[KH]

On 2/15/2011 6:31 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:57:38 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in ):


I've heard Pink Floyd live....I actually like the reproductions from
my system(s) much much better. Even going all the way back my Original
Large Advents.
It's not even close. Live is, IMO, sometimes overrated .

ScottW


I'm sorry, I cannot get past the notion that listening to a musical group
through loudspeakers (even any acoustical ones) is hearing that group "live".
To me the only differences between hearing a PA system of a rock group and
listening to a recording of that group on one's own stereo system is the
quality of the loudspeakers and the fact that the concert is a "shared"
experience.

Well, there's more overlap than you seem to think, or you have a very
narrow definition of rock/pop. I don't believe any of the orchestras
accompanying groups such as Procol Harum or Renaissance, in their
orchestral shows, being amplified. And the "unplugged" MTV performance
of 10,000 Maniacs was IMO clearly their best work. The "Rule", no, but
there's a lot of hybrid stuff out there where maybe only vocals are
amplified (new age stuff like Nightnoise, Loreena McKennitt, for e.g.,
or folk for example), where the "pure" acoustic performances involved
are live by any reasonable definition.

Perhaps you should change your description to "acoustic" music. Because
it's hard to dispute that musicians playing instruments right there in
front of you is not "live".

But, clearly there's a broad gray line between what constitutes a
'concert' versus a 'performance event' where the music merely
accompanies the visual spectacle. Usually, when the folks on stage are
dressed in Halloween costumes, it's the latter :-) 'Course, that's just
my opinion.

Keith