dbratman
|
|
response 4 of 5:
| 
Jan 18 00:23 UTC 2003 |
My answer to the question depends entirely on the artists.
Some are dead in the studio, without an audience to feed off of, and
generate enormous excitement live.
Others are sloppy in live performance, and burnish their work to a fine
sheen in the studio.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 5 of 5:
|
Feb 2 11:23 UTC 2003 |
resp:3 well, I was thinking of the folk concerts I've been to, and I
think it's a bit more charming to see the artists in person. But then
again, these are small venues and you can be up close and personal.
And yeah, I've noticed that too as my folks have bought a few CDs from
the folk acts they've seen. Sometimes there's some studio tricks like
multitracking (so artists can sing harmony with themselves), but yeah,
usually, it's not much.
resp:2 These days with good engineering, more acts can reproduce more
of what they do in the studio. But I agree-- it's limited, and so a
live performance has to be a differently constructed thing entirely.
--
As far as sound, I'm not a huge fan of live performance.. I'm just too
enamored of slick studio wizardry. What I like, however, is the
video, lights, and seeing the performers in person. But-- I suppose
I'm not one to say much, as I've only been to a few commercial
concerts.
I'm not a very exuberant person, so sometimes it's nice to listen to
carefully crafted studio stuff that I can get lost in, especially with
a pair of headphones. Maybe that's why ambient has an appeal..
|