[sfraser]

So to keep in line with some of the latest topics, whats more important to you? A "decent" song exceptionally recorded and well produced ( sounds fantastic on your system). Or an amazing performance of a favorite track even if the recording is less than ......well you know.

Reason I ask, is I love live music, so I have quite a few shows from the Internet Music archives. Some of the  live performances of performers I like  are amazing (performance wise, but not the best  recording to do amateur recording or sub optimal acoustics.)

I fall into the category of best artist performance VS best quaility sound.

[1oldguy]

Well I know that if someone gave me a copy of M&M or Snoop Dog, recorded and mastered twice as good as any standard known to man at this present time,I still would throw it in the trash.
The song has to be something I like to listen to first and foremost.

[sfraser]

Well I know that if someone gave me a copy of M&M or Snoop Dog, recorded and mastered twice as good as any standard known to man at this present time,I still would throw it in the trash.
The song has to be something I like to listen to first and foremost.

google "gin and juice" (snoop dog song ) but include "the gourds" in your search criteria. The gourds do  to snoop what many artists have done to Dylan. I am a Dylan fan by the way, and by no way a snoop fan.

[Elizabeth]

I am for the performance, as opposed to the sound quality.
The classic audiophile joke is the guy with a half million dollar system, who only plays a few things on it 'good enough' to be worth listening to on the said system.

I like anything that is great music.
For example, i love a lot of the four Cd sets from Proper Box. They are recordings from primarily the 78 era and are direct from 78s, not from tapes. So they can sound a little poor. But i love them as they are music i would never  be able to hear. I own over 50 jazz Properbox sets.
I read some reviews of them on Amazon, and am suprised some folks hate them as they are not good enough. And so want to tell others about recordings which are better.
I guess I am just cheap. i calculated i would have to own 1,750 of the best 78's of Jazz music rare, and impossible to own, to have the equal of the proper Boxes I have. So i am  really happy to have these.

I also have to say it is fun to have a really great sounding performance, which is also a great one.
So i do enjoy good sound. But i would never put up with a bad performance just to hear great 'sound'.

[Anonamemouse]

I generally use music to listen to my audio gear...

I love music.
I love well recorded music even more. Unfortunately much of the music I own is not a state-of-the-art recoding, but I still listen to it, because I love my music. To me the music is what matters, and if it is an excellent recording: all the better!

[1oldguy]

I generally use music to listen to my audio gear...

I love music.
I love well recorded music even more. Unfortunately much of the music I own is not a state-of-the-art recoding, but I still listen to it, because I love my music. To me the music is what matters, and if it is an excellent recording: all the better!

That's what I was trying to say.
I couldn't agree more.

[PRELUDE]

I vote for the music because that is the whole story.I also came to this reality that some audiophiles are tend to cheat themselves and keep bringing the same copies that they know is recorded good to the shows to listen to.Every time I buy CDs some of them if not all of them are sound horrible in reference system.
Now, I think any CDs I bought that is recorded in Japan is good or acceptable.Why?
In my opinion, the audiophile recording should never exist.It has more marketing and politics then the quality.
Instead,they should have a minimum of the quality acceptance law.

[sfraser]

Interesting  enough I sort of got the best of both worlds last night. After My wife went to bed  I was sitting on our screened in porch till about 2:00am. I have the porch wired with a small pair of Paradigm wall mounts. Sound is not incredible, but for a porch it is pretty good.I have recently downloaded a bootleg of Bruce Springsteen and the E street band recorded live Feb 5th 1975 in a small bar/coffee shop called "The Main Point". It is a soundboard recording of pretty good quality, but what really shines is the performance! Wow, Was he and the band ever on that evening. Great versions of what are now classic songs

For the Springsteen fans out there, most of the set is based on his "wild & innocent " album, (which is my favourite). But at this point  he had already   spent some time in the studio laying down a couple of rough  tracks for the "Born to Run" album. That evening he is still messing around with the lyrics and song tempos. For instance this is the 1st concert he ever played Thunder Road and it was called "Wings for Wheels". This concert recording is to Bruce what the Massey Hall Toronto recordings are to Neil Young.

