Live versus Recorded

I've been reading a couple of very interesting posts on the soundpoetry email list, and it struck me, not from anything that was directly said, that there's a big, big difference between electronic effects you might use in recordings, and those you can use for live performances.

• When recording, you can experiment for as long as you like, until you get the effect you want. In a live performance, although you can (perhaps) practise beforehand, the effect has to be right first time on the night.
• You can use software and effects that don't work in real time for recordings, but live performances are decidedly in real time. I use Syntrillium's Cool Edit for editing pre-recorded sound files, but you couldn't take it on stage.
• You know exactly what it sounds like when it's recorded, but you don't when it's live. If you split the performance between the performer and someone responsible for controlling the sound, then you've more flexibility, but that depends on developing an artistic relationship between the two.
• When recording, you have complete control of the acoustic environment (subject to the technical limitations of the equipment you're using.) In a performance, there are the acoustics of the venue (which will vary from place to place) and there's always going to be some component of unamplified, unmodified voice coming through.
• In performance, you might change things slightly (or a lot) depending on audience feedback or just how you're feeling. Any effects used have to allow for this happening.

Thinking about it, almost all my experience with sound has been with recording, rather than with live performance. When I played with The Galactic Emperors (no hyperlink - this was a long time before the WWW) we were principally a recording band, and rarely performed live. But now, I'm reading with The Joy of Six whose main focus is performance. I'll take my Vocalizer along with me tomorrow and see what they make of it.