Does it have to sound good for you to like it?

Years ago I performed a series of music/spoken-word concerts with a local symphony orchestra. The conductor walked me through the music on a boom box. At the time I thought it odd that a musician wouldn’t have a nice stereo, but then I realized that 1) his peripatetic lifestyle probably wouldn’t have room for such a thing and 2) why would you bother with an expensive stereo when you stood in front of 60-plus live musicians every day? ;-)

I’m a big fan of historical recordings, both jazz and classical, so sound quality has always been a secondary consideration for me. That said, even I have my limits, which stop somewhere well short of Edison cylinders. ;-) But my musical life would be considerably poorer if I’d never heard Furtwangler’s 1949 Brahms 4th from Wiesbaden, or Walter Gieseking and Guido Cantelli in one of the greatest Mozart concerto performances I’ve ever heard. Ditto with some marvelous Charlie Parker broadcasts, Lester Young, Artie Shaw, etc. I’d certainly rather listen to a tinny Stan Hasselgard aircheck than the clumsy playing on "Jazz at the Pawnshop". I suppose a lot depends on your musical tastes, and I don’t necessarily blame people who have a low tolerance for poor recordings. And I suppose that, in some respects, my system choices are somewhat geared toward making historical recordings sound tolerable. For me the performance comes first. Good sound is a bonus, and can be enjoyable in its own right.

@rok2id 

As a classical music lover, I too would take issue with the notion that it's "just the same music played over and over by different ensembles."  This is no more true of classical music than it is of any other genre.  It's rather like saying, "I've heard Jazz at the Pawnshop so who needs Louis Armstrong or Johnny Hodges?"  While it's certainly true that there are many fine classical performances available in excellent sound, as you point out, it's also true that some soloists, conductors and orchestras bring qualities to the music that others don't.  Zoltan Kocsis' Rachmaninov 3rd is very nice.  Horowitz and Ormandy playing the same music are positively electric and unforgettable.  Both are in nice sound, but it would be a grave mistake to put both performances in the same category on that basis alone.

"Well, I guess it was good to get all those opinions off your chest.  If only they had the least bit connection to what I actually said."

I took your comment for what it appeared to be saying.  It's certainly good to have some clarification. ;-)

"We take turns meeting at each member’s home, allowing each member to host and present/share their music, food, wine/drinks and good company. Most of the members have various consumer-level listening stations: AV receivers, Bluetooth soundbars and even the TV!"

One of the most memorable music evenings I ever had was when I was in college and frequented the local record shop.  They didn't have much of a jazz selection but what they had was well curated by an older guy who worked in the shop.  It got to where he's set things aside for me.  One day he asked if I wanted to come over to his house and listen to 78s.  I happily accepted, and we spent a terrific evening in his "listening room"--a spare bedroom filled with shelves of 78 albums and singles, and a little KLH bookshelf system with the speakers plopped randomly on stacks of LPs.  The music was wonderful. ;-)