I was going to put this in the Flute forum but it’s really a more general reflection on recorded music and expectations. I found it thought provoking.
all to often we let the talent ‘on the other side of the glass’ take precedence.
We regards to the cult of perfection, I’m an atheist. I’m tired of people ramming perfection down my throat. There is no perfection. Why don’t they agree with this and get over it?
Sure, it’s a good point, and an obvious one, I think. It reminds me of the recent misguided suggestion here on the board that you need to practice a tune 50 or 100 times before you can play it. There can be musicality at every level of ability, and there’s no music unless you “just do it” without fretting too much over perfection until you’re ready for that.
I’ve watched Nina’s instructional vids before, and find them interesting for explaining the details of modern flute technique.
How is it that in your avatar, the person and the dog walk at the same speed? They take the same amount of steps, yet the dog takes much smaller ones. He should be quickly left behind.
Side-by-side invisible treadmills. Obviously!
No, no, NO. It’s because the dog has twice as many legs. C’mon.
Interesting how those “Real Flute” clips use so much artificial reverb. And there are a heck of a lot of ads on her YouTube channel and website. But, fair play to her for putting up a bunch of free clips and instructional videos.
Anyone who’s heard the Renaissance BBC tapes will immediately realize that perfect isn’t best. It’s a two-disc set recorded over several years of their appearances on BBC. There’s minimal post-recording processing, so what you’re hearing is the music as they played it, warts and all. Another great one is Steppenwolf Live, on which the performances aren’t nearly as clean as the studio versions, John’s not in as good a voice, but there’s something alive about the music. (Yes, I know one side was recorded in the studio.)
I like perfect.
Well, good luck with that, Jack. 
I like her philosophy. I believe there are two related reasons “folk music” (by which I mean music made by regular, non-pro folks, not the Kingston Trio) has largely died out as a passtime: 1. It’s easier to pop in a CD (oh, wait, that’s too much work now, isn’t it? Turn on your MP3 player), and 2. Well, I don’t sound like the professionals on the CD, so I must not be any good.
Does anybody remember a few years back when a bunch of us Rocky Mountain Boys were getting together for sessions? A long-since-gone poster criticized our soundclips because we didn’t sound like some bygone recording of several members of the chieftains having a session. :roll:
Seems to me if you’re good enough to be having fun, it’s worth doing.
T
I, too, prefer studio versus “live” recordings. If you can do more and do better, then why not? e.g. If you like to listen to Jimmy Page playing solo on stage then go for it, but personally, I would much rather listen to the guitar orchestras he built up in the studio (just an example, of course). Even for one-offs, musicians may record the same track fifty times until they can get it “right”, but I would rather listen to it when it is right than the “off the cuff” version I would otherwise get from a live performance.
Some people seem to be inordinately proud of “making do”. I can make do with the best of 'em, but give me a choice for better and I will gladly take it.
djm
It depends on the music for me but as a general rule I prefer live, unenhanced music any day.
I’d rather go to a jam and play my dulcimer than listen to it on CD.
Listening to her play, what she calls ‘imperfect’
is what I call ‘perfect.’ With imperfection like
that, who needs perfection?
Sure, that’s perfectly legit, deej. But I took her point as relating to learners’ inhibitions, and the danger of perfect studio recordings setting an unrealistic standard for learners. Apples and oranges, and the perfect being the enemy of the good, that sort of thing.
We’ve all experienced studio recording stars who are, in fact, quite ordinary musicians in person. But ordinary is no shame, especially in a participatory tradition, and when it’s a step along a continuing road from ordinary to extraordinary.
My take, too. Better to play, enjoy, and improve, than sit on one’s hand in despair.
I agree with MTGuru. Nina’s “cause” is noble and a huge breath of fresh air. Cynical implications that she’s just doing it to make money, I think, are misdirected.
I’ll put it this way. I am much less bothered by seeing a few ads on her site, which, realistically are unlikely to even cover her production costs, than I am paying $90 to see Christopher Parkening demonstrate that my high expectations based on his recordings were severely unfounded. Nina’s stuff is free to view and gives a realistic picture of what she’s all about.
Yep, there isn’t a thing wrong with studio recording, effects, overdubs, all that stuff. It’s fun and the result can be great.
I just think it’s a shame when we give in to the idea that there is no point making our own music, because we don’t sound as good as these guys on this CD. It’s like refusing to show my face in public because I don’t look like whatever movie star is in vogue this week. Dumb.
When I listen to a recording, I tend to expect perfection. When I listen to someone live, I’m much more interested in their energy and overall sound than in the absence of mistakes.
Of course, the ones I really admire are the ones who sound just as good live as they do on their CD’s, with the added energy of performing in front of an audience.
It’s all good. As our long-lost friend Lee used to say, Enjoy your music!
T