Picture yourself in an arena packed with people swigging Stella from plastic cups, sweat dripping off their chins and seeping through your clothes. A bloke, a good foot taller than you, has been nudging your head every time he feels the need to quench the thirst you know he doesn’t have as he’s already on his 6th pint of cheap continental lager. You’ve been in this situation for a good hour and just as you’re starting to wonder why you pay to put yourself through this at least twice a year, the lights fade; people start jostling to see the stage and the band attempts to nonchalantly saunter on but don’t quite manage it due to their much-too-tight skinny jeans.
You’re sufficiently battered and bruised after the concert, soaked with what you can only hope is your own sweat and with one ear ringing so loud that you know you won’t be able to hear anything properly for a week. But it was worth the feelings of exhilaration and exhaustion flooding over you as you queue for your coat.
Suddenly, you are hit with indignation as you overhear some ponce announce that he’d rather sit at home and listen to the CD. Is such a statement justified? Can a digitally enhanced recording of an artist truly reflect the passion they attempt to instill in an audience during a live gig?
Cynics will tell you that artists write music to sell music and they perform in order to advertise what they’re trying to sell. And yet, I stand by my pledge that an artist’s main desire, true to the definition of art, is self-expression and the need to communicate to an audience.
A true music-lover will not and cannot sit at home listening to a studio-recorded album and be satisfied. I listen to these digitally manipulated (and I believe therefore spoiled) tracks because they remind me of seeing the artist in person, sweating, red-in-the-face and happier than they sound on the CD.
Fundamental expressive qualities inherent in music appeal to inherent human qualities and these are lost in translation during studio recordings. Notes are tweaked to sound ‘perfect’ but the spontaneity and personal touch of the artist is lost in the process. In my opinion, humanity is anything but perfect so why should the music we create be?
Furthermore, the anticipation of waiting for a gig to start and the amazement felt when you can say you saw Radiohead perform Creep live or saw Matt Bellamy’s Kaoss Pad being manipulated expertly could never be substituted by a recording. A pleasure that’s repeatable loses all illustriousness.
For those who play it safe and buy music in HMV or online, let me tell you, you’re missing out. BIG! Take a chance on live music, you’ll never feel the same about recordings again. And if they really do suck live, then that’s not really the sign of a brilliant band.
According to Tolstoy, ‘Music is the shorthand of emotion’ so go to a gig and let the sound overwhelm you.
I don't hate gigs...
I don't hate gigs... BUT:
Musicians actually make most of their profit from performances and merchandise. The tiny fractions of the profits created for the music industry by music sales that the artists actually get, (even less for online sales b.t.w.) is barely enough to live off. Even for major bands. In this sense I think it would be more accurate to see recorded music as advertising for, or a memento of (as the author does), an artist’s live performance.
I think the reason that many people prefer recorded music these days is the fact that many bands lack the raw talent to make a live performance truly enthralling. People tend to expect (as the author also seems to) an artist to be able to reproduce their recorded sound well in live concerts, while at the same time not simply rehearsing the recorded track, but adding a personal flair to their songs. If we can accept for a moment that an artist can still be a creative genius without having any talent with an instrument, then I think that recording music allows these people to truly express themselves, and can thus be instilled with their passion.
In addition to this, contemporary music relies so heavily on electronic effects that are not always reproducible in live music, that their best efforts can still sound empty and dull live. I have even found that many songs would need a more members to reproduce than a band actually has, i.e. one guitarist recording rhythm, melody and solos on top of each other.
The author claims that electronic recording allows artists to perfect each note, apparently ruining the music. But can you really achieve more than perfection? If the recorded song sounds ‘perfect’ to the artist, then isn’t that the way it should sound?
From the author’s account, what seems to make gigs attractive, and live music enjoyable is the consumption of large amounts of alcohol, crowded and sweaty dungeons, physical violence and artists reproducing their music in such a way that it no longer resembles the ‘perfect’ version.
The “wild Tolstoys” (as they were known in the high society of Imperial Russia), a family of musicians, artist and writers famous for their fighting, drinking and wanton eroticism, would be proud.
Post new comment