I went to a small show the other day, and was thinking about how tough it is to package up that feeling. An audio recording or a video or photograph can capture some, kinda. Sort of a sad shadow of the real thing.
Writing is the only thing I could think of that could come close to evoking the feeling. Clearly, you wouldn't hear the songs, but the feeling is so hard to convey any other way.
Hemingway's voice is good for telling the kinds of stories Hemingway liked to tell. I've started Lolita, but never quite got around to finishing it.
I think, for some ideas, the only hope of communicating them is through writing, and trying to connect them to shared ideas. Some writers have a very lush style because they write lush stories.
I'm not an English major, I don't have a lot of tools for critical analysis of books. But I read Snowcrash about a dozen times. It gets a lot of criticism, I think, because it's a weird disjointed set of short stories, each featuring a neat idea, that are all kind of related. I love that book. It's like each section is a facet of an intricate gemstone. Slowly, over many reads, I finally put together the connections and the relationships.
We're pretty good at gathering up and packaging drama and comedy to sell soap. Deeper stories, more complex relationships, more complex environments are so hard to capture, much less convey to a message reciever. some messages require a lot of work to understand. They're not so good for selling soap.
in general, sure, be tight with writing. But sometimes you need those apparently superfluous words to really draw the reader into the world, or the experience. I think, at least in part, the work of the reader helps drive that emotional link.