There are many reasons why listening to a recording is not the same as
attending a live performance.  But there are many cases where the existence
of a recording of a work increases the incidence of live performances.
Britten's War Requiem is surely a case in point.  If it had never been
recorded, the chances of Ed Zubrow attending a live performance of it by
the Boston Symphony would, I suggest, have been greatly reduced.  How many
list members have heard (or even heard of) the Ballad of Heroes (recorded
only quite recently)? How many have heard any of Britten's unrecorded
works, and how often? Boston was, I believe, the town which heard the first
performance of Tippett's "The Mask of Time", but I very much doubt that it
was ever performed again anywhere until it was recorded, several years
later.

In fact it seems to me that these days there is little chance of any new
work being performed more than a very few times unless it has also been
recorded.  Whatever happened to Tavener's "The Myrrh-Bearer", for example?

The contrary suggestion, that there are many cases where the existence of
a recording makes live performance of the work less likely, is hardly
tenable.

All the great musicians devote their time and artistry to making
recordings, even -- one might say, especially -- those who have no need
of further fame or money.

All who love live music and wish it to flourish (and which of us does not?)
have many reasons to be grateful for recordings.

Alan Moss