From: bowers@bvc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.music.gdead
Subject: Re: *My* clueless opinion!
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:36:34 CDT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA

>>In article <1992Aug4.135408.22707@access.digex.com> jamie@access.digex.com (James Treworgy) writes:


>>>Why is that any different than basing your opinion on actual shows which
>>>you attended? In my experience I have found that the band's performance on
>>>tapes of shows is very similar to the performance at the actual show it was
>>>a tape of.  Uncanny, huh?

> 
> I agree that the show is different from the tape.  But the *music* is the
> same.  Indisputably the show is going to be different, but this has to do
> with such factors as: your mood, the weather, the energy of the crowd,
> and the current state of your neurons.  So while I might have an incredible
> time at an average show I still think its perfectly fair to base an opinion
> of the performance on a good-quality tape.  It's a little easier to be
> objective than when you are raging at a show.
> -- 
> James A. Treworgy
> jamie@digex.com

ACtually, the music may be the same, but the sound is not.  Microphones and 
ears hear sound in quite different ways, plus the fact that your ears (
hopefully) are connected directly to your brain which interprets and 
filters what it hears quite unconsciously.  Example: compare your 
experience of listening to someone over a telephone versus listening to a 
tape of that same conversation.  The words are the same....the dialogue is 
the same...but the sound quality is radically different. When you listen to 
a phone your brain will supply frequencies that are not really present in 
the transmission, based upon what it knows about the characterisitcs of 
human speech. But in the taped version, you'll notice how "tinny" the phone 
voice sounds....not at all what you remebered hearing.

Additionally, in a live setting your brain has to distinguish and filter 
reflected sound bouncing around a room versus direct sound.  Again compare 
your experience of listening to someone talk in a gymnasium to a sound 
recording of the same.  Chances are in the sound recording you'll notice a 
diffenece in the degree of reflected sound (the amount of boominess or 
"echo")...either less if a really narrow directional mic were used, 
or more if an omnidirectional mic were used.  Again, your brain acts as 
a processing unit that the mic or recording system doesn't have.

Hence, there is quite a large difference between recorded experience and in
-the-flesh experience.  Generally, I have found that in a live setting, the 
tremendous amount of reflected sound tends to soften or blend the ensemble 
in ways that direct recording cannot without a lot of mixing.  Some of this 
blending can be captured by mics in the audience, but not in quite the same 
mix that your ears (and brain) will percieve.

The question "Is it live or is it Memorex" (which is after all what we've 
be debating here) is probably not the right question.  Reality is, after 
all, largely a matter of interpretation and the means of interpreting (or 
remembering, or experiencing) each have their own limitations and advantages.
Each is relaible in it's own way, but neither is truly infallible or 
"objective".  

For those seeking to better understand the continuity, significance, or meaning 
of GD music, all of the available evidence needs to be consulted and 
weighed together.....those seeking merely to enjoy (can enjoyment be 
divorced from understanding?) can choose which they prefer.

Bootlegs for me, serve to evoke my memories of concert perceptions or allow 
me to experience musical events I didn't attend....always they are a spark 
for my imagination and not a replacement for it.......

Paul Bowers
Bowers@BVC.edu
Newsgroups: rec.music.gdead