SQ or performance?

Some of the greatest pianists are way less known than most people think...

A great career is not the same thing than GENIUS...It is true for all musician, many musical geniuses will stay unknown forever and less talented one universally acclaimed... I know it ....

Pay attention when walking in the street perhaps you will stumble on a genius  like unorthodox  blind composer Moondog who  was even creating  minimalist school before it exist in the first place......

Too much circonstances explain a great career which has nothing to do with musical genius...

We must listen music without reading most review of new albums...

I decided for myself who is great and who is not for me....

If some performance put me almost near death or ectasy it is great....

All performances i put in this thread are great one...

This is the reason i listen my 9000 albums ONE time or TWO at most...

And this the reason i listen to a kernel of few hundreds all the time...

In ALL musical genre... If you have a harem of thousand woman you will always go back to a very few if not one...Guess why? Love is the greatest aphrodisiac...

Sound quality is secondary in musical experience on playback...

But i love sound quality, my room is proof of that, anyway the worst recording are more "interesting" now in my room...They stay bad but we can decipher easily more acoustical cues...

It depends on the degree of "badness", and to some degree by the nature of the music.

Bernstein’s traversals of Beethoven’s symphonies---though not of audiophile purist sound quality---are not sabotaged to anywhere near the same degree as are those of Toscanini, which though musically magnificent are sonically pretty anemic. The sound of a symphony orchestra can really be emasculated by a poor recording.

The sound quality of Glenn Gould’s J.S. Bach’s solo keyboard works recordings---also not of audiophile caliber---are not bad enough to get in the way of his performances. Though I prefer Bach on period instruments (for which the works were, after all, written to be performed on), Gould’s brilliance cannot be denied.

I don’t believe that details of a composition that are lost is a plus.  
A recording which blurs the details is not an improvement. 
I’m not saying audiophile recordings that have razor sharp definition such as the highly touted Mercury Living Presence are the ideal. They are not what’s heard in the hall. However recordings which realistically and accurately portray the acoustic are optimum. 
Certainly  I believe the performance should come first. But, as an audiophile, I do relish in a palpably recorded orchestra, especially in the heavily orchestrated works of the late romantic period. 
As far as solo and chamber works go, again a too close perspective, although perhaps attractive, is not necessarily real.

Why are you all putting up YouTube presentations in a thread about sound quality?  The SQ is dire.

Recordings made after about 1950 can be very good SQ.  Before then not really; you are listening for the performance.

Why are you all putting up YouTube presentations in a thread about sound quality? The SQ is dire.

It is better to read posts before posting...

Why?

Because if you dont have read my posts you cannot know what i spoke about and why i chose these links to youtube...

Then your posts are rude...

If you had read my posts and anyway decide to say my links are terrible, you are rude and not very wise, because the links are there to make an interesting point...

An interpretation can be so powerful that in spite of bad recording sound we listen it anyway because there is no choice...

Beauty is beauty without make up, wrapped and covered with mud...It is called the soul...

If the thread title in two words define an alternatives, sound or performance it is normal that someone post youtube links to make a point...

Then the choice of the adjective "dire" to describe these links say more about your behaviour than about my posts...