Norman Lebrecht writes:

>However, I do not think I have ever met a musician who believed that
>his or her studio work was more important than live performances.

Glenn Gould did believe that studio work was more important than live
performances- see his collected essays.

The relationship between recorded and live music is not a simple one.  The
two listening experiences are indeed different, but the differences can be
easily exaggerated.  Operationally, you can follow either live or recorded
music with a score- no denying that!!!  And you can, I believe, feel the
emotional impact of a recorded performance.  Generally speaking, a good
recording of a Beethoven Quartet sounds like- whattya know, a Beethoven
Quartet!!!!  I am not at all familiar with psychoacoustics, but this
obvious fact is, IMHO, a bit of a miracles.  After all, the room is hardly
the same acoustic environment as the concert hall, unless you are talking
about chamber music recorded in a very intimate setting.  Reflection times
are all messed up, and the sound field at the ears of the home listener
must be significantly different from the sound field in the concert hall.
I think that the brain takes over and processes the sound field in such a
manner as to hear what it should be hearing, but I am not at all sure of
any of this.  I do know that thirty or so years ago, the Acoustic Research
Company used to run events at which the audience could not, it is claimed,
tell the difference between the live and the recorded string quartet.  And
I remember reading that even in the age of mechanical recording into horns,
live vs, recorded tests gave the same results!!!  Brains at work!!!

Concerning the spontaneity of live concerts and the fake perfection of
spliced recordings, I agree completely with Mr. Lebrecht.  And I would
add that once in a while, a live concert results in a uniquely powerful
experience which has something to do with the rapport between performer
and audience.

Professor Bernard Chasan
Physics Department, Boston University