Live

There is no better way to experience than hearing it live. The experience of enjoying the professionals themselves play the music right in front of you is an unmatched experience. No matter what genre or style of music, this holds true. But that's not to say that concerts are all the same. You would be hard pressed to find a philharmonic orchestra that performs the same way as a rapper.

Last spring, I attended a jazz festival close to where I live. While there, I saw several different types of groups, from large ensembles to small combos. (One group that was particularly impressive was the Winard Harper Sextet, seen in this video filmed two months ago). Despite the differences in the style of jazz and the size of the groups, there were overarching similarities in the "concert etiquette." First of all, my friends and I were pretty much the only attendees of the festival who were over the age of ten and under the age of forty. We even had several older women tell us how nice it was to see young people come and watch jazz. During the performances, the audience was always seated and quiet, other than the short periods following the end of the song and the end of an individual's solo, when the audience would politely clap to acknowledge the soloist. Furthermore, the music was loud, but soft enough that everything could be heard with clarity.


The jazz festival was much different than the TV on the Radio concert I attended a week and a half ago. First of all, the concert was held in our college gymnasium, which may be acoustically the worst location for any musical performance. Being in the gym also meant that the majority of the people would be standing the entire time (which was about two and a half hours if you were there for the opener). Of course, this was intentional, as it allows the audience to dance and interact more than if the audience was seated. The audience was comprised of almost entirely college students (it was held on a college campus) with some locals scattered in the mix. The most noticeable difference, though, was the volume. The amps of the band were turned up so loud that it was difficult to pick out any of the individual parts other than the drums and vocals. Now I don't want to sound like an old grouch, but I would have much preferred if the band had played softer so I could actually hear the individual instruments and how they blend together. It has been shown that loud music can induce a sort of euphoria, which makes sense, but should it be at the expense of actually hearing the music?

Concerts today are treated very similarly to how social networks are treated. Previously, social networks were used as a method of "social currency," but now, social networks have become more of a form of quick entertainment. Live jazz is much more focused on the quality of the music while live modern music is focused on the entertainment and enjoyment that the music creates. It's impossible to say that one type of concert is better than the other, but the differences between the two definitely reflect the evolution of music. Who knows where live music will go next?

(Bonus clip; Herbie Hancock live with Pat Metheney playing Cantaloupe Island)