Isn't it really about quality of recording?

My opinion, there are two aspects of "a recording".  Probably more.  The Technical and the Performance.

There is a YouTube video claiming "the best 'recording' of Chopin...."  Horowitz's performance was impeccable.  The recording was horrible.  A Casio electric piano with its 3" speakers comes to mind. 

A poorly performed piece will never pass.  No matter how well recorded.

Yes, the Technical very important.  But don't forget the Artist's performance.  I may forgive a poor recorded piece for an exceptional Performance.  Lol, but there is a limit to how much I will forgive.

Just today, Sonny Rollins  -  Saxophone Colossus.  Analogue Productions and QRP pressing, reissue.  Outstanding sonic quality, from a 1957 recording session.  If only all of the 60s and 70s classic rock sounded this good.  Some are great, but most are not.  Fortunately, there is enough well recorded/mastered/plated/pressed music to really enjoy my high-fidelity system for what it has to offer.  But still, I enjoy the music that is not so great in SQ, for the music that it is.  My system allows it to sound relatively good.  I just adjust the volume accordingly (i.e., a bit lower).  

It's true that a really fine system will reveal all the flaws in a poor recording. It's good to concetrate on the music and not the "sound."  We keep improving our systems so that when we do get a good recording, it ia a genuine treat!

Keep Smiling!

I have been a professional sound engineer in one of the biggest studios in Switzerland for around 30 years, so feel free to ask any questions.

I am often surprised about the beliefs among hifi people and audiophiles about studios and studio engineers.

There are many recordings that are not as good as they can be. Only a small percentage are real masterworks. There are some recording engineers like the late Al Schmidt who really know what they are doing, and a lot of people who do the best they can, politely said. Also, most often the equipment used is mediocre at best. A microphone placed some inches apart from the best spot, wrong mic choice, bad recording room acoustics, bad choices in the mixing and / or mastering stage, all diminish the quality of the outcome, and can sum up to something I don’t want to listen to.

It is ironic that audiophiles often listen to music that was mixed and mastered on equipment that costs a small percentage of what the audiophiles paid for their system. Often, sound engineers say "Give me loudspeakers with bad resolution, because otherwise I will never finish my job".

"With my great system, it now sounds like it sounded in the studio" is a silly audiophile myth.

These are just some pretty random spotlights on "daily studio life".

But yes, recording quality is most important.

And I would say that there are two kinds of "good" systems - one that makes all music sound considerably good, and one that mercilessly shows you any flaws in the recording. I prefer the latter, because they often also show you all the great things the mixing and the mastering engineers did, while the former often fakes its "good sound", and has actually rather low resolution.