# David Byrne on sound/context of music in history



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/16/david_byrne_my_love_affair_with_sound/

A very interesting article. Covers things as diverse as African rhythms, medieval Western chant, Bach, Mozart, Mahler, hip hop, recording technology. Good stuff.


----------



## lukecubed (Nov 27, 2011)

Thanks for this. Byrne's music doesn't always work for me, but he strikes me as a genius nonetheless, and I love his music writing. Great read.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks for posting the article, science. A great read. I esp. think his distinguishing between live and recorded music matches what's apparent to me too. They can be completely different 'ball games.' Not only as a listener, but for the musicians as well, of course. 

I think that the example of Maestro Celibidache not intending originally to release his live recordings (of Bruckner), as he said they worked as live concerts, but not as recordings. Same with Harry Partch, he said a recording is like '50 cents in the dollar.' Only part of the experience (but better than nothing). & one of the reasons why The Beatles said they stopped playing live towards the end is that they could not replicate live the music they where putting down on record. It was becoming more and more complex with all this technological wizardry. Of course, fans going to the concert came out saying 'the album was better,' stuff like that. The other thing is that they had all those screaming girls to deal with, one of the band said they sounded like 'seagulls,' and they could not hear themselves play, basically.

& I agree, today's 'concert hall' for most people is the home hi-fi system. In the past, you had to go to the music, now the music comes to you, virtually wherever you are (with mobile devices, ipods, etc. even more). So its a whole kind of paradigm shift.

It was thought provoking stuff.


----------

