Interpretation

Sound quality is first for all including me to be clear...

Once this is said....

I refuse to put aside some badly recording masterpieces why ?

Because we feel the emotions and no sound quality even most of  the best maestros in the world can replace Furtwangler on a 5 cent battery radio ...( or any others miraculous artists)

 Then the question from this thread makes sense only for people able to put aside  all masterpieces and forgot about them  if they are badly recorded ... ( the Op being a musician understand me here ) 

This means some listen only to sound  superficial esthetical presentation not to the core of music emotional pulse  and they pick albums for their system shining coat valor not for the nude beating heart of the playing musician... Sorry but some musician someday are irreplaceable... The essence of music is linked to this miracle...

«I never meet my mother and she played piano. I have only a bad recording of his playings. I am an audiophile then i never listened to "this" for sure »-- Anonymus audiophile

Here is my take after reading many responses. Imagine that we could go back in time to 1930 and listen to a live performance by Adolf Busch playing Bach’s Violin Partita No. 2 in D Minor, BWV 1004. Then we go through the time machine again and listen to Hilary Hahn in 2026 performing the same work in the same concert hall. Would there be a large difference in terms of sound quality? I suspect the answer would be no.

However, because of the poor recording equipment and techniques available 100 years ago, we are forced to endure inferior sound quality in historical recordings. Disappointment sets in when one expects the real performance itself to be vastly better and, without a second thought, assumes that our home audio systems are capable of reproducing—or even surpassing—the actual live listening experience.

Poor recording quality can also distort our perception of the interpretation itself—not just the sound. Timbre, dynamics, emotional expression, phrasing, and even ornamentation can all be compromised, making it difficult to judge the performer’s true artistic intent and execution.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzyheU9DH5E (193x; 13:48)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai8NiHI1-eo (2005; 17:48)

Your observation are on the spot and right...

But  the sound of  bad recording in most case do not impede the perception of musical genius for musicians as well as for many among music lovers...

 The greatest genius i listened to on a plucked instrument is a Persian musician badly recorded, and this does not impede the perception of his genius through rythms and virtuosity or melodic variations...

Sofronitsky is always badly recorded in Scriabin. But all the album set i bought  by contemporary pianists out of Russia trying to play him are inferior nevermind the sound...

There is more examples...

Music is linked to sound perception but live a life of its own over  acoustic conditions and recordings parameters...

But there is a difference between unlistenable recording and badly recorded one ....

I dont listen unlistenable recording... The problem is the threshold and our capacity to perceive and recognize musical genius through not so good acoustic conditions ..

Music is first for some...

Sound is an obstacle for many...

 The core of this debate is simple : are they interpretation who fly over most others interpretations and which we cannot put aside even if they are badly recorded ?

The answer to this will determine if you are an aesthete absorbed in sound experience or an artist recognizing genius as unique and non reproducible or replaceable ...

 We can differ about what is genius and what is not though, but this dont matter, what matter is our ability to recognize genius for ourselves, nevermind the "sound" qualities...

 Is music a "sacred" experience or just a consumer taste ?

Did some musical  expression remind us of the "absolute" or all is equal and what matter is S.Q.  and the moment ? 

Answering this describe  what or who  we are ....

Here is my take after reading many responses. Imagine that we could go back in time to 1930 and listen to a live performance by Adolf Busch playing Bach’s Violin Partita No. 2 in D Minor, BWV 1004. Then we go through the time machine again and listen to Hilary Hahn in 2026 performing the same work in the same concert hall. Would there be a large difference in terms of sound quality? I suspect the answer would be no.

However, because of the poor recording equipment and techniques available 100 years ago, we are forced to endure inferior sound quality in historical recordings. Disappointment sets in when one expects the real performance itself to be vastly better and, without a second thought, assumes that our home audio systems are capable of reproducing—or even surpassing—the actual live listening experience.

Poor recording quality can also distort our perception of the interpretation itself—not just the sound. Timbre, dynamics, emotional expression, phrasing, and even ornamentation can all be compromised, making it difficult to judge the performer’s true artistic intent and execution.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzyheU9DH5E (193x; 13:48)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai8NiHI1-eo (2005; 17:48)

the sound of  bad recording in most case do not impede the perception of musical genius for musicians as well as for many among music lovers... The greatest genius i listened to on a plucked instrument is a Persian musician badly recorded, and this does not impede the perception of his genius...

Plucking (pizzicato) is not merely a technique; it is part of interpretation.  It is the violinist’s artistic choice, used to create meaningful expression when interpreting music—such as (1) where along the string to pluck, (2) how strongly to pluck, (3) how long the note is allowed to sustain or decay, (4) whether the character is playful or serious, (5) whether the gesture is rhetorical or mechanical, and (6) whether the pluck is executed with the bow or the fingers.  With less-than-ideal recordings, the subtle nuances and details of pizzicato—often critical to the musical interpretation—can be frequently veiled or masked.  With good modern recording equipment and techniques, these details and nuances can be accurately captured and faithfully reproduced.

I dont contest evidence... And what you just said is evidence...

But i claim bad recording of a musical genius on Tanbur do not impede our musical judgement and ectasy...

For sure i can dream of a better recording for him but sometimes we cannot have the cake and the icing too ...And compared to musical imagination sound recording is the icing not the cake...

Plucking (pizzicato) is not merely a technique; it is part of interpretation.  It is the violinist’s artistic choice, used to create meaningful expression when interpreting music—such as (1) where along the string to pluck, (2) how strongly to pluck, (3) how long the note is allowed to sustain or decay, (4) whether the character is playful or serious, (5) whether the gesture is rhetorical or mechanical, and (6) whether the pluck is executed with the bow or the fingers.  With less-than-ideal recordings, the subtle nuances and details of pizzicato—often critical to the musical interpretation—can be frequently veiled or masked.  With good modern recording equipment and techniques, these details and nuances can be accurately captured and faithfully reproduced.

 This recorded sound  in the background is bad or improvised cassette recording from a tent where the master was praying.. : 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jaw7eWzgWr0&list=RDJaw7eWzgWr0&start_radio=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCmJrSGX3W4&list=RDDCmJrSGX3W4&start_radio=1

The great violonist Yehudi menuhin said that listening in person to him was one of the greatest musical event in his life... I bought this album  30 years ago....