SQ or performance?

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...

I listen to a lot of historical performances along with modern (I.e. stereo).  So I can’t really say SQ is the deciding factor.  It is definitely important, however.  Even historical performances can sound very different depending upon the restoration technique.  Compare Pristine Audio with Immortal Performances, for example.  They have both reissued the same NBC Symphony concerts from the early forties led by Toscanini and Walter.  Pristine likes to inject a lot of ambience, and IP is less interventionist.  They both are recognizable as having the same source but the differences are interesting.

   With modern recordings I am more tolerant of less than perfect sound.  I was listening to some Debussy from Vikung Olaffson on DG and then the same music from Peter Frankl on Vox in the same listening session.  I love both discs and having played the Frankl second at first the ear is confronted with opaque Sonics but soon it adjusts