Date:	23-Jun-1998 05:09:02
From:	Peter Kenyon (kenyonp@cbs.curtin.edu.au)
	NOTHING beats a live performance in a dedicated jazz club (where the audience listens to the music and no one talks while the musicians are playing). I would rather hear a good local band in such an environment to even Herbie Hancock on a mid sixties Blue note record! Next is a concert performance, and then a long way last is a record (and this from someone with God knows how many cds!). With records, it is tricky. Rudy Van Gelder and Teo Macero can almost capture a live performance in a studio better than a record of the real thing (usually with the latter, you get too much background noise and all too often a poor balance between the rhythm section and the front line)! But to repeat, IMHO, nothing beats a live club performance. Peter

 

Date:	08-Jul-1998 07:31:57
From:	Mats Äleklint (aleklint@hotmail.com)
	I can only agree with that! But it is like that with every kind of music.

 

Date:	08-Jul-1998 15:55:12
From:	Everett Kalafatis (Everettxxx@.com)
	I might get slammed on this one, but I honestly prefer studio recordings over live performances. Maybe the "essence" of jazz (improvisation etc.) gets lost a little but the musicians involved have a chance to think over the material they are about to compose more carefully. You just can't tell me Miles Davis could have produced a live version of "Kind of Blue" that could ever rival the studio version. What if he had chosen to only record it live!! Would it still be the same classic it is today?

 

Date:	14-Jul-1998 20:33:51
From:	James (JWill34050@aol.com)
	Not to sound obnoxious or anything, Everette, but when Miles recorded "Kind of Blue" everyone was reading for the first time with only a short rundown before redording but I do see where you are coming from.

 

Date:	17-Nov-1998 23:43:11
From:	Langdon Stern (telranger@hotmail.com)
	I think that part of the pleasure of jazz is hearing good improvisation. For me, that improvisation must be "live" (happening as I listen) to be really exciting. Anything could happen! So I prefer live jazz. (It's usually louder, too).

 

Date:	07-May-1999 13:50:12
From:	Derrick Smith (dasmith@iei.net)
	I have to agree that live jazz music is better, or maybe I should say "it has the POTENTIAL to be better." This really is a complex topic. Taking Miles Davis' Kind of Blue recording, it's true that the album was recorded essentially "live in-studio." But the studio setting is much different from the vast majority of live settings. Following that reasoning, Kind of Blue would probably have turned out at least somewhat differently if it had been recorded with the same M.O., i.e. Miles handing everyone notations just before the recording, but in front of an audience, who would presumably have reacted in some ways to the music as it was being played, and anyone who has ever been to a live performance of any genre, musicians respond to the environment and especially to the audience. So, it seems that certain types of jazz, meaning certain "feelings" that some jazz recordings have, would probably not occur in front of an audience, since it's usually hard to keep someone from shouting during a dynamic drum solo; and indeed, why shouldn't someone shout? It seems there may be a dichotomy between recordings and performances in the field of jazz, and plenty of people have been discussing this duality for decades. As to whether one setting for the music is better than another, I don't think that can really be answered, since some people (and not just "squares") prefer a more "composed" identity for the music, and others thrive on the ragged excitement of an unknown piece of music, going in whatever direction the musicians and audience decide to take it.

 

Date:	24-Sep-1999 23:25:27
From:	Scott Morrow
	Everett said: >>You just can't tell me Miles Davis could have produced a live version of "Kind of Blue" that could ever rival the studio version. What if he had chosen to only record it live!! Would it still be the same classic it is today?>> It is/was live. The only difference would be the sound of people in the audience. (Who, hopefully would've been so stupified and slack-jawed at the performence, they would've been too stunned to make a sound!) No offense, Everett, really, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. KIND OF BLUE is a classic example of live improvisation around a couple simple riffs. It could never come out the same way twice. All a live recording/audience might've done was made them play a little more intense? As far as the this thread goes, believe it or not, I have to thank you guys. AFter reading this and realizing I hadn't seen a good live jazz show in years, I went and got up off my butt Labor Day weekend. Between Rockford and Chicago, Illinois, in about 28 hours I saw Sam River Big Band, Chick Corea & Origin, and John Scofield and his New Band! Whew! Amazing. And the last two from -- no exaggeration -- the front row . . . WAAAH! There truly is nothing like a live show. And if you're fortunate enough to be part of a crowd who's really into it, the performers can get more inspired and the audience becomes an integral part of the performance. Just got a couple great examples of live discs: the new RVG versions of SONNY ROLLINS AT THE VILLAGE VANGUARD COMPLETE and JIMMY SMITH GROOVIN AT SMALLS (need I say both Blue Note?). The Sonny disc is a great example of a man using humor, wit and intelligence in his musical performance (as well as his spoken introductions) in a way that would never happen in a studio. Adios Scott

 

Date:	12-Nov-1999 00:37:15
From:	Ron Elazary (elazaryr@hotmail.com)
	As a musician I'm in two minds about this question. It has been said by many that when you imrovise and it's cooking, it's the best feeling one can get, and of course if the musos are getting high on it, the audience are too. On the other hand, often the improvisation is not happening to the musician's content, they can end up playing cliches which in turn don't inspire the other musicians and the audience. The advantage of studio recorded jazz is that it can be done again and again until it's 'right'. However, given the right mood, time and place, I'd rather listen to a live performance of jazz than a recorded one any time.

 

Date:	14-Jul-2000 11:20:10
From:	ALAN WINGROVE (alan.wingrove@bbc.co.uk)
	Interesting subject this...I have always been interested in the "live" recordings from the technical point of view, the "live" really enhances the music (such as "Grover Washington at the Bijou"). Of course the Rudy Van Gelder re-masters of Blue Note sessions really bring home the intimacy of a studio session which in turn enhances the music too...so it could be a case of "horses for courses"!!. Talking of "live" recordings it does seem that in the field of jazz the recording industry split into two defined camps as a lot of the studio based sessions were recorded at Van gelder's, however on the road the job seems to have fallen to Wally Heider who really got some good recordings on tape. I am particularly interested in finding out infomation about the latter.....does anyone have any info on him? Thanks.

 

Date:	25-Nov-2000 11:38:49
From:	Lawrence Khoo (lawrencekhoo@yahoo.com)
	I was at a good yet infuriating live jazz concert last night. The performance really brought home something that I've been thinking for a long time. The unfettered solo (together with ego jostling between musicians) is ruining live jazz. I've never liked sets where the band leader insists on letting everyone solo on every song. But it's getting worse. Solo's seem to be getting longer and more off tangent than ever. Sure, I enjoy an inspired improvised solo, but not solo's that are completely off tangent and cumulatively last twice as long as the rest of the music. (I especially cannot stand drum solo's, I'ld rather stay home than have to listen to another one.) Is it only me that feels this way? If going from solo to solo is such a great motif, why don't I ever hear it on recorded album tracks? If you are musician in a jazz band and know why there are so many solo's in live jazz, please email and enlighten me.