SQ or performance?
In classical music, how much does the sound quality influence your enjoyment of a particular piece? I find it plays a large part. A recording is an artifact in itself. There are many factors which contribute to the final product. And even a great performance can be sabotaged by poor engineering, poor pressing, poor microphone placement and the like. Conversely, a mediocre performance can be attractive to us because of sterling acoustics.
In “historical” recordings we may allow for bad sound, but in contemporary performances the sound can have a significant bearing on our perspective.
Also, our appreciation of a given performance can be affected by other factors. For example, if we grew up loving a certain version, all others may suffer by comparison in our view.
@mahgister - I am another who finds most audiophile recordings, as you said, "boring, non creative, and without interest." Does no one else remember Holt's Law? -- the idea that the better the recording, the worse the musical performance—and vice versa. Like many laws, it has exceptions, thank goodness.
|
@rvpiano - Like you, I find both sound quality and performance quality contribute to my enjoyment. I’m especially averse to old piano recordings where the instrument warbles due to its analog origins -- even the best tape recorders were never as solid as a digital recording. Another example is the Casals recording of the Bach Suites. I’ve listened to a couple of different restorations, but I could never get past the awful sonics. All that said, sometimes I listen to something and think, "So that’s what that music is all about." A performance that appeals to me can often outweigh sound that is only serviceable. |
