Does 'Accuracy' Matter or exist ?

Jax2, while reference to a painter/sculptor is valid from the standpoint that it may be equally difficult to determine artist intent, I don't think that how you use that reference deals with what the core issue is re accuracy. The visual equivalent of what we are talking about would be (I think) to suggest that it is equally valid to look at a Cornell painting wearing sunglasses, because it pleases our eyes more that way, instead of the stark reality of whatever he painted; and then try to determine artist intent. I don't think it can be done. I suppose one could try. But then, what would be the point? It would no longer be a what he intended. Is that not obvious?

Your eyes adapt wearing sunglasses - our senses are amazingly adaptable and sensitive. I think I get what you are trying to get at though, but I don't agree. We are not at all talking about distortions of the level I think you are suggesting. The idea of gross distortion, such as wearing rose colored glasses (which we also adapt to), is just simply not what is being discussed at this level of performance of musical reproduction, as you pointed out in the end of your post (I doubt the capacity to be moved by a visual work of art would be grossly handicapped by wearing sunglasses - the issue of the artists intent is entirely apart from that, as I have posited before, it doesn't matter nearly as much what they specifically were trying to express, except perhaps to them...as artwork the point is more that the viewer/listener is moved to think and feel. Even if we view a writer as the artist, and the words they use are verbatim to their expression of intent - the end result will be filtered through the reader and may transport their minds and hearts to all kinds of places that didn't even exist in the writer's mind or heart. Back to music - Not only do most folks here have systems that are most certainly not going to obscure the voice of Ella so it is not recognizable, I'd venture to take that further and say that most who are taking the time to read and discuss in these forums, probably have systems that do a damn fine job at reproducing Ella's voice and performance. Ella on their system would without any doubt be enough that, were Ella to sing in the next room anyone could make the connection. The level of "accuracy" we are talking about simply does not obscure or loose the artists intent (or their identity), IMO, and doesn't remotely begin to resemble some sort of deeply obscured view of artwork through dark colored glasses, or playing the music through iPhone speakers. Instead I'd suggest that the level of "accuracy" being suggested here is nitpicking and not even on the radar of most folks who enjoy music (most of whom are not part of these forums as most off the population of the world would fit that description). It is probably one of the aspects of this hobby I least enjoy and when I find myself in discussions with others who focus on this sort of hogwash that is so far from the point of enjoying music, it makes me wish I could be transported elsewhere. Fortunately it doesn't happen much, and when it does I manage to find a polite exit strategy. Not that it's not an interesting subject, but it certainly doesn't interest me if that's the only thing you focus on. I do find the discussion here stimulating as it makes me reflect on my own preferences and attitudes, and reasons I like what I like, and it takes various points of view into the picture. I don't think I'd last long in this discussion if it became entirely polarized towards the idea of "perfection" as that's a sad and sorry standard to try to uphold.

FYI Cornell was not a painter.

BTY Jax2, I did not see your post of 5-15-11 so wasn't even relating what I wrote to that but thanks for the explanation anyhow.

Jax2, the fatal flaw in your argument is that you seem to be assuming that those who strive for their notion of musical accuracy necessarily do so at the expense of the enjoyment of the art. That assumption could not be further from the truth. Moreover, I would suggest that the approach of not using some sort of standard as a positive tool, limits one's ultimate understanding/enjoyment of the art. But, as always, different strokes for different folks. BTW, it was you who first made an issue of the distortion of the artist's intent. I am confused. Not!

***My rig is for me to enjoy music the way that moves me and involves me and keeps me glued to my seat immersed in the music I love. If that is going on for me, if my system is achieving that most of the time (as it does), I really don't care whether or not the musicians intentions, or the engineers decisions are being carried forth faithfully. It does not matter one wit to me. What matters is my enjoyment of it. If it does actually comply to their intentions, that's fine to, but I still don't care.***

Cdc - thanks for your kind words.

