> that live doesn't actually sound good, it is just a good experience — the people, the light, the atmosphere, you went there and payed potentially a ton of money for it, you are a little drunk, it is loud, everybody who is there is in a good mood, it happens live in front of your eyes... In short: It sounds better than it actually sounds for psychological reasons.
Certainly I've had this experience! But there are so many great live bootleg recordings, don't they seem like evidence that live music can sound fantastic (in the sense of music, not recording quality)? Listen to the Nirvana clips upthread.
But thinking about it, I've forgotten that many, many bands are worse live than in a studio, and far more are no better live. The Rolling Stones stand out to me as a band known for legendary live concerts but who, if you hear the music only, play poorly. I love live music so I realize I have a very strong selection bias toward people who are fantastic live performers. Not everyone, or maybe nobody, is Nirvana.
Certainly I've had this experience! But there are so many great live bootleg recordings, don't they seem like evidence that live music can sound fantastic (in the sense of music, not recording quality)? Listen to the Nirvana clips upthread.
But thinking about it, I've forgotten that many, many bands are worse live than in a studio, and far more are no better live. The Rolling Stones stand out to me as a band known for legendary live concerts but who, if you hear the music only, play poorly. I love live music so I realize I have a very strong selection bias toward people who are fantastic live performers. Not everyone, or maybe nobody, is Nirvana.