Great reply, @kevn
I appreciate you pushing me on this. It helps me become clearer about my convictions and intuitions, perhaps even realizing that some are wrong. ;-)
At the venue, when you say something "is ‘real’ for everyone" I agree. But "real" is probably something which involves the immediacy of the experience but only partially (and very imperfectly) the various elements of sound we are discussing in relation to audio, here.
Why is that? Well, what counts as the single "real" listening episode? Now the questions come about the people at the show: Where are they sitting? Near or far? Right or left? Is the background quiet or is there (as at my jazz club) there a fan in the background? Are we talking about the 20 year old’s ears or the 60 year old’s? All those variations affect what is "heard as really happening" by those at the show. These include tonality, soundstage, texture, and more.
Now I think a sensible reply (perhaps yours) might be: "Right, right -- all those things are variables. But I’m thinking about what is real-within-a-range, a reality that most could agree with." After all, no one looks at a sunset and says, "What a beautiful moon." We are way more similarly equipped to agree with what is "basically real." And I agree with that. But outside of those basics, there will be a vast amount of disagreement about what is actually heard. And, of course, some listeners are paying more attention to the voice and not the plucked strings, or the cymbal not the bass, etc. What a person listens FOR influences what they perceive.
If the above is correct, then the reply should probably be: "Ok, but what is real is what the ideal listener would hear. With great hearing, and with no particular attention to this or that, etc. They don't care more for the voice than the bass, etc. They are ecumenical." Problem is, there is no such listener. We listen because we're interested and we're always interested in some way or another. (Only God is indifferently interested, I suppose. Which makes it weird to think that God cares. But I digress.) Differences in interest explain why people always differ about particulars. So, when someone mics the show and then engineers it, they have to decide which particulars are aesthetically best to convey -- this is why they call it the "recording arts" rather than "science."
As for your statement, "one certainly cannot prefer the recorded sound of a plucked guitar string over that plucked at a live performance" -- I have to disagree. Most concerts I go to are plagued with sonic imperfections -- where I’m sitting, the mediocre PA’s the use, background noise, etc. If you mic the performance and then use technologies to "clean it up" it can sound much better. That is not a random personal preference at all -- I’m am looking for a recording and mixing process that makes me happy, aligned with my aesthetic values.
Cheers!