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

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.

My read is pretty much the same as Bryon's.

Unfortunately, the quotation needs more context to be fully understood. However, it feels like he's addressing the notion of acoustic music being somehow more legitimate than electronic music - particularly, when it comes to evaluating the quality of a recording. That bit about being "freed", however, suggests that there might be more to his statement.

Looks like he was just saying that a reproduction of music is always a reproduction and that reproducing acoustic music offers no "truer" test of fidelity than does reproducing electronic music.

As a matter of logic, I kinda agree. As a practical matter, I kinda disagree. Because listeners are more familiar with the range of possible sounds from a piano or voice than from a synthesizer, many (including me) feel that acoustic music is more revealing than electronic for judging the fidelity of playback.

He's probably right on this one. By the time the recording chain is done, who knows what that recorded piano or voice "should" sound like on "accurate" playback? Sorta sinks the idea of "The Absolute Sound".

Marty