[headshrinker2]

Both.  The music, composition, and performance absolutely come first.  But, I have to admit, I struggle to listen to poor recordings sometimes.  Even if the musicianship is fantastic.  Examples might be a thin and flat sounding classical piano recording.  Or an orchestral piece when strings sound edgy/brittle.  Or my personal worst, a grating jazz trumpet sound.  Especially with instrumental, classical, jazz, and vocal.. I really want things to sound natural. 

The combination of great music and great recording... bliss.

[jaxwired]

headshrinker beat me to it.  The music is first, but I want buy a recording that doesn't meet my standards for production.  Plenty of great music that is also well recorded, especially in the genres I enjoy (folk rock, indie pop, alt country, indie alternative).

[Diamond Dog]

I generally use music to listen to my audio gear...

I love music.
I love well recorded music even more. Unfortunately much of the music I own is not a state-of-the-art recoding, but I still listen to it, because I love my music. To me the music is what matters, and if it is an excellent recording: all the better!

+1. Nice recording quality is icing on the cake but ultimately I'm here for the cake.

D.D.

[Laundrew]

Great topic 

In my circumstance, it is all depends on my current state of mind.

With respect to the actual performance, if I can clearly feel (empathic) that the artist is really into his/her music whether it be a stage show or a music video, then the overall quality of the audio is not as important – the only caveat that I might add to this would be that the lyrics must not be “garbled.”

One other point with respect to a music video, sometimes these can be a hit and miss venture as we are viewing what the producer’s concept of the song is.

When I listen to music on my 2-channel system, it is only the artists and I. Interestingly enough, as long as the lyrics are clear – I am content most of the time.  If I can locate a more refined production, such as SACDs, I will purchase them. I was fortunate that the Dead Can Dance re-released their music in a SACD box set and had no issues what so ever with this purchase.

When you get an awesome recording playing on an awesome system, this is when the magic truly occurs. You feel the slight tremor of the vocalists when The Last Dance preforms 51051, the pain of Ian Curtis singing "Love Will Tear Us Apart" or the haunting voice of Lisa Gerrard with the Dead Can Dance. This is the exclusive realm of cold shivers, of tranquility and of solitary tears.

It is all good.

Be well…

[vegasdave]

headshrinker beat me to it.  The music is first, but I want buy a recording that doesn't meet my standards for production.  Plenty of great music that is also well recorded, especially in the genres I enjoy (folk rock, indie pop, alt country, indie alternative).

I agree. It's hard for me to enjoy a recording with bad sound. I can still do it, but I know there's better.

[1oldguy]

I agree. It's hard for me to enjoy a recording with bad sound. I can still do it, but I know there's better.

I agree....it's also even harder to enjoy a song that you hate no matter the quality of the recording.
But lets face it....we want both,or else we would not have the gear we do.

[alexone]

...interesting topic, sfraser. since i can do my own home brewed 'hi-res' recordings (all you need is vinyl ) i found that IT IS a matter of how good a song is recorded or not. i'm glad that my equipment gives me the chance to listen deep into the sound. that way the differences are detectable.
however, i think that even a good recorded cd is like a kiss for the ears! so the format of any source is one thing- the honesty and therefore the intentions of those who are doing all these recordings is another thing.

al.

[vegasdave]

I agree....it's also even harder to enjoy a song that you hate no matter the quality of the recording.
But lets face it....we want both,or else we would not have the gear we do.

That's true...

[HsvHeelFan]

I'll take best music performance over production, any day of the week.

Here's an example.  I have at least 2 different recordings of music from Victory at Sea.

One is an old RCA red label CD from the late 50's.

The other is a Telarc CD of the Cincinnati Pops playing the same charts.

The Telarc CD, like almost all Telarc CD's I've listened to is impeccably recorded.   However, the music just lays there.  It has no passion, no drive and no enthusiasm.  I blame the orchestra or Mr. Kunzel for this!

The old RCA recording with the RCA Victor Symphony Orchestra, conducting by Robert Russell Bennett, is ALIVE and emotional. 

The Telarc CD has been played twice, at least for the Victory at Sea tracks.

The old RCA recording has been played hundreds of times.


The RCA orchestra "got" Victory at Sea.  I'm not sure the late 80's Cincinnati Orchestra did. 

Maybe the Cincinnati Pops orchestra was just having an off day when that CD was recorded.  It could be that was the way Mr. Kunzel wanted those Victory at Sea charts played.   If so, I dislike his interpretation.

HsvHeelFan