SQ or performance?

The OP of this interesting thread question make a deep observation that haunted me a lot:

Also, our appreciation of a given performance can be affected by other factors. For example, if we grew up loving a certain version, all others may suffer by comparison in our view.

Because also of our own life circonstances among other factors we can STICK to a version or interpretation , even knowing this is not the BEST interpretation nor the best sound either...

This interpretation of Monteverdi 8th libro of madrigals by Prague musicians directed by Venhoda haunted me for 45 years now , i listened to many other interpretation , better recorded and even Italian one alleged bettter interpretation... Why did i stick to this one ?

The only OBJECTIVE answer i can produce is that this version sound like an "improvisation" or a livelier more enthusiastic performance practice ...Am i right?

I am not sure because this explanation i gave to myself is not wrong but explain nothing...

Love has no reason save the first encounter magical moment sometimes we can never forgot...

I discovered Monterverdi astounding genius, the only Bach rival in my mind , in power of expression and absolute originality with this album...

The man who creates "opera" is near Bach himself after all....

But i am in love with all his madrigals more than with his opera, a paradox also....Perhaps because in his madrigals the "opera" is in the "ovo" and the spoken words more dynamically powerful and intense than with all beautiful operas which will be written after him ....Save for Mozart operas, which take the genre on another level for me, making the voices pure musical instruments over the words themselves...

Ok thanks for the patience of all toward me... I will mute myself and listen others now...

This question has been asked a thousand times in different ways and with different wording. Of course we all want the best possible sound quality; this doesn’t need debate. However, I think that the real question is how much does the listener rely on great sound in order to appreciate a great performance. How much of a “distraction” from the music are we willing to let the less than great sound be? Barring absolutely horrid recorded sound the musical merits of a great performance will shine through to one degree or another. Usually, to a great degree; that is the power of great music.

Personally, I think that many listeners are way to quick to declare a great recorded performance “unlistenable” because of less than great sound. I think that this is unfortunate. Of course, as bdp24 comments “it depends” on just how bad the sound is. However, I have found that there are relatively few recordings that do so much damage to the music that it keeps me from appreciating the brilliance of a great performance. Perhaps not fully, but close enough to know that I’m listening to a great artist.

It always comes down to this other way of asking the question (and, yes, we can be both, but….): are we a music lover first, or a sound lover first?

are we a music lover first, or a sound lover first?

True question....

Music flow through sound but is never only sound or mostly sounds...

Why the deaf Beethoven could wrote music if not?

Music is a state of the spirit manifested in our conciousness through our body ..,

But when this is said there is also the pure power of sound...

Sound quality is a realm in itself, and well recorded sound can be therapeutic, binaural sound or precise frequencies...For example this album of powerful therapeutic music is not listenable on most audio system/room if they are not able to give a good acoustic results...

This is not  so much music but powerful sonic  remedy for the soul/body...I used it against anxiety...Try it if you suffer...Better than any drug, no secondary effects...Work in minutes...

I did not recommend in  particular any other compositions of this man , Jonathan Goldman but this one....He succeed at the highest degree possible here...Others pieces are more relaxing or meditative pieces this one is a  "drug" for curing soul disease...

I experimented his therapeutic power and also it is one of the best test for a system because it is very difficult to have this  sound right... Delicate Chimes and pulsating frequencies wall with 2 voices chanting a mantra (Christ name)...

Thank you, rvpiano, for this post, and thank you—again!—Herr Magister (Mahgister?) for your many contributions to it. A few humble comments of my own, then.

First, what we seek in listening to a piece of music is an ability to perceive what is in the score; I hesitate to say it, but "what the composer intended to express" (I'm well aware of the dubiousness of the notion of musical "expression"; there's a vast literature on this). The point here, though, is that one must be able to hear how counterpoint interacts with the main melodic line, how the "ground bass" integrates the whole, and, well, many other things. But these "things" are transparent, or at any rate accessible to perception, when a fine performance articulates them. On the other hand, a bad recording can submerge such careful expression in noise: tape hiss, bad acoustics, poor microphone placement, etc. 

My point: both performance and recording engineering aim at essentially the same objective: transparency of the original musical conception.

Therefore, the opposition—good recording or good performance?—is really a misconception. What the listener will be most delighted by is the musical ideas in the composition. These must first of all be communicated by the performer (pianist, conductor and orchestra, whatever). Then, they must be captured on the recording. 

For what it's worth, I passionately disagree with those who espouse Holt's Law, or whatever it was. No, great performance (that is, interpretation) and great sonics are not in inverse relation! There are in fact many recent performances of many great works that are both well-recorded and brilliantly interpreted. I might almost compare this to the "art" of translation. In general, recent translations from German, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian are better than earlier translations. The standards translators are held to these days are far more rigorous than was once the case. That being said, there are nevertheless many old translations (Kemp Smith's of Kant's First Critique; Schlegel's translations of Shakespeare into German) that have never been bettered. One needs TASTE to discern what is important here; it's not just a binary matter of technology (recording) vs. artistry (performance).

Mahgister: you mentioned Pogorelich's performances of Scriabin. Do you know the DVD of his Bach-Scarlatti-Beethoven recital in the Veneto Villa Caldogno (and the Eckartsau Castle in Austria)? If not, seek it out on eBay, where it can be had for a few dollars. Fantastic! (Full disclosure: Pogorelich was part of my past in an important way.)

Thank you, rvpiano, for this post, and thank you—again!—Herr Magister (Mahgister?) for your many contributions to it.

I add my thanks to your owns for this great thread idea from rvpiano....

My pseudo come from latin, with a letter interpolated to distinguish me from others who take the same name, which means school teacher in Latin... I study latin and greek in my teen age...

And i worked as a preceptor for young men...I miss young people because i am retired...

One needs TASTE to discern what is important here; it’s not just a binary matter of technology (recording) vs. artistry (performance).

My impression are simple: no well recorded only good interpretation will beat some badly recorded masterpiece... Then like you justly said it is a matter of MUSICAL judgement and this has nothing to do with sound...For me because i am not a musician at all it is a matter of pulsating heart reaction to music, some music put me in an ectasy so great that anything else fall short ....No opposition from me then...We all like a well recorded album and artist... But some of the more miraculous pieces of music i ever listened to are awful sonically...But the effect on me is like near death experience sometimes...

I posted about a tanbur player in this thread above whose recording are among the most awful i own but it is IRREPLACEABLE artistry from an archangel really, if someone dare to pass sound barrier to enter this sanctuary where music become prayer...

Mahgister: you mentioned Pogorelich’s performances of Scriabin. Do you know the DVD of his Bach-Scarlatti-Beethoven recital in the Veneto Villa Caldogno (and the Eckartsau Castle in Austria)? If not, seek it out on eBay, where it can be had for a few dollars. Fantastic! (Full disclosure: Pogorelich was part of my past in an important way.)

Pogorelich plays at the peak of piano playing...We cannot discard ANY of his album

He is a wounded god....

Thanks for this Scarlatti recommendation played to the perfection....

Some rare artist cannot be compared on a line with others, these few refuse to be compared, i think Pogorelich is in this rare band of supremum artists...

I am curious like others here though about the reason of his importance in your life...If you want to speak about that.... Anyway i will respect silence too...

My deepest respect to you...

I forgot to say that for sure you are right , there is no linear relation between sound quality and interpretation , the recording engineer is an artist too or not...

No, great performance (that is, interpretation) and great sonics are not in inverse relation!