Norman Lebrecht:

>I don't deny the value of recording as a point of reference.  But I do not
>consider listening to a record to be a genuine musical experience.  Music
>must posses the ability to surprise and shock.  A recording, once heard,
>remains the same for all time.

Both have their advantages.  Live performances provide both a visceral
and visual element that I find lacking in recordings--and hearing the music
of old friends live, (that is, music I have come to know over the years
through recordings only), can be quite revelatory.  For instance, Martinu
has a lot of antiphonal fun with first and second violins that I have
totally missed on recording.  And I wonder how much modern music people
don't "get" because visual gestures, sometimes an important component of
modern music, are lost.

However:

I have enjoyed many rapturous moments whilst listening to recordings
at home.  And repeated listening gives me a chance to "get" difficult
music that, heard only once in the concert hall, might otherwise leave
me non-plussed.  Then there is the noise issue.  Yes, the coda of Mahler's
Ninth that I heard live, (MTT/SFO), left me heart-broken, but unfortunately
only because of the coughing.  It sounded like a Moscow apartment complex
in there.

(Let's see those old ladies try to out-cough the SF orchestra in the finale
of Mahler's 7th tomorrow night....)

John Smyth
Sacramento, CA
http://facelink.com/J66560