Both. I agree with what Mr. Sky wrote earlier that there is a special quality to single-take recordings that I very much like (I believe he used the example of Bob Dylan). To continue the analogy, it's like natural speech, i.e., "language on the hoof," not something cleaned up to such a degree that it sounds unnatural or artificial. With regard to the technical aspects, there's also a big difference between what pipers have at their disposal today and what they had then (there are exceptions, of course, like Kitty Hayes and Peter Laban's wonderful album that was, if I'm not mistaken, recorded in the former's kitchen).PJ wrote:Are you referring to the technical aspects of recording (reel-to-reel recorders, 1950s studio technology, etc) or to SE's preference for "single take" recordings (no overdubs, no multi-tracking, minimum retakes, etc)?Khan Krum wrote:(1) the recording of his playing was done under what many today would deem "primative," ...
I suspect that one thing that drives stylistic evolution is musicians making a "mistake" in their performance and quickly recovering, thus altering the structure of the norm (but, again, staying within certain parameters of the tradition). The result is a new device that has the potential to be the new norm. You can hear this in live performances and in not overly edited recordings like "single takes."