It is pretty much the expected response, especially when people pay a lot of money to participate in a live performance. They rightly expect more than what they could have had at home listening to recorded music.
The artist's response is that they want the best for their audience and the recorder version is chosen from various takes. Live performance is unpredictable and not likely to recreate the level achieved in a studio.
If we do not mind the performers putting on make up to make them look more beautiful, why do we object to them trying to improve on their singing by using their best tracks? It is their track!
When we visit an art gallery, do we expect the artist there to perform his artistry there and paint one of his masterpieces in front of us?
Are we oblivious to the editing that goes on, that there are lots of abandoned paintings, sound tracks, film strips, and photo shoots for every masterpiece?
If live performance should not be lip synched, should we have prompters for drama stage performances or when people deliver speeches?
For that matter, should we have speech writers?
Should TV news anchors write their own scripts? Gather their news stories themselves? Film their sequences? Travel to the news breaking locations to give us the news first hand?
TV news anchors are valued for their trust appeal to their audience, what is this trust built on?
In one of the interviews, a famous local news anchor said that he never read the script before going on air. That way he can have a genuine reaction to the news as he reads it. Why does the audience have a high level of trust for this anchor when he obvious only does the reading of the news?
Art isn't the other side of science, but, its my experience of the artist that is enjoyable. It's not the person, per say, that I buy when I go to the CD store. Its the 'material' and I haven't ever crossed the line of it being a 'relationship' to an artist that I am buying.
ReplyDeleteBut then again people can purchase art and believe they are closer to an artist for doing so. Or they can look at an image and imagine that recreating it or the artists ways will make them more like the artist, stand with the artist, maybe be the artist.
There are bands that I so enjoy that I wouldn't ever want to see them live, or hear an interview with them. I wouldn't want to interfere with the 'art' by making it personal. But i respect artists, and don't purchase too much ipod music, if you know what I mean.
Long live vinal....
VTS
DeleteThanks for your comment, V!
Can we separate the artist from the work that emotionally engaged us?
Do we transfer our emotional connection with a movie character to the actor or actress that play that part?
With prolific writers like Shakespeare, they acquire a character of their own. But can we not automatically feel that a lot of writers are biographical in their work and feel that we relate to them somehow when we read their fictional work?
We all relate to others through narratives of our life relationships and experiences. Plays, movies, songs, images also evoke the same emotional responses that real life narratives pinch on.
Seems to me easy to slip from one to the other in terms of inferences without really knowing it is happening.
Not sure about your comment regarding iPod versus vinyl, other than the medium, are they not doing the same thing? Are your referring to the packaging around it?