...and now a word from your anti-sponsor...

Kinda blan if you ask me lol

Ironically, it is reported that Jonny owns a very high-end turntable, and has a taste for expensive electronics.

I think Johnny was saying...

1. An acoustical sound is generally regarded as real.
2. An electronic sound is generally regarded as unreal.

However…

3. A reproduced acoustical sound is no more real than a reproduced electronic sound.

Therefore...

4. A reproduced acoustical sound is no more truthful than a reproduced electronic sound.

And…

5. The use of electronic sounds doesn't make music less truthful.

Personally, I disagree with both (4) and (5).

I do, however, like some of Radiohead's music.

Bryon

I agree with Bryoncunningham's interpretation of the statement. If all reproduced sound is synthetic, then it really doesn't matter what instrument is used in the recording process as far as one instrument being more "real" than another. That's the freedom he is referring to.

I have avoided revisiting my original post in expectation of many ungracious comments. In reality, those have been fewer than expected. I am relieved to see that someone "gets it". Mechans has provided a very eloquent articulation of my position. The first and second sentences of his reply are EXACTLY why I posted the quote from J. Greenwood and the "contrarian" view it represents. The idea of the hi fi chain at whatever price somehow capturing reality in absolute terms seems delusional to me. If you got enough bucks - just hire the band or orchestra as the case may be. To the literalists, probably helpful to recognize the hyperbole in JG's statement. For those that still disagree, have at it. I'll be very happy with a system that sounds great even if the whole recording process is, "in reality", one of artifice.

For those interested, check out Glenn Gould videos on "YouTube". Very illuminating.