|
at the outset, let me state that i agree with rob. rooms do make a difference. so this isn't a 'gory' retort, merely a point of view.
while reading the post, a particular phrase caught my eye: "like sitting in front of live musicians."
now, here's a simple question: "what do live musicians sound like, before they've laid down 24 tracks and flicked every switch on the effects console?"
damned if i know.
i've just logged on after a 2 hour session with steely dan, a group i've been listening to for 30 years now. and, after 3 decades, i still don't know if fagen's squeaky plea to rikki is the real deal.
what i do know, however, is that the compositions, lyrics and musicianship still grab me by the short and curlies. i'm not striving to hear authenticity. i'm too busy drowning in the soul of the music.
one might ask, as my friends often do, why then do i spend thousands of dollars on my hi-fi? if it's the music that moves me, surely an mp3 should suffice?
well, the honest answer is that i love to hear more. my latest upgrade (a cdp) revealed a few asthmatic squawks and wheezes on the outro to 'haitian divorce' that i'd never heard before. what the hell was it? i haven't a clue. but you can bet there was a bloody big grin on my face as i unearthed another piece in the dan duo's eclectic mix.
one might also argue that it's acoustic music that needs to be treated with respect. after all, piano trios usually eschew fuzz boxes and whammy bars. wouldn't it be nice to have a bunch of live jazz musicians playing in your living room?
well, yes. if it was the coltrane quartet with eric dolphy, circa november '61.
unfortunately, the best hi-fi in this universe, and several parallel ones, won't manage that. and that's because the ORIGINAL recording sucks.
so, to summarise:
- most of the time, i haven't the foggiest what 'live' sounds like
- i don't care, as long as i hear more 'music'
- and, if it's donald, john, bob, miles, tom, or countless others, it shouldn't matter anyway
i guess ignorance is bliss, after all |
|