Amplified music requires one transducer to convert soundwaves into electrical current, another transducer to convert the electrical current back into soundwaves and an intervening system of electrical device(s) to relay the electrical signal between the two transducers. At our current level of technology, microphones do not pick up soundwaves the way the human ear/brain system does and loudspeakers don't radiate soundwaves the way instruments produce them. From this I conclude that amplified sound is fundamentally differ than unamplified sound. My point holds even if the original instrument is an electric instrument used with an amplifier.
Several people have mentioned that unless you were at the recording venue during the performance that you really can't say what the recording should sound like. I would take it farther and say you would have to have been at the mastering session where the engineer, artist and producer finalized the recording's sound to have an accurate reference for how your home system should sound. Clearly this raises the additional issue of whether the recording is accurate to the sound of the original performance.
The main flaw with the pursuit of the absolute sound as detailed in the magazine of the same name is how they minimize the effect of the recording process. No matter what you do on the home reproduction side, you can never compensate for the inherently destructive nature of the recording process. Which is not to say that you can't have high quality, good fidelity, pleasant sounding home audio reproduction.
