There is a relationship between the two when traditional performers derive their
songs from recordings (which does take place). Many of these performers will listen
to those recordings that reflect their style of music.

Oddly enough, Pete Seeger never did really well in the Studio as a solo artist. Most of his best recordings were "live". The notable exception for me was his 10" lp, "Darling Corey" for Folkways. (Well maybe the "Goofing Off Suite").

Stan Rogers was great in the Studio as well as in person. Josh White was another one who sounded great on recordings and live too. Burl Ives, also.

The recording is a different medium. There is little argument about some of the
best jazz recordings ever done which may have been not to be duplicated. Louis Armstrong's"West End Blues" for example. Could he have done that live? Not sure. The reason isthat sometimes a great recording is an artistic "accident" (unplannable and spontaneous).

I think that recording is just another way to learn songs.

The problem becomes when the recording is a tyranny of an idea a way a performance should be done. This is what gives rise to the insipid "cover tune" in popular music as if any one performer who copies another to the last fluff could possibly replace the original performer and yet some audiences seem to clamor for this rigidity. To expect an artist to perform a song exactly as he/she did it on their recording is to rob the audience of their artistic growth. I have often enjoyed performances of pre-recorded songs done a new way in a live concert.

People listen to recordings for different reasons, some to learn a song, some to appreciate the artist, some to get an idea of what other artists are doing or to pick out a piece of music to play on an instrument. I see the relationship as positive in that whatever way
folk music can be heard, reproduced or disseminated is good. When a recording becomes a tyrant, then it stops the growth of folkmusic or music in general.

Frank Hamilton