John Smyth writes:

>I wonder if we should even critique music if we haven't heard it live,
>as it was intended to be heard--the sound is *that* different.

*We* don't critique music; individuals critique music, and I assume that
each person doing so uses the standards which he/she considers most
relevant.

Music is intended to be heard "live"? I suppose that would apply to past
eras when there was no possibility of a recorded performance.  Put simply,
Beethoven was never asked whether he would prefer his music live or on
record.  Beyond that consideration, folks should listen to music in those
venues where the rewards are the greatest for them regardless of the
declarations of others as to the most advantageous venue.

I'm sure that John feels that the sound at a concert is *that* different
from a recording.  My personal take on it is that the sound is very/very
similar.  I've heard opera, orchestal works, chamber works, and solo
instrumental works in live performances, and these same works sound pretty
much the same to me as on recordings.  About a year ago, I attended an
Angela Hewitt piano recital, and she sounded quite similar to her recorded
performances.

I'm not making any claim that artists perform better on record than
in a live performance.  However, there are plenty of classical music
enthusiasts who prefer music on record; it has to do with the personalities
of the listeners.  John may well be aware of all this, but it doesn't show
in the posting.  He takes some words from Pires concerning her preference
for performing on record and uses them to exalt his preferred listening
environment.  "Different strokes for different folks" is the name of this
tune.

Don Satz