Jazz is inherently improvised music, and there's a very valid argument that some of the best
improvising goes on in a live-performance setting. So I agree with you very much about jazz. There
was a time when rock was the same, except usually the musical skill wasn't all that good. Nowadays,
a typical popular pop or rock artists's live show is a scripted/automated/computerized light and
sound and multimedia thing, with little room to go off on an interesting improv. Not universal, but
typical. Like these stage-show extravaganzas, classical music is "scripted" (scored), so a good
conductor and orchestra should be able to deliver a note-perfect and exciting performance to the
recording mics, using retakes to patch up less than perfect sections. In a live setting, sometimes
the script goes awry due to human imperfections and/or poor conducting. A live audience rarely
notices the mistakes unless they are terrible.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Milan P Milovanovic" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Who needs vinyl?
> I've read this interesting discussion few times, and while I'm no expert in classical field, I
> could not agree with you when jazz broadcasts/club and concert dates are involved, for they often
> contain so exciting, thrilling, joyful music ever recorded "on wax", despite some technical flaws,
> imperfections, bad ensemble work at some given spots, intonation problems and so on.
> The same occurs with alternate takes in studio environment. One can think of many cases from 78
> rpm when record companies recorded two or three complete takes with no audible "mistakes" or
> "fluff" (whatever the reason was to cut them - I put this question about a week or so,
> unfortunately no discussion followed it) but overall results were so much different in terms of
> quality of given solos, musical thinking, instantaneous reflex reactions to what is unrolling
> during studio time and so on. Then again, I can think of "Oh Memory" take Louis Armstrong did on
> "Stardust", while for broadcasts there are some Benny Goodman live 1943. recordings of FH
> arrangements that probably, IMHO, are above any studio date he did.
> Best wishes,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 7:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Who needs vinyl?
> This is why I don't believe in issuing recordings of radio
>> broadcasts, because the performance was a one-time event and often containing flubs or other
>> things that would not pass muster with a recording session of yore