Rsbeck - Are you suggesting that audiophiles listen to Clifford Brown because of the quality of the recording? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'm not suggesting that any of the great performers whom you listed are equivalent to the "audiophile tripe".
I'm not sure that I have told you (nor did anyone else) what I was listening to when I was seventeen. A short list goes something like this: Billy Cobham, John McLaughlin (Mahavishnu Orchestra), Buddy Rich, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Maynard Ferguson, Rush, Metallica, Talking Heads, Stravinsky, Wynton Marsalis, Hindemith, Shostakovich, Mussorgsky, Empire Brass, Take 6 to name a few.
No one-ups-man-ship intended. But I would submit that a trained ear can appreciate music on a completely different level than can the untrained ear. In the real-world we call such people experts. In stereodom, I guess we call them snobs. Listen, I admire fine automobiles and have even owned a few but I would not consider myself on par with an automotive engineer or a master mechanic. Granted, we may love said vehicle equally well, but simply cannot appreciate it in on the same level. This goes both ways. Likewise, a musician (unless formally trained in electrical engineering) cannot appreciate a stereo component in the same fashion as an engineer. He/she may appreciate the sound that it produces, but has no idea of the elegant design that makes the piece so special. I'll admit it. I'm a technical know-nothing. That's why I appreciate all of the insight that folks like Sean, Twl, Bear, and many others provide here. I don't think they're snobs because they know more about something than I do. I value their expertise. We all have something to contribute.
Gregm - A poor performance is a poor performance. Crap is crap. I would contend to the contrary; it is easier to listen to a poorly recorded poor performance than a well recorded poor performance which only hightlights the ridiculous music/performance/performer(s).
-Dan
