Thank you rvpiano (have you a piano in an rv?!) for this question. It goes to the heart of what we're all about on this site, and in our "hobby."
I've currently had some problems with one of my components (30+ year old speakers that I've long loved), so I've been auditioning alternatives in my home: B&W, Revel, PSB, MartinLogan, Von Schweikert. Because of this, I've recently been focused on SQ; I choose things to listen to because I've particularly enjoyed them for their realism, and want to see if these alternative speakers can do for me what my beloved Teslas have long done. Meanwhile, however, I've found someone who was able to repair the drivers in the Teslas, so I'm A/B comparing the competitors against my first love.
All that said, when I'm satisfied with my system (and, to me, the system is a tool, like a computer: not an end in itself, but a means to an end), I mostly listen to the music. Mostly. Will I choose a Furtwängler performance over something recorded in stereo of the same piece? Rarely, but sometimes (the Brahms First, in Furtwängler's monaural recording from 1952, for instance, is still my favorite, despite many, many subsequent contenders with far better sound). But, unless I have a strongly favorite performance that happens to be poorly recorded, I will almost always choose the better recording, even if I have problems with the interpretation. Such is the case with several recent Mahler recordings; they're superlative aurally, but dubious, even sometimes egregious, as interpretations. Still, I'll likely choose them because, for Mahler, the impact of the sheer sound is a very large part of what makes the music compelling. Maybe that's a disingenuous qualification, however, as I'd say the same for Haydn and Mozart: great recordings, if they're also at least good performances, get the nod.
So, to try to answer the original question directly: as many have already written, it's a combination of the two (which perhaps begs, rather than answers, the original question). Listening at home is not the same thing as being present at a live performance. A live performance is thrilling in a particular way even if the performance is second-rate. At home, one has the delicious dilemma of an embarrassment of riches: so many truly great performances to choose from, so many of which are also superlatively recorded. Because the "realism" of the home experience is largely due to the "realism" of the recording, why not choose one that sounds better?
But I'll admit it: I do sometimes play something not because it has much musical merit, but because it sounds terrific on my system. "Mannheim Steamroller" would be an obvious example. A very musical friend, who dismisses all stereo equipment as "fungible," refuses to consider that band to be "music" at all! But, hey: a jingle composer for commercials Chip Davis may have been, but his recordings are deliberately crafted to show off what a home stereo can do. And that can be very exciting!
I've currently had some problems with one of my components (30+ year old speakers that I've long loved), so I've been auditioning alternatives in my home: B&W, Revel, PSB, MartinLogan, Von Schweikert. Because of this, I've recently been focused on SQ; I choose things to listen to because I've particularly enjoyed them for their realism, and want to see if these alternative speakers can do for me what my beloved Teslas have long done. Meanwhile, however, I've found someone who was able to repair the drivers in the Teslas, so I'm A/B comparing the competitors against my first love.
All that said, when I'm satisfied with my system (and, to me, the system is a tool, like a computer: not an end in itself, but a means to an end), I mostly listen to the music. Mostly. Will I choose a Furtwängler performance over something recorded in stereo of the same piece? Rarely, but sometimes (the Brahms First, in Furtwängler's monaural recording from 1952, for instance, is still my favorite, despite many, many subsequent contenders with far better sound). But, unless I have a strongly favorite performance that happens to be poorly recorded, I will almost always choose the better recording, even if I have problems with the interpretation. Such is the case with several recent Mahler recordings; they're superlative aurally, but dubious, even sometimes egregious, as interpretations. Still, I'll likely choose them because, for Mahler, the impact of the sheer sound is a very large part of what makes the music compelling. Maybe that's a disingenuous qualification, however, as I'd say the same for Haydn and Mozart: great recordings, if they're also at least good performances, get the nod.
So, to try to answer the original question directly: as many have already written, it's a combination of the two (which perhaps begs, rather than answers, the original question). Listening at home is not the same thing as being present at a live performance. A live performance is thrilling in a particular way even if the performance is second-rate. At home, one has the delicious dilemma of an embarrassment of riches: so many truly great performances to choose from, so many of which are also superlatively recorded. Because the "realism" of the home experience is largely due to the "realism" of the recording, why not choose one that sounds better?
But I'll admit it: I do sometimes play something not because it has much musical merit, but because it sounds terrific on my system. "Mannheim Steamroller" would be an obvious example. A very musical friend, who dismisses all stereo equipment as "fungible," refuses to consider that band to be "music" at all! But, hey: a jingle composer for commercials Chip Davis may have been, but his recordings are deliberately crafted to show off what a home stereo can do. And that can be very exciting!