So what's the more profound experience, live or recorded? Let me offer a
real-world experience to illustrate the possible futility of the argument:

I just took a job playing orchestral piano with Sacramento's Camellia
Symphony, (Pines of Rome in March!), though for Mahler's 5th tonight, I've
been asked last minute to cover cymbals....

First, a pledge:  "I, John Smyth, promise never again to think that
percussionists have it easy."

Last night's dress-rehearsal:

It was such a rush crashing them together in the opening of the first
mov't--I felt almost god-like, the experience *must* be second only to
hurling thunderbolts.  But then came the cut-time second mov't!  At one
point in a moment of panic I grabbed my schwammschlagel instead of my
zuruckhalten.  (My mother always worried I might be inclined to do such
things.)

In any case, *performing* Mahler has made me feel more at one with the
music than either attending a live performance or listening at home.
Could I say that performing is the superior way to experience music? In a
sophistical moment, yes.  In reality, no.  Measuring profundity is about as
futile as measuring beauty.

John Smyth
Sacramento, Ca
http://facelink.com/j66560