Fidelity vs. Musicality...........Is there a tug of War?

When you go to a live, unamplified performance, of a small jazz group, or even a symphony orchestra, do you sit there and say to yourself ... "Oh my God! ... listen to that detail?"

Music first. Fidelity second.

Frank

I saw Holly Cole live at the Showbox in Seattle. A small venue, 100 to maybe 200. The show began with her singing from off stage. Just her voice, no amp, no nothing. "I Am Calling You" place got quiet real fast. As she walked out on stage everyone realized no mic, just her voice, and it was electric. As I recall she was joined by string bass and piano, also unamplified. Sadly, only for this first number. Well I can understand, people have their expectations. Afterwards however every one of us at our table said it was the best most memorable thing they ever heard at a show, and we all wished she had done the whole show that way.

Another time, Patricia Barber at Jazz Alley in Bellevue. Another very small venue, and this time we were seated close enough to see the glow from the lead guitar tube amp. Pretty sure Barber had her own tube amp as well, but don’t quote me this was many years ago.

Another time, Keb Mo in Seattle at the Paramount. Pretty sure the performance was equally "musical" to the other two, but hard to say for sure due to the painfully piercing treble spike that pretty much ruined the concert for me.

Years later, the Eagles in Seattle, another almost equally bad audio experience however this time so greatly overshadowed by their "musicality" I honestly couldn’t have cared less.

So yes indeed there is a tug of war, but to thoroughly mix the metaphors I would have to say when the chips are down musicality holds all the cards and fidelity takes a back seat or at best rides shotgun.

Musicality is the purview of the musician. It is not the lack of annoying sonic characteristics such as sibilance or bass resonance. 

I have never appreciated a pan-accurate system that sounded bad. There are painfully few accurate systems anyway. I suppose you could say a system either sounds good or it does not. Accurate is very specific. Everything else is relative, relative to that person's experience.  You can't know what something sounds like if you have not heard it.

Every system is different and has a different set of problems and solutions. The permutations are endless which is what makes this an entertaining challenge. 

I remember the first glorious five seconds I heard the JC1s in my system. "I'm really going to like this!" Don't you love those moments? 

The terms are properly seen as synonyms, not antonyms. You are screwing up the endeavor of creating a superior rig and listening experience when you see them as antithetical.  :(

I have worked for years to assemble a system that is musical, and I will gladly live with it until I leave this earth. My system is composed of quality components, not expensive ones. Much of it is built by me, and now all I do is replace or repair what I have to continue my daily enjoyment of the music I love.

Like me, equipment ages and, at some point, it will fail to do what is asked of it. Just keeping evrything working properly is a necessity, and about all I can afford to do these days. I do love it though.

Best regards,
Dan

@oregonpapa “When you go to a live, unamplified performance, of a small jazz group, or even a symphony orchestra, do you sit there and say to yourself ... "Oh my God! ... listen to that detail?"

Great way of putting it. That was actually one of my observations… I can hear incredible detail… the wall reflections nuance of the acoustic space… but they are not stuck in your face. 
Oregon Symphony… Oregon PaPa?