Response to Emily Burke (A Sensational Experience)

This is in response to Emily Burke’s question, what is the difference between hearing a recorded live performance and actually being there to hear it? There is a major difference, in my opinion, between hearing a live recording and actually being at a concert. When you are listening to a live recording, you are still only being stimulated in an auditory way, when you are at the event; all of your senses are stimulated making it truly a sensory event.

Live music on a recording does have its qualities that cannot be found when listening to a studio version of the song. You hear all the potential mistakes that the performer makes, all the variations that they incorporate into the music, and you can hear the audience. Many times I prefer to listen to a live CD as opposed to a studio version, however, nothing can top seeing a band or artist live.

When you see a band live, many things are occurring that will enhance the overall experience for the listener. All five of your senses are being stimulated that increase at least my enjoyment of the performance.

The first sense that is obviously being stimulated is your sense of hearing. Not only do you hear the band play but you also hear the fans that are around you, the feedback from some of the equipment when they are first setting up, you might even hear the sound of food cooking if there is a concession stand nearby. My favorite part, besides the music itself, is hearing the fans. We live in a very judgmental world, a world where people judge everything about you, and that includes what music you listen to. When you are at a concert, you know that other people who like the same artist you like, why else would they be at the show? People with a common interest surround you and for a few hours, you are all on a team, a united front.

The next sense that is stimulated is your sense of sight. You can see the band, they are right there in the very same room that you are. Some concerts will even have pyrotechnics, which create a very nice visual stimulation, and are an auditory stimulation. Even looking at the massive amount of people that are in the audience can be shocking, seeing thousands or even tens of thousands of other people around you is definitely a visual stimulation.

Another sense that is stimulated is that of smell. This sense might not be as pleasing as the other senses at times but none-the-less, it is stimulated at a live show that you cannot experience with a live recording. Unfortunately, you might smell some body odor, especially if it is an outdoor event on a summer day. You can smell the food, maybe grass, the smoke from the pyrotechnics. In addition, the fact that a certain smell might trigger a memory later on, maybe you went to a festival and the next time you smell freshly mown grass you remember the festival, how much fun you had, and how you felt that day, that is something that you cannot get with a live recording.

The sense of taste is a little trickier than the other four senses, but anyone who has bought a four-dollar hotdog or a five-dollar bottle of water at a show remembers how it tastes. Food at a show, while ridiculously over priced, seems to taste a bit better. It might be because you just spent 20 dollars on something that would normally cost five, but in that moment, it is worth it.

The final sense that is stimulated is that of touch and feeling. First off, you are in an area that is packed with many people, you might bump into each other and touch others. If you are one of the luck ones near the front, you might even get to touch a band member or performer; there is no chance of this with a live recording. The most important feeling that you can get while at a concert is actually feeling the music. Many shows that are put on use huge speakers and amplifiers, which cause pulses of vibration through the audience. You can, at times, feel your heartbeat appear to synchronize itself with the pulses from the speakers truly connecting you to the music that you are listening to.

I really think that the fact that seeing a live show incorporates all your senses as opposed to only one with a recording makes seeing the show live that much better. It is something that is unique, even from concert to concert, and something that cannot be contained on a disk.

Question – Of all the senses that are stimulated during a live performance, which one do you think is most important besides the sense of hearing.

Response to Emily Burke

This is in response to Emily Burke’s Blog. She posed the question, can music be blamed for people's actions, or is it personal responsibility, or a combination of both? In her post, she had mentioned Marilyn Manson, the Columbine shootings, and the public vilification that he and his music endured in the wake of the tragedy. I feel that the actions of people, such as those teens at Columbine are being blamed on things such as music because people want some explanation as to why these travesties can occur.
I think that the actions at Columbine would have happened whether or not the assailants listened to Marilyn Manson. These children listened to angry music because they were angry, they did not become angry because they happened to throw in a Manson CD. Now I do agree that some people, and I mean some people who have emotional issues or anger problems might listen to violent music and become even more enraged but the capacity to commit these acts of violence were preexisting in the individual. I myself listen to Marilyn Manson and I have no more desire to harm others or myself than before I listened to him.
In 1999 Manson was an easy target to blame for the events of Columbine, he had lyrics that were risqué to say the least and he had a very unique and I suppose frightening stage persona that at times looked satanic. He was in essence, every middle class American’s dream so to speak; thanks to him, they did not have to look into what might be happening in the school systems to cause our children to resort to this level of behavior. More importantly, he took the pressure off from the parents and was forced to shoulder the responsibility for massacre. We are an ever-critical society, casting our increasingly judgmental eye on everyone within sight but the person they see when they look in the mirror.
Since the children who committed these acts were emotionally disturbed listening to Marilyn Manson probably did not help matters, but listening to different music was not going to help them solve their problems. Their problems were beyond CD choices. I truly believe that one song or even an entire collection of music is enough to engender true violence or even true happiness, it may alter your mood slightly but the feeling is transient, the emotions that were there before the song will remain when it is over. I may listen to Marilyn Manson, but I do not feel the need to commit acts of violence just as if because I listen to Nirvana does not mean that I am going to become a drug addict. I personally feel that in the end it is personal responsibility and not the music.

Question - Since society tends to blame violent acts on music that is violent, why is good behavior not credited to music that is more wholesome? Why do parents and school systems receive the credit for exemplary youth and not receive the ridicule for things such as Columbine (at least to the same extent that Manson was blamed).