<p>Live auditions are an option for me, but is it worth running the risk of some slight mess ups to go in for a live performance? That would be versus a guaranteed perfect recording.</p>
<p>Interesting question. I suggest having a recording in case you miss the audition (sick, weather, etc.).</p>
<p>Which would you rather watch: TV version of Phantom of the Opera, or a live stage performance with all the little mess ups?</p>
<p>Bump .</p>
<p>I would definitely recommend a live audition over recorded whenever possible. A live audition shows a serious interest in the schools and gives the school an immediate connection with the auditioner. The expectation is not a perfect performance. The teachers viewing the audition are generally able to get a sense of ability and attitude by watching and listening to a relatively short performance.</p>
<p>The traditional wisdom, as MusicalMother notes, is that the live audition is preferable. The only reason to do a recorded audition is if distance makes the live audition prohibitively expensive, and even then, given the four-year cost of college, the expense of a live audition is probably worth it. </p>
<p>I assume that the recorded audition that the OP refers to is a recording that he/she makes (as opposed to the recording that the school makes at a regional audition). With an applicant recording, the panelists assume that the recording is the result of several/many takes and therefore the panel will hold the recording to a much higher standard than the live audition in which only a single take is possible. </p>
<p>There is no “perfect recording.” Ask Heifetz or Hahn. Any musician that believes that perfect recordings exist needs substantial work on their ability to hear. Pitch and tone are never flawless and musicianship and interpretation are subjective.</p>