I'm in awe of the players who put pieces on Youtube without any edits. I've put a few very short pieces on (some months ago before I had more sense) and can appreciate the difficulties involved in maintaining concentration and control even for two or three minutes. When a slip is made in performance, that's it. But in a recording - even for Youtube - one usually (at least I would) goes back and redoes the whole piece again. Of course, the problem with this is that one tends - at least I suspect most would tend - to become quite cautious in playing. Especially the further along one becomes in the recording process. On the other side of the coin, with the possibility of edits, a player can take risks, knowing that at least minor miscues can be corrected. On Nov 7, 2010, at 3:55 PM, David Tayler wrote:
> (snip) >> Last night I heard a very nice concert of mostly Baroque >> guitar. This is not an instrument I have any experience on, so I >> have a question. While the music was played with great style and >> expressiveness, I noticed some things that in a lute player I would >> not think that good. Things like squeeks, and twangs, and notes that >> in the contrapuntal texture were inappropriately loud or soft. > > Live music is great! > A typical classical music CD has 800 edits, a typical solo CD, such > as guitar, lute, harpsichord, etc, varies, but the high and low > numbers for the albums I hvae worked range from 450-2200 > Now 2200 edits is a a very large number, that's 2200 twangs splats > and squeeks that have been removed. Basically, a correction has been > applied every 2 seconds. > So, live music is better. By going to a real concert, you hear > something that is real, and support musicians directly. > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
