Michael Cooper writes:

>Rationalized in some way I cannot imagine, there is now a common
>practice of recording a live concert, editing out mistakes, and then
>releasing the recording with the erroneous label of "live".  This strikes
>me as ridiculous and more to the point, unethical.  Why bother to include
>the applause at the end, and label the performance as live, when it
>clearly is not?  Furthermore, how can one possibly justify
>doing so?

Well, Michael, there is edited live and over-edited live.  For example,
I find that the Knappertsbusch Parsifal on Teldec sounds live, even
though Culshaw himself tells us some clams have been edited out.  This
is probably because they are merely individual notes or quite small
sections of music which do not interfere in the flow, or the 'big picture'.
Bernstein's 'live' recordings, on the other hand are, as you so rightly
point out, frauds.  They were edited from several performances, perhaps
mixing movements from one evening's concert with another.  If you compare
Bernstein's commercial live recordings with the actual concert broadcasts,
they are two entirely different beasts.  The concert broadcasts have
much more life, electricty or whatever you may call it.

And the reason, Michael, the applause is left on is to legitimize the
performance.  "If there is applause, it MUST have been a good performance."

Ray Osnato