You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Recording is the death of Music
great article! i think this applies mostly to instrumental music though. you know, it was the Beatles that popularised the recording of music that was impossible to recreate live. they treated recording as an art in itself. of course, that's a different genre all together. you are correct though, when it comes to classical music, it's really better live.
I would say for all forms of music it is better live!
Going to a pub and hearing a band, seeing a folk music band play at a dance. These are are all the experiences where the music goes hand in hand with the other experiences. Not only that, when you go to a live performance, you are really listening and experiencing the music. It is alive and changing as you listen to it!
i agree, but i really think recorded music is an art form on it's own. there is only so much you can do live, while a recording is like a painting. it's a canvas and the sky is the limit when it comes to what you can paint on it. they both have their places. but yes, there is a unique energy to a live performance!
Agreed, recording is an art form in it's own right. But I'm afraid that the public and to some extent musicians don't draw the distinction between the two. That is the problem that I find is frustrating. I wish there was a way to distinguish between recording as an art form and not have the public being duped into thinking it was the same thing.
good point. for a lot of people, it's too expensive to actually go out and see and artist, when you can just look them up on youtube. i think the public can draw the line between them though, i don't think live performances will die out
I agree that we are evolving the art form and that recordings make it more accessible. That is a good thing! I'm just not convinced it is "music"!