Quality of recording vs Musical tastes

Most of Miles Davis stuff from his "second great quintet" are great improvements on the remasters. ESP, Miles Smiles, Miles in the Sky are all great improvements from the orginial CD releases. I have also had good luck with some of the older blue stuff that has been remastered, mostly from the Chess label.

Ben, i think that you misunderstood my post or i was not real clear in what i wrote. I listen to ALL kinds of recordings, good and bad. Obviously, i prefer "good" recordings as i'm sure that everyone else here does too.

My point was that i have found "good" ( yet different than what i might normally listen to ) music and "new artists" ( at least to me ) simply because i bought discs that i knew or suspected were good recordings. I was not advocating buying and listening only to "audiophile approved" recordings, although some people obviously do that.

As such, i now have a collection of classical, jazz and blues that most of my friends think is "strange". Had i not been an "audiophile" and been seeking out good recordings, i might not have ever been exposed to or enjoyed different yet specific types of music or artists.

In my collection of discs, I also have a quite a few that were recorded excellently but do not move me. As such, i don't play them much. As your comments suggest and i do agree, a great recording of a poor performance is just a great recording that i really don't want to listen to. On the other hand, a great performance can overcome a mediocre recording. This is not to say that some recordings or performances don't grow on you, but i will typically play or listen to what i prefer without having to "work at it".

I do have to admit that i have a HARD time listening to recordings that are horribly done though. Not only does it sound like "crap", i tend to be overtly critical due to my background and experience in working mixers and pro sound reinforcement. As such, i sometimes end up critiquing the recording engineer / producer instead of listening to the music. I find myself doing this at live performances also, which can be a big drawback to my overall level of enjoyment.

Craig, you gave me the idea by stating that you had several XRCD's that you thought were good recordings but that you did not enjoy the performances on . As such, you provided the spark that led us here.... : ) Sean
>

Sean,
I don't think we are that far apart in our views really,I think there are subtle differences between us.
I think we have arrived at the same destination-a wide collection of various musical styles and quality of recordings but have got there by slightly different motivations...however I do find that in some ways and I don't mean this as an offensive statement,that the pursuit of audiophile quality recordings seems to lead to quite conservative music or established musical forms in my opinion,now quite clearly a lot of members have very wide tastes in music but it is seldom I read about music that I want to buy from Audiogon members....there are exceptions CFB recently recommended the Zero 7 CD which I went out and bought.
To back up my argument I haven't seen too many interesting recommendations from your post which I think is a great post-it raises many interesting questions.
What it is also clear from being on this forum is that I am the exception it is quite obvious the number of members that have turned each onto a lot of music is massive.
I believe this is down to similarity in thinking and approach to music but also trust because this forum has become something of a community.
I do also remember that this site is about the pursuit of audio excellence and I have had a great amount of advice both on and off list from much more experienced people than myself.
Since I come from a slightly different angle at times I like to throw in my tuppence worth in the hope that the odd member might be interested in some music that I have come across from my different journey and I believe the album I recommended on my previous post Point by Cornelius is both interesting musically and of audiophille quality.

This has been a stimulating and provocative thread for me because several posts have prompted me to identify the key variables that determine my satisfaction with recordings. By way of background, though I did work for a couple of years on a "mixing team" for a small producer of high quality choral recordings, most of my experience has been as a double reed player and choral singer.

As of today, here are my variables of determination:

1. Recording quality. This to me means overall production values. Recording technique, mixing decisions, quality of equipment etc. This for me is a dissatisfier rather than a satisfier in the sense that good production (which is what I think some of you mean when you speak of an "audiophile" recording) does not really turn me on to a recording but poor production really turns me off.

2. "Goosebump factor". This is an undefinable something that has to do with listening context, my own history, and the particular characteristics of the performer. It is the emotional impact of the performance on me; definitely a satisfier rather than a dissatisfier. I listened to Willie Nelson sing Bridge Over Troubled Waters at the Olympics closing ceremony through the built-in speakers of a neighbor's 27 inch Magnavox. Production values and sound quality were shit but WOW did it give me g'bumps. An evocative performance of the Hindemith 2nd organ sonata can have the same effect. So can a well-conducted rendering of the last four minutes of Gotterdammerung, or a well played verson of Piano Man, or Alison Kraus and the Cox Family.

3. Technical performance quality. This is the variable that I hear mentioned least often on audiogon and similar fora. I sometimes listen to a recording just to see if the performer can play/sing it right. For example, Nicholas Harnencourt's style of conducting and interpretation tend to rank quite low on my goosebumps scale but I sometimes listen to his recordings just because he is so technically demanding. No wrong notes, no sloppy entrances, no crappy intonation, no out-of-tune passages. On the other hand, if the g'bump factor is really high, performance quality can be overlooked, else no one would ever be able to tolerate Janis Joplin. This is highly individual, of course. I can listen to Johnny Cash for an hour and his rotten pitch and absolutely terrible vocal production won't bother me at all but five minutes of Charlotte Church and I'm going nuts because the girl just can't sing. Sometimes either will satisfy me. I enjoy hearing Dale Clevenger hammer out the Strauss 1st horn concerto because he makes it alive and exciting. I equally enjoy my old mono recording of Dennis Brain playing the same work. Brain's interpretation is much less evocative but I really enjoy the pure precision of his playing.

Anyway, I'm not sure what all this drivel means but thanks for helping me try to clarify it in my own mind. If anyone has a clue what I'm be talking about, please write and explain it to me.

Will

Well, it's been 'NO' for me on point 1 -- but I *did* buy a (performance-wise indifferent) cd of a Symphonic poem simply because the recording has dynamics. Great way to blow speakers! As many others, I buy content rather than sound quality (if so, why have I invested in equipment...right?)

But, as you say, Sean, I do enjoy a good recording -- who doesn't. When I get it -- which is rare.
Lately, I purchased some Lassus cds (ECM) where the recording is top notch.
Dire Straits offer good enough sound.
Archiv's productions of the Koln Consort are quite good.
John Zorn also offers good sound.

Cheers!