is the engineer that does the magic.
Give me a live concert every time, warts an all.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Larkenfield said:


> Wonderful post by SiegendesLicht. Hard not to envy her concert life in Hamburg. :wave:


Thanks :wave: Really, if I could I would send you an air ticket to Hamburg just so you could come join in on the fun.

My seat neighbor at the last concert was a retired orchestra musician from Bavaria who had driven the 500 km to Hamburg just to see for himself what this Elbphilharmonie hype was all about. After the concert it made my heart just about swell with pride to hear him gush on and on about how much he had enjoyed the architecture, the views, the acoustics, the orchestra, the performance - everything.


----------



## Annied (Apr 27, 2017)

SiegendesLicht said:


> That is interesting. I thought it would rather be the other way around. After all, while making a studio recording one can redo it until everything sounds perfect. When playing for a live audience you only got one attempt.


I'm very sensitive to atmosphere in any situation, so for me there's nothing to beat the atmosphere of a live opera performance. I do agree that with a studio recording there's the opportunity to redo things or tinker with the controls to make it sound technically perfect, but against that, there are some singers who seem to thrive on having an audience and always perform better live on stage than in a recording studio.


----------



## Taplow (Aug 13, 2017)

Annied said:


> but against that, there are some singers who seem to thrive on having an audience and always perform better live on stage than in a recording studio.


The reverse i also true. There are singers who sound great on record, but on stage they do not have sufficient projection and so are swallowed by orchestra, fellow cast, and theatre acoustics. Not to mention there are some great, dramatic voices who couldn't act their way out of a paper bag.

I would find it very difficult to articulate what it is that draws me to live performances. The experience of _being there_, that connection with the performers, the electric atmosphere that is often missing from the recording studio, where things are much more relaxed as performers know they'll have a second chance when they don't get it right the first time, the goosebumps, the list goes on ...


----------

