 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: S. Friedland
Date: 2008-04-12 20:48
In an earlier post I made the case that electronics and recording have greatly contributed to what is evidently the demise of live performance. While very well aware of the thrill of any live concert, many feel that a beautifully edited and recorded performance is preferable.
In a subsequent post on the CBC, I mentioned the faster demise of live performance within Canada, also mentioning that the government previously subsidized much of the live performance within Canada
Would someone care to contribute as to the state of live performance on the European continent? Perhaps we can help to steer the young students as to how better to make a life in music.
Sherman Friedland
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: beejay
Date: 2008-04-13 13:46
Speaking of the one European city I know well, I am staggered by the wealth of live concerts every night in Paris. I'm sure this is happening everywhere. It seems to me that people increasingly do not want music as an "object" -- CD, LP or cassette -- but are happy to rely on downloading for most of their everyday music needs. Thus the recorded product is becoming more homogenized, while live performance is seen as more individualistic and authentic. I do not have figures to hand, but I do recall that Terry Teachout has written extensively about this in the New Yorker and Commentary.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-04-13 15:16
I have no comment on the European question,Sherm, however I do have a comment on your original premise. It is my opinion that the recording of music and its distribution has a positive effect on live performance. At least this seems to be true with respect to live performances of "pop", rock music. The decrease in live performance of music other than those types is at least partially economic to the extent that promoters of classical, baroque etc music don't know how to market this music to today's potential audience. These are strictly personal opinions based on general observations.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2008-04-13 16:25
I'd much rather have a recording then attend a live concert. The best of best would be to have a recording of a concert attended live. That way you have the specialness of hearing the concert live and being with the performer, supporting, etc as well as being able to relive the concert whenever you wish.
The old days when ClarFests were recorded and the performances availiable on tape, cd were great.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2008-04-13 22:24
Years ago, in an interview with Spyro Gyra, I asked Thom Schuman which was preferable to the band, playing live or recording in the studio.
He didn't even blink... "Recordings, of course. Live stuff just vanishes."
As a fan of live music, that came as a surprise.
I suppose everyone likes to have evidence of their passing...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2008-04-13 23:16
Anyone that does something special DOES leave evidence.
-
I personally prefer live simply because it vanishes. Every performance is a unique experience, unlike a recording that is on tap whenever you wish.
Post Edited (2008-04-14 02:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ginny
Date: 2008-04-14 02:42
Live music I suspect has been done in by recording to a great extent but in another way. It seems to me that people played easy pieces for themselves and their family on folk instruments and on a parlor piano way back before the Edison revolution. Perhaps the paying gigs are going away too.
I almost never listen to recordings (except in the car) and I seldom go to concerts. Yet I hear music for anywhere from for as much as two hours a day. I used to be seranaded by my son as I cooked. I play music with my husband nearly every day, play and practice on my own and we play msuic with our friends weekly.
I do not like the sound of recorded music even on fantastic sound systems all that well and I hate sitting still in concert halls.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2008-04-14 07:15
''I asked Thom Schuman which was preferable to the band, playing live or recording in the studio. He didn't even blink... "Recordings, of course. Live stuff just vanishes."''
That seems rather odd. Live stuff DOES vanish, and hopefully if that particular performance was memorable, then a return performance is in the offing.........with a further addition to the performer's revenue.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2008-04-14 13:33
Talk about live vs recorded music - had a dream last night that I was at an Orchestra Concert (but couldn't actually see the Orchestra as it was blocked by the poor seating that the hall had). Got that part of the dream from just being in Baltimore and visiting Ft. McHenry with the small hills to block the soldiers from fire.
I didn't like the orchestra's sound and went down during the intermission to see what the stage looked like - it was a fairly small stage that only had the principal players playing with about 5 TV monitors for the musicians to watch. All of the other parts were pre-recorded and the live players were playing with the video recording. Sort of like a Music Minus One for Orchestra.
I left in disgust.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2008-04-14 15:01
Hi Sherm,
I'd prefer the live performance, flaws and all. The CD or recording is fine for other times like driving in my car or at home, etc. I love the "life" of the thing.
However, there have been times I've mentioned to my director that our group would be better off to play the recording and "lip sync" the concert. He didn't think that was funny. I did.
If the listener derives enjoyment from perfection, then the digitally mastered recording with wonderful electronic equipment playback is the ticket. Sadly.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2008-04-14 15:22
Recorded music is clearly the norm. What this means now is that live performance, of any kind, is special. I think if we remember this as musicians we can make it work in our favour.
*
Some music [most? all? answers on a postcard please] only makes proper sense live. I remember the first time I heard and saw Bolero live, many years ago. ['It is my masterpiece,' said Ravel. 'It's a shame there's no music in it.'] Everyone knows the tune, but seeing it performed blew me away... how most of the orchestra sit there patiently doing 'nothing' for most of the time... a magical experience.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: S. Friedland
Date: 2008-04-14 21:14
Her are three anectdotal (but true) little stories about recordings, which do not render any opinion I don't have. There is a recording of the Tchaikovsky 4th Symphony played by the Boston Symphony Orchestra, with Munch conducting. Every clarinetist knows the first movement solos, the sweet little solo preceded by all of that syncopated tutti , which is repeated becoming a bridge to the slower section. On the recording, which was issued, the first solo played by Gino Cioffi was never put into the recording. Who knows, the tape(at that time) may be hanging up in some studio somewhere.
Number two happened to me in Symphony Hall. I went into the hall to see my teacher who was at the time Rosario Mazzeo (the personell manager). I stopped and opened a door to the hall and saw the orchestra playing. They had taken out all of the seats and the members were seated in pairs,(woodwinds and brass) each pair with a separate microphone. They were recording. I was transfixed seeing them in pairs.
Someone grabbed ne by the collar and neck and dragged me out of the hall. It was Peggy Burke, Mazzeos secretary who had gotten nervous about me coming in. Out in the hallway whe screamed in a whisper to me."Sherman, don't you know if you were caught in there, the orchestra would have had to be paid!" I said of course, ,"no".
She went on telling me that when Koussevistsky had been the conductor he was so abusive that they passed the regulation to save aggravation on the players .
One more story. (true too)
The were recording Til, back in the days of 78s. Koussevitsky was conducting. At the time, an entire side had to be recorded. No editing was available. The first horn cracked (Wilhelm Vulcaneer). Koussy would not re-record. On the way out, Vulcaneer opened the conductors door and said, "you **************"
Koussy replied."It is never too late to apologize"
(Story told to me by a dear friend, Tom Kenny, who was Szells first horn as well as Paul Parays for many years.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
