There are some obvious problems with the math I presented in this post. The biggest problem is the built in assumption that every live performance has a chance (at the start of the song) of eventually being seen as the best version of a given tune. As I briefly alluded to in the post, this isn’t usually true – a studio version tends to have more investment in terms of production and this makes it more likely a studio version is better than any one live version picked at random.
However, the point of the argument isn’t to pick out one live version and compare it against the studio version. The point is to take the entire set of live versions and consider whether there is at least one song in the set that is better than the studio version. When you factor in considerations such as a band’s natural performance variation, the possibility of an artist becoming a better performer over time, or improvements in technology that make music sound better, it is apparent that the set of live versions will cover a wide range of performance levels. Surely, there is at least one performance in that set which is superior to the studio version, right? Given the immense popularity of concerts, I’m inclined to suggest that most people at least recognize the possibility that the live version might be better than the studio version. Otherwise, why would anyone go to a concert?
Of course, someone who firmly believes in one side or the other in this critical debate isn’t going to care all that much for the generalized arguments. This gets at the larger concept hidden in this post – what does an answer to this question say about a person’s worldview?
I think the person who rejects the premise of the ‘live version’ argument is the sort who demands details before making any firm determinations. This type of personality will want to listen to a few songs before making any decision but, if pressed, will side with the ‘studio version’ argument because the record label has already given it a stamp of approval. In general, this person looks for nuances or exceptions and prefers to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. If the process is unclear, this person will side with an established authority. Society has benefited greatly from the many daily contributions from this type of person. Undoubtedly, there are certain fields or functions that require such people in key positions of responsibility in order to fully benefit us all.
However, this type of person is not cut out for the problems demanding a statistical approach. I think a lot of people (perhaps a great majority) are not cut out for a statistical approach yet it seems like many try their hand at applying some of the tools of statistics in their workplaces, communities, or homes. Nothing beats a try, of course, but when it comes to thinking in terms of patterns, making decisions within generalized frameworks, and considering the impact of small adjustments on long-term outcomes, someone whose understanding requires first accounting for all the contingencies will always struggle to accept how the generalized attributes underlying an idea can sometimes render the little details of any one observation irrelevant.
