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