MilesDavis2
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Posts
- 339
- Likes
- 25
Can't get tired of this.
Loved the Mahavishnu Orchestra during the late 70's but the recording was so so. Just got this album recently and it is Mahavishnuesque but a great recording.
You make a good point.
IN a way, I wish that this thread asked that contributors evaluate three separate things:
Musicianship (performance acuity)
Composition (i.e. the quality of the music)
Recording Quality
Granted, all of these are subjective, but it would be a nice touchstone to have.
It's funny, because often times after a live show, I try to think about those three things, only in the case of the last (recording), I typically substitute the quality of the FOH mix and overall sound quality. That way, when I think about how 'good' a show was, I try to look at its parts, and how these contribute to the whole.
The fact is, as MilesDavis2 alluded to, sometimes, the recording is so bad that we end up not listening to a performance...and we might miss out on a given band's best performance ever, simply because the fidelity is lackluster. On the other hand, when the fidelity is really good, I think it's fair to say (?) that most of us are much more likely to listen to a recording longer in order to assess the overall performance given by the band.
I'm rambling...
Again, I think it would be great for contributors to rate these three things (Musicianship, Compositions, Recording) on a scale of 1-10 each.
Mark