As mentioned, there are all different kinds of "imaging" in recordings. We have total studio creations, such as is common for modern rock recordings: try, for example, Peter Gabriel's "UP", crazy stuff going on all over the soundstage, including sounds (in a good stereo set up) way out to the sides and even semi surround effects. There is no attempt to create a realistic "soundstage" of what one might hear live, but it is enveloping and quite often very effective at bringing one into the music.
Then we have recordings of live music events, or studio recordings which attempt to re-create the soundstage which one might hear in a live music event: with instruments placed accordingly on a "soundstage". There is also more than one way to do this, and I am not conviced that the stereo pair or single stereo mic is always the best way. Even some of my favorite classical recordings used multi mic techniques and some studio manipulation to good effect, as sometimes distant miking just does not capture accurate tonality-I suspect this is because a microphone is not analagous in response to the ear/brain mechanisim and it needs some help at times to be more accurate.
Jared Sachs does not use just a stereo pair to produce the quite nice Channel Classics recordings (for example), and some of the best Deccas (The Planets) used multi mic techniques.
As far as the live experience goes, where you sit, and the venue itself will have everything to do with whether you hear a "soundstage" with image specifity. And of course, as mentioned, amplifed concerts are a whole 'nother thing. Some are stereo, some are not, some are even quad: I have heard Pink Floyd Stadium shows that featured at least two surround channels, mainly used for special effects... And still, with an amplified show, the hall and where one sits makes all the difference. I always try to get close to center, and about 1/3 distance from stage for an amplified show, as this position has the best chance of having fairly good balance in the hall.