SQ or performance?

I listen to a lot of historical performances along with modern (I.e. stereo).  So I can’t really say SQ is the deciding factor.  It is definitely important, however.  Even historical performances can sound very different depending upon the restoration technique.  Compare Pristine Audio with Immortal Performances, for example.  They have both reissued the same NBC Symphony concerts from the early forties led by Toscanini and Walter.  Pristine likes to inject a lot of ambience, and IP is less interventionist.  They both are recognizable as having the same source but the differences are interesting.

   With modern recordings I am more tolerant of less than perfect sound.  I was listening to some Debussy from Vikung Olaffson on DG and then the same music from Peter Frankl on Vox in the same listening session.  I love both discs and having played the Frankl second at first the ear is confronted with opaque Sonics but soon it adjusts

Saying that it is better to have especially with orchestra the better possible S.Q. is only a common place fact no one in his sound mind could ever oppose... 😁😊 It goes almost without saying for me...

But i cannot throw the 9th symphony of Bruckner by Furtwangler and listen ONLY Celibidache for example or Giulini because the sound is better... Why?

Because in music the goal is not only esthetical perfect pleasure, not at all, music also reflect consciousness in history and the goal is increasing our counscious link with the intention of the composer, all good interpretations and only that can make us more enlightened about the intention of a composer...

And sometimes in some cases in spite of bad recording process some interpret embodied perfection...That was my point...

The most stunning experience in music come when we FORGOT the sound....Especially if we love beautiful sounds in beautiful recordings...

And i will repeat that i am most interested by acoustic and good sound than most here if we judge this interest by the amount of time invested in the effort to create acoustic of room...

😁😊

Music gestures or interpretations must be interiorized , music is not sound but through sound ....And sound is not always "music" even beautiful sounds...

«Silence is never badly interpreted but can be badly recorded »-Groucho Marx 🤓

«Because here the "musician" is the sound engineer, it is the reverse Grouch»-Harpo Marx

«Right, silence need a listener interpretation»-Chico Marx

«The circonstance of an interpretation speak volume: take the silence of Christ on the cross or Lao Tze silence going west»-Gummo Marx

«I prefer the silence of the maestro anyway at the end »-Zeppo Marx

Well I like the "Opry" and Chet Atkins. I like the 50-60s.

Enrico Caruso was my fathers favorite, the recordings were pretty bad. I think they were on wire or something. I didn't dare go near it. I tip-toed around that guy.

He did encourage me to be good at listening and not at talking. :-) 

When I hear the younger newer media it still reminds me of that old wire recorder he used when the right song comes on.

I like your post mahgister. Nothing like putting a fine point on things. :-)

Thanks ... I think so....After all we are humans and we can discuss instead of killing each other...

My deepest respect to you...

The OP of this interesting thread question make a deep observation that haunted me a lot:

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.

Because also of our own life circonstances among other factors we can STICK to a version or interpretation , even knowing this is not the BEST interpretation nor the best sound either...

This interpretation of Monteverdi 8th libro of madrigals by Prague musicians directed by Venhoda haunted me for 45 years now , i listened to many other interpretation , better recorded and even Italian one alleged bettter interpretation... Why did i stick to this one ?

The only OBJECTIVE answer i can produce is that this version sound like an "improvisation" or a livelier more enthusiastic performance practice ...Am i right?

I am not sure because this explanation i gave to myself is not wrong but explain nothing...

Love has no reason save the first encounter magical moment sometimes we can never forgot...

I discovered Monterverdi astounding genius, the only Bach rival in my mind , in power of expression and absolute originality with this album...

The man who creates "opera" is near Bach himself after all....

But i am in love with all his madrigals more than with his opera, a paradox also....Perhaps because in his madrigals the "opera" is in the "ovo" and the spoken words more dynamically powerful and intense than with all beautiful operas which will be written after him ....Save for Mozart operas, which take the genre on another level for me, making the voices pure musical instruments over the words themselves...

Ok thanks for the patience of all toward me... I will mute myself and listen others now...