Posted by Cameron Dorrough on 12/06/06 23:19

"Roderick Stewart" <escapetime@removethisbit.beeb.net> wrote in message
news:042dn21e8ntuo28bff5mjfv7010fo6f26q@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 08:53:37 +1100, "Cameron Dorrough"
> <cdorrough@nortonconsultants.com> wrote:
>
> >Doing this takes a crap-load of pressure off everyone at sound-check
> >(including lead vocal, who usually only turns up at the last minute) and
is
> >perfectly justified if you're on tour singing the same songs over and
over
> >to different audiences.
>
> Depends on what you mean by "justified", which I reckon depends on
> what standards you are applying. If I went to my local music venue of
> choice (which happens to be the Liverpool Philharmonic Hall), and
> realised I wasn't hearing the musicians at all, but a recording they'd
> done earlier to save them the effort of performing the same thing over
> and over, I'd feel quite "justified" in demanding a refund. I can hear
> music through loudspeakers in my own home any time I want.

Rod, don't forget that the audiences at a CA concert and the London
Philharmonic are there for totally different reasons. Specifically, the
audiences at modern dance/rock concerts are there for the *show*
(performance) - not the music - they can listen to that at home (or at full
volume in their souped-up cars).

I do know that it is often not _physically_ possible for someone to breathe
properly let alone actually sing during some of the modern dance "routines"
some acts use these days (Kylie Minogue comes to mind) - and hence the need
for pre-recorded tracks for those routines is totally justified. The
audience usually either don't know or are too hyped-up to care.. In any
case, I have never heard anyone complain (unless the mix was _totally_ crap
;-)

Cameron:-)

[Back to original message]