So, a reviewer just said something I need to talk about.

Again, I'm not doubting what you're observing, I'm saying you're conclusion as to what that observation means is incorrect 
 

audiophile listeners (whoever that group may be ) are building a system based around the "sound" of the system because that is their creative contribution, that is an absolute fact… That fact does not lead me to the conclusion that you have come to.  
 

of course you're going to come across people discussing the sound of the system that doesn't mean it's the only thing that matters or it's the primary thing. It's just the primary thing when you're talking with them or when they're out shopping.

This is beginning to sound like a circular argument.  
 I care about music.  And I care about sound, as a path to creating a more connected, more enjoyable listening experience.  That’s always been the case, even before I had the knowledge or wherewithal to indulge my passion.  
 

I also believe we have come along way, baby.  What I mean is, we lose sight of the fact that the quality of modern gear in general is pretty good.  
It has been true for some time now that even mediocre gear has reasonably good frequency response.  What it takes for gear to stand out today is a more lifelike presentation.  Whether we are talking about soundstage dimensions, or placement the of musicians across a stereo image or the realism of a bow on strings or the impact of percussion - these are the things that elevate listening at home.  They are not so easily achieved either.  Fine frequency response is not enough.  You need more of all of these elements, and some I’ve neglected to mention of course, to have a better than average system.  
That’s where a focus on sound quality has relevancy and value.  
 

When a reviewer tells me a certain piece of kit helped him achieve a greater connection to the artist or to his art, well that’s just a high compliment.  If it happens to be a tune I’m familiar with, then we have a common reference point.  And if I’ve been moved in a similar way by that artist or that tune, then he and I also now have a connection too.  And I have come a step closer to a better understanding of their perspective.  

For me, listening is an escape.  When I catch myself focusing on the sound instead of the music, unless it’s because something is wrong, I attempt to refocus on what’s important: the melody, the lyric, the voice, the mood, the energy.  You get the idea.  

I care about music. And I care about sound, as a path to creating a more connected, more enjoyable listening experience.

I totally agree with that, @woofman74 . However, in the past I was never a big fan of jazz or classical, and over the last few years I came around to gaining an appreciation of jazz due to owning better audio gear, and more recently I am gaining an appreciation for classical. This is also due to owning better gear than I used to own.

(I am all digital) and I am trying out/breaking in a pair of speakers and also breaking in some new power cords (all at the same time, unfortunately) and I started out a six hour session earlier today with Sheffield’s The Moscow Sessions and I found myself really enjoying the sound of the instruments. Then I put on (I guess it would be jazz) The Rippingtons (and I have actually listened to this CD quite a few times by now) but what always strikes me is, "There is a lot going on in front of me.)

During this speaker audition/break in, I am playing a lot of stuff I barely played before. So I put on "No Nukes." This is music I actually probably used to like a lot (and probably still appreciate) but disc one sounded horrible. I was out of the room doing other stuff for most of disc two, but it sounded better that way (out of the room). Then I put on disc one of a CD of The Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame (I think it was from the inductions?) done in the mid or late ’90s, and it was neat music that I liked that wasn’t mastered too bad.  (Actually, I feel it was mastered pretty good, and I was getting into it.)

But that seemingly pointless story was to say that poor source quality ruins my enjoyment of music that I used to really enjoy. And good source quality makes me appreciate stuff that used to leave me pretty cold.

That first acoustic guitar of Yes' "Starship Troopers" is one of the most 3D, "Strings had real body" moments I can think of through a good system. They hover in the air. But that can't be reproduced through a basic or car system. 

People used sing-along and dance with audio music in 30s~70s. The audio industry and dealers talked about the natural sound always then. The musicality of hi-end audio was excellent then. Into 80s, the audio industry couldn’t complete the natural sound and gave up on the natural sound. I remember that a famous man said "hi-end audio has peaked and no more improvement from now" from early 90s. Since late 80s with Dolby surround sound, the audio industry turn the table to the sound technology and they don’t talk about the music nor musicality.

Say "Hello" repeat with below appear to be a nice video sounds. You’ll hear lots of speaker distortion. Right. Seems to be a nice sound without your "Hello" sound is, in fact, a bad dirty sound. There is no musicality from the sound like that.

The audio industry needs to understand how bad the current fake audio sound is and find real natural reproduction audio music.

Check this natural sound music. Alex/WTA