Your Preference: Resolution or Fullness?

There's no strict audiophile vocabulary so people will naturally apply different meanings to terms. In the spirit of the OP where it's either/or I'll take fullness. I've heard too many components that in the name of resolution and detail are presenting the sound as bright, lean, thinner and bleached. Strip away the true fullness and body of instruments and you're left with an artificial, canned, unconvincing replica of the music.

The good news is that both resolution (natural) and realistic fullness/body are certainly achievable with some well implemented components. We can have resolution and fullness simultaneously.
Charles,

Chayro,
I'd say we're hearing from those people who don't favor the ultra detail/resolution sound and for the very same reasons you've stated. Many listeners do seem to pursue the hyper detail approach but just haven't posted here (yet). The pro fullness camp has shown up.
Charles,

Frogman,
You are so correct when you say you can't have "too"much resolution. I've believed for a long time that there's no such thing as too much resolution or transparency. The more the better as it just results in less veiling of what you hear.
When people say too much I think they're referring to pseudo detail and resolution which is a artificial presentation that is bright, thin, edgy and lean and this is mistakenly called transparency ( or even worse referred to as accurate). Natural sound can't be too much(live voice or acoustic instruments) , but artificial certainty can be .
Charles,