I was thinking more about the writer as artist metaphor. There is a case where we have 100% accuracy in reproducing the artist's expression. Word for word the original text in the original language is verbatim and without error (assuming as much in the reproduction of the text). To the writer, the artist in this case, and to the publisher, this level of "accuracy" is of paramount importance. To the reader, however, those words, which are 100% accurate, may take on different meanings, and transport them to different places, and inspire them in different ways than was in the heart and mind of the artist/writer who penned them. Is then 100% accuracy critical to the reader? I don't think so. Even if we are talking about a translation into another language, where then 100% accuracy could easily be argued - say translations into three different languages, or perhaps by three different translators into the same different language...is 100% accuracy important, or even possible given the ambiguities of semantics and translation? Is the "accurate" meaning of Gibran's, The Prophet, lost in being translated into so many languages? Again, I don't think so. Certainly the core intents will remain in tact, and certainly the capacity to move and inspire others will not be lost because the translation cannot be held to the microscope of "100% accuracy". This is the level of nitpicking that I feel is being discussed here - we are not talking about the kind of gross distortions in someone else entirely retelling the story of The Prophet, or being grossly visually impaired, or perhaps color blind. That's just not the differences being discussed here. If it is, then I'd probably have more in common in saying that far more is available to anyone of experiencing Ella, then is available through a pair of iPhone speakers. Not to say one can't enjoy Ella that way, but there's certainly more to be enjoyed than what you are hearing. But really, this is not the kinds of differences being discussed here. In the case of communication through art forms I do not think "accuracy", at least at the levels it is realistically being discussed here in the differences in various high-end systems that folks here may have assembled, has any major influence at all in enjoying and being moved by the music. That is unless the individual has chosen to make it so, where certainly any self-imposed head-trip like that has tremendous potential for removing one from enjoying anything.

Frogman - I'm not sure I follow your recent response. Yes, I made the original metaphor and have built on it...so what? My "standard" would be how the music moves me, how much I enjoy and am immersed in the experience of listening, not how close it comes to some abstract or even some objective standard of "accuracy" much less "perfection. I actually know a few people who do concern themselves greatly over such issues, yet also profoundly enjoy music and can share on either level. I do not assume that having such concerns necessarily means that you cannot enjoy music. I have met others who seem to only obsess about such issues. I find I have nothing much in common with those people as far as the enjoyment of music at home is concerned as they usually are more interested in talking about their obsessions, which I find to be a trivial pursuit. I was suggesting that if that is what you focus on, it would be nearly impossible, at least in my experience, to actually enjoy the music at the same time. This is what bugs me about some notion of perfection - I'd prefer to simply focus on what I enjoy and drop any such notions that there is some objective goal to be achieved, some quest for nirvana. I think what most people who are on such a quest might be missing is that what they are looking for is right there under their noses if they were only open to enjoying it.

PS I am under no illusions that what I'm sharing is anything at all but my personal point of view and opinions, not some recipe that I think anyone and everyone should live by. I hope I'm not coming off that way. I just find this particular discussion stirs up some things in me I feel inclined to share, and happen to have time on my hands right now to write.

Jax2- If what you have asserted were true, about those that are committed to a standard of accuracy or perfection, we that create and/or record music, could not enjoy what we do. Had you any experience, in the music biz, in any capacity; you would understand. Personally, I enjoy music most when functioning as a Sound Tech(as opposed to playing guitar or recording). Setting up a venue for the best possible sound, then listening into the mix and being certain every voice(instrumental or vocal) is being heard, as naturally and proportionately as possible(given the venue's acoustic, available equipment, etc), is both challenging and rewarding. I can't even conceive of a listener in the audience, that enjoys or gets into the music more than I. If those of us, that truly care about the sound of music, gave up(what you consider) our, "trivial pursuits"; the quality of whatever you use as source material, would certainly be down the crapper. I NEVER presume to tell another HOW to enjoy what they enjoy, but do find myself often helping others enjoy their pursuits more fully(also very gratifying). Often they are not aware of ALL that they are missing. It's usually right under their nose, and if it were only open to smelling it....