[Dixielandjazz] Live versus Studio Recordings

[Marek Boym]

I don't know whether it is bootlegging or not, but I am a compulsive
tapist.  True, my tapes bring back memories, but they sound EXCITING.
Moreover, I have a friend who does the same.  When I listen to her
recordings, they still cinvey the ambience of the live event, albeit
such recirdings fall far below "broadcast quality."

And I prefer the older ones, before they started amplifying pianos so
as to make them the loudest instrument in a band!

All of whidh does not prevent me from buying more recordings than I
have time to hear (I get to hear a record about once in four years).

Cheers

On 08/01/2009, David Livingston <snargi01 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I prefer recording live. Especially if I'm playing in a mediocre band. Recording over the course of a 3 or 4 hour gig should produce enough songs for a recording that will be acceptable for CD listening. I play in several community groups that have recorded and it is tough to get casual players to concentrate in a studio setting. If anything they tend to over-concentrate, causing more missed entrances and tuning problems. With the availability of cheap, good quality portable digital recording equipment to the general public, high quality live music can be recorded.
>
> //Thread sure to segue into bootlegging now.
>
> David Livingston
> Dixieland Gumbo Internet Radio
> http://www.dixielandgumbo.com
> The BEST place on the web to hear Traditional Jazz
> To inquire about getting your band on the station
> contact Dave at davel at dixielandgumbo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or change your e-mail preferences for the Dixieland Jazz Mailing list, or to find the online archives, please visit:
>
> http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz
>
>
>
> Dixielandjazz mailing list
> Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
>