I’m confused. Please explain.

I think the goal is to achieve a reproduction of the music that you find the most enjoyable and relaxing for the resources you are willing and able to devote for building a system. Do that and you've put together a system that works for you. Its not an algebra test.  

I like Willie Nelson, a remarkable talent. I've seen him a few times in different venues. When I listen to Willie on my system, it sounds like Willie, and sounds better than any of his live shows that I've attended, although you lose the excitement of watching him make music. I also like Leonard Cohen and his Live in London album is one of my favorite pieces of music. I wasn't there but I doubt it sounded better live than on my system given all the variables. Either way, I love listening to that recording on my system and that's good enough for me.

When I listen to Willie on my system, it sounds like Willie, and sounds better than any of his live shows that I’ve attended, although you lose the excitement of watching him make music.

Plus 1, @kerrybh. I’d say the same thing, except I have never seen Willie live, so it would be fill in the blank for that part. When I do listen to Willie on my system, I particularly enjoy the way my system beings out his unique annunciation when he sings--that’s the stuff I like to hear. Actually, when I did used to frequently attend small venues to see artists I was really into (Lucinda Williams, Steve Earle, Cowboy Junkies to name a few) seeing them perform was primary for me, and the sound quality of the performance was secondary. It was a plus when the SQ was good or great, but that was not what I went for.

I think the sound of real instruments is only part of the equation. Real instruments as they sound in which space, and from how close? I would not typically want a solo piano piece to sound realistically like I was in the middle of a big auditorium complete with two second reverb time. I want the expensive seat, right up close and personal, and as it would sound in a smaller space with few reflections but that’s just me.

Unless you were in the mastering room where the sonics are finalized, you have no real idea what a specific recording is supposed to sound like.  This applies to acoustic and non-acoustic recordings.  Live, unamplified music is an imperfect reference point, but still it is a reference.  Let's no dismiss it entirely.

My interpretation of the OP is that he seems to think that we all listen to Classical Music as our preferred genre and that we follow Harry Pearson dictum that our systems should approximate the sound of live acoustic instruments in a concert hall.

The first assumption is clearly wrong. While it is true for myself personally tha I exclusively listen to CM, if one spendssome time in the Music Forum and it will become clear that Classical Music is a niche here as it is everywhere. There does seem to be a higher proportion of contributors who listen to CM at least some  timethan the general population.

Regarding the Absolute Sound Goal: 1) It really can’t apply to electrified popular music, where the sound is significantly determined at the mixing console at either a concert or recording venue. There are some classic rock LPs that have been reissued in over 100 mixes. Which one is the correct one? Many albums are recorded by having musicians play parts in different rooms, sometimes different continents apart. 2) it is a ridiculous goal to aspire to for any genre. My listening room is will never approximate the dimensions of a concert hall. A system that would be appropriate to fill that space would sound awful in my home.

I aspire to sound reproduction that makes me forget these issues when I’m listening and is doing a reasonable job of reproducing what the engineers have placed on the source. It’s really up to the sound engineers to take the source and make it sound realistic to a listener