The finest technically recorded album. LP or CD

Even more than just the storage medium and generation aspect (significant, but less so in my mind), I am refering, from just the audio perspective, to the number of nominations of electric-instrumented, multi-track mono (they're not true acoustic stereo guys - they're just panned individual mono tracks), and highly produced (meaning altered after recording) studio rock and pop records above. Lugnut, that goes for Steely Dan too (I never understood this band's records' sonic rep among audiophiles, and never will). Whatever one's opinion of the musical content (I'm thinking of myself here), a strong case can be made that Elton John's albums, for instance, are very successfully recorded from an artistic standpoint, a fine "technical" achievement to be sure if the effect is to your taste, but this is not at all the same thing in audiophile terms as what Champtree calls the "presence" of the musicians - nor should it be. We should know better than to confuse the two things.

It is very telling that there are no classical music nominations above, but Rel, Viridian, and SDC all know what I am talking about. Folks nominating Joni, Willie, Lindsay, Janis, etc. apparently don't, no matter how 'great' they think those records sound, but as self-professed audiophiles they ought to. Everybody in the second catagory, go back and freshen up on Harry Pearson's definition of what the 'Absolute Sound' means.

However (and more importantly, to my way of thinking), my comments about the forest and the trees are not intended to denigrate the validity of rock and pop studio recordings. Quite the contrary, I am of the John Lennon school, who said that THE RECORD was the thing - meaning in his field, there WAS NO 'original performance'. All that mattered was when you slapped down that slab was how it made you FEEL. So what I find sadly (but in our hobby, typically) ironic is that these audiophiles - so obviously raised on rock, the music Lennon was speaking of - not only don't get the HP definition of what makes a recording an audiophilic reference, but are, if they are to be believed, all sitting around listening to the same 15 hackneyed warhorses because they believe the sound is so clean'n'pristine or something (and because they don't get into those genres, like classical, where the real answer to this question applies). I mean, legitimately liking some of these artists is all well and fine, but don't try and tell me you guys are all such huge Janis Ian and Willie Nelson fans that you wouldn't really rather be listening to "Tumbling Dice" or some other record where the way it sounds MEANS something, in the impressionistic sense and no matter how 'bad' in audiophile terms, in relation to some fuckin' great rock music! (Or say the same but about a Rudy Van Gelder primitive living room recording of some fuckin' great jazz music, whatever.)

My point is, if this way of listening is what becoming an audiophile has done to you, you've been screwed on both fronts: You don't know the natural sound of music, only of reproduction systems, AND you've sacrificed the feeling that music you loved as a kid gave you in your gut in order to learn this.

Wow! Where do I start? First of all, you make an interesting point, about the "natural sound of music". Would you rather see a black & white, grayed, muddy mess of Vincent van Gogh’s Starry Night? You would see the "Natural look of a painting”; it would capture a mood but it would be missing artist intent. Or .... If you had two recording of Wagner's Tannhauser, one was recorded so the French horns were muddy and not there, and the other recording was alive and you could hear everything including all the extra brass that Wagner uses. I know what I would rather listen to.
The biggest mistake you made was to assume because that I liked Willie Nelson's "Stardust" I did not like Classical Music, or I had a limited view of music. Sorry I didn’t give reference to a classical album. The truth is, I don’t know of one that has as much presence as do jazz or others such as “Stardust”. Isn’t too difficult to get the presence with classical orchestral music because of the large number of instruments and the large size of the hall, room, or theater?
I really don't like Willie Nelson and I do like classical music, and I have a low threshold for Rock. Because of the quality of the stardust album, I can tolerate Willie. What I enjoy on the album, is the song he sings. I like the song "Georgia" sung by him or any one else and I enjoy it more if it's recorded well.

What bothers me most about high-end stereo, is all anyone can talk about is their gear and you hear very little about the music. For me it’s simple, I love quality (that’s why I like high end equipment). Quality is the only thing the artist has in his or her control. So what’s wrong with me wanting it to hear it thru a good recording?

Zaikesman,

I really don't know quite how to start this reply being as low brow as I am. First, Willie Nelson is one of the most prolific song writers in the history of music and his album Stardust was definitely a minimalist recording. Yeah, there are amplified instruments but remember, he plays a classical guitar and was acompanied by, primarily a harmonica. This album hardly qualifies as rock. Regarding the Janis Ian album, you might want to actually read how this magnificient recording was made. Analogue Productions knows how to do it and do it right. Period. If you don't agree then please disect the recording proceedures as shown on the back of the album jacket and tell us how it should be done. Steely Dan has taken a lone approach to recorded music. If you would read the book "Reelin In The Years" you would get a grasp on how technical these two are in so many of the aspects of recording their tunes. This way of doing things was by design on their part from the very beginning of their joint venture as the Dan. There incredible efforts shine through in the vast majority of their work. Mark Knoppler, who I love as a unique guitarist, spent two weeks in the studio trying to measure up "technically" and left with apologies to Becker and Fagan for his failed attempt. Just reading the names of the artists that have contributed to their body of work speaks for itself. Highly produced isn't "technical" by its own definition?

