Kevin Sutton wrote:

>I think that if one listens only to recordings, and never any live
>concerts, then he is not qualified to be a critic.  Studio wizardry can
>do so much to enhance a recording, that nowadays, nearly anyone can sound
>pretty good.  The tyranny of perfection that recordings have placed upon
>live performances is ridiculous.  Recordings have created a false standard
>that is nearly impossible to live up to on the stage, much to the
>discouragement and detriment of live concerts, in my humble, but
>professional opinion.

While it has been some years since I have performed...

I would agree. Yet, for me, the recording is an object unto itself...a
notion which has been reinforced in me by my studies in the history of
recording and by having been on both sides of the microphone.

For me, I don't want live performance to be like the recording.  I want
the excitement in performance that comes from risk taking, yet these
days, my guess that fear of not sounding like the recording, might inhibit
a performer.

As for those not having performing experience and training...I think
that one can be a good critic without such training.  For me, to listen
to music is a wonderful way to learn and in some ways, gives one a
perspective that might not come from being a performer.  On the other
hand, being a performer can add a greater dimension to one's understanding,
not only of the music, but of the process of the realization of the
music.

Sometimes performers will focus on the technique.  I recall discussing
a clarinet performance with a clarinet player and all he could talk about
was the musicians tone.  Not once did the interpretation become part of
the discussion.

Karl