Real or Surreal. Do you throw accuracy out the window for "better" sound?

I am a photographer and this is the same debate that occurs in photography circles. And just like in photographs, I tend to notice excesses and be disturbed by them. The best sort of photograph for me is one in which I don’t question anything. Just enjoy looking at it. The same for music. This is however not set in stone. I do like black and white and I can go over the top in my processing. With music, I can enjoy room rattling bass at times. Elevated treble not so much. But will always return to what I feel is a natural sound for general listening.

@asctim 

Curious that you would use the word impact. Your father may not have been going for impact. Impact sounds like the image has an aggressive quality where the it 'pushes' at the viewer so that the viewer is impressed. The artist adds saturation, brightness, and sharpness so that the image stands out and attracts the viewer's attention.  I can see this as being superficial with the appeal quickly fading and the viewer hungering for something with even more pop. Your father may have wished, on the other hand, for the viewer to be drawn into his photograph rather than impressed by it. I find naturalness tends to achieve that.  All of this is analogous to music playback. An obviously enhanced blue sky will take me out of a photograph just as a metallic edge to a cymbal hit will take me out of a song.  

Perhaps metallic was not the right word to use to express my sense of the falseness of the sound. Metallic edge in the same sense I would use to describe the taste of a diet soda. But it does sound appropriate when literally describing a cymbal hit! Harshness might be better and it might have been better to use the term to describe the overall treble presentation. "Cymbals that make you squint" is even better! This was the case when I demoed a pair of B&W 702 s2s. Curiously enough, the B&W 705 OG version, doesn't give me that impression.

So, Is it that your father's images were unrealistically dark or is it that the indoor lighting did not create that perception?  You said initially that your father's images appeared natural. And now you say they are unrealistic. So are naturalness and realism two different things? Kind of like musical and analytical gear? I personally think they are the same thing but if they are different I'll go with natural. A lot of photos are not taken in daylight so there's that. Images taken on cloudy days tend to be less saturated than images shot in daylight. Many photographers will do their best to avoid daylight photography.

One thing I have noticed is that  some folks painting outside considerably oversaturate and enhance their work. There is clearly a huge market for unrealistic takes on reality. Folks who represent reality less vividly are rare. So I would probably appreciate your father's images. Even if he goes the other way somewhat. Better to want more than to overdose.

So all the craftsmanship of Fleetwood Mac has been lost to the millions of people who have bought their albums, CDs, and streamed their music playing it back on less than stellar equipment?  Is that what the surviving members of Fleetwood Mac think?