How can I really appreciate a Ferrari if I've never even seen one close up, let alone be able to drive one? I grew up in rural Nebraska, didn't live in a house with indoor plumbing until I was a teenager, graduated with a class of 38, lived before public television and radio and had no opportunity to ever hear classical music prior to college. While Willie and the Dan may do it for me I can assure you that I've heard them live and know what they sound like so by inference you're telling me I can't hear? Gimme a break.

I've discovered music (mainly jazz and blues) that I wasn't familiar with as a youngster. I've pursued accumulating those genre's with a passion. IF A FUCKING ORCHESTRA WOULD PLAY IN A BAR MAYBE I WOULD HAVE FOUND CLASSICAL. Some of our roots aren't planted deeply in metropolitan areas. We lived and worked in the areas that raised the food and resources city dwellers consume.

Classical isn't the be all and end all. Hell, I'd include Nitty Gritty Dirt Band's "Will The Circle Be Unbroken" if I would have thought of it earlier. Acoustic, live, minimalist recording techniques and an execution to die for without a weak cut on two LP's. Low brow stuff for sure but in my mind these artists are as meaningful as any of the examples you give.

I've tried to appreciate classical in the broad sense and can't wrap my emotions up with most of the offerings. I guess that makes me a mid-fi listener.

Your last paragraph is simply wrong. Like I said before, I've got more seat time as a listener than almost anyone else I know. The genre's I've listened to LIVE include rock, jazz, blues, reggae, folk, bluegrass and classical. From the age of 20-23 I worked as a tour director with the likes of the Kingston Trio, Diana Trask, Johnnie Ray, Jeannie C. Riley, Lou Rawls, The Supremes, The New Christy Minstrels, J.P. Morgan, Johnny Rodriguez and Tanya Tucker. This was through 1970 to 1973. Opening acts too. Two shows each day on 21 day tours. I attended practice sessions, hotel room jam sessions and a takeover of the bar after hours, not to mention the hours on the road listening to them play and sing while I drove. I've been in a bar at a Holiday Inn in Oklahoma City in 1971 when Leon Russell and George Harrison came in and played with the drummer of the house band, taking over the keyboard and guitar.

I sat up sound systems in these small club venues with the exception of The Supremes (without Ross), Tucker and Rodriguez. These were large events which failed monetarily and led to the demise of Star Attractions, the San Antonio based company I worked for. I also had to operate the Quartz Follow spots on occassion. It's been a long time but I once was familiar with every club in the Midwest from country clubs, oil clubs, officers clubs, nco clubs and the occassional private (Kansas) bar. Reproductions of music? I think not.

As if I didn't love music prior to this experience enough, afterward, in spite of not working with artists any longer, I was a live music junkie. It was only in 1982 with the birth of our child that I put less emphasis on going to live events. Now that she is on her own my wife and I have pursued this passion full tilt boogie again rather than the occasional typical concert. Minimum listening time twice per week and I don't know the natural sound of music? Gimme a break.

Champtree, let me see if I understood your last post. You listen to an artist you don't particularly like because the recording quality is high. I think it's situations like yours that prompted Zaikesman's orginal forest for the trees comments. Furthermore, recording artists only occassionally have control over the sound quality of their recordings. Usually that element is handled by the producer, recording/mastering engineers and the record label. What the artist does have control over is the quality of their performance and I notice that despite repeated references to "Stardust", you never comment upon the quality of Mr. Nelson's performance. "Stardust" is a well produced/recorded record, but what makes it memorable is that it's a collection of very fine performances of first rate songs. Worrying over the technical merits of a recording is really no different than obsessing about the technical merits of equipment. Neither really addresses the music.

Onhwy61
That's my point. The artist HAS control of his or her gig and not the recording. But it takes a great recording to bring it forth. Yes I will always put merit on quality over if I like or dislike the artist. I have purchased some other albums and CDs of Willie's and I don't care for them or Willie because they are not of quality. If it's not for quality why do you have high end stereo?

"Worrying over the technical merits of a recording is really no different than obsessing about the technical merits of equipment. Neither really addresses the music" Then why don't you listen to music on a walkman radio? This is not crap in crap out?