[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:51:19 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

OTOH, you are correct about rock and some other forms of pop. These
performances were created in the studio where they were recorded,

Obviously only true of studio recordings.

Rock and pop groups still give regular live performances, and still
distribute recordings of those live performances.

Who said they didn't? And those concerts sound just like the studio
recordings except with the added audience response.

????

When a musical group plays for an audience, the presence of the audience
generally affects the playing. Musicans say this often.

The presence of an audience in a room changes its acoustics, often quite
dramatically.

There is really no way to duplicate what the audience hears in a recording.

They have to be that way.

Not in this universe.

The audience attends the concert to see and hear their favorite bands play
their favorite music and this music MUST sound to the live audience like
it
does on the recordings the fans bought of that music.

Mission impossible!

and essentially only exist as an electronic waveform.

The same can be said of even minimal-miced orchestral performances.

That's wrong. Orchestral performances can exist without microphones,
without
SR and indeed without electricity.

You've missed the point. The acoustical performance does indeed exist as a
sound field, but that is not the same sound as exists on any recording of
it.

Therefore, the difference between recordings of popular recordings that you
claim does not exist, since both only exist as electronic waveforms.


Whatever a recording engineer/producer does with microphones is completely
after the fact and irrelevant to the music making.

This of course depends on whether or not the musicans are using monitor
speakers or earphones.

OTOH, rock performances don't exist at all without these things.

Ignores the existence of rock recordings and performances that are
"unplugged".

Solid body electric guitars make almost no sound without their
amplifier/speakers.

Instead of treating electronic instruments like they are alien objects,
consider the amplifier/speakers to be like the sounding board of a piano.
That is indeed their purpose and function. This can be independent of
whether or not the performance is being recorded or not.

Fender Rhodes pianos (and
other electronic keyboards) make, essentially NO sound without their
amps/speakers.

Again, a mountain seems to being made over a small molehill related to the
construction of the instrument.

Rock vocalists need a microphone to do what they do and the
performance, the way the audience hears it, does not even exist outside of
the mixing console.

In fact many rock musicans have robust voices and can perform unplugged.
OYOH, I've been at a number of nominally classical performances where the
vocalists used amplification.

That's why, when on tour, rock groups have to take their mixing consoles
with them.

In fact there are any number of rock and other popular music groups that
play small venues and have no centralized mixing facility at all. Jazz and
folk singing groups come to mind.

The difference here, is that instead of the "mix"
going to a recorder, it goes to SR amps and speakers. That way, the
audience
hears their favorite band playing their favorite songs in a way that
sounds
just like the recordings of those songs.

The degree to which groups are concerned that they sound just like their
recordings varies greatly. Most of the groups I've worked with are more
interested in just sounding good.

IOW, I don't get your point.

That appears to be due to a lot of false information and biased
interpretation of correct information.