What's More Important to You, the Music or the Sound?

[Florestan]

Have at it, folks! 

[Daverz]

To paraphrase Thomas Beecham, I may not like music, but I absolutely love the sound it makes.

[caters]

For me, it's the music itself. I mean, the sound is important, I will shy away from a certain performance or video because of the sound, ex. the tempo is too slow for my taste(especially for Beethoven, I'm quite picky about my Beethoven tempi, first movement especially, a too slow first movement for me can ruin that particular performance even if the rest of the movements are good). But that doesn't make me dislike the music, just the sound of that 1 performance.

[Madiel]

I don't understand the question.

[Irons]

For me, it's the music itself. I mean, the sound is important, I will shy away from a certain performance or video because of the sound, ex. the tempo is too slow for my taste(especially for Beethoven, I'm quite picky about my Beethoven tempi, first movement especially, a too slow first movement for me can ruin that particular performance even if the rest of the movements are good). But that doesn't make me dislike the music, just the sound of that 1 performance.

Does that not come under performance? How I read the question is beauty or not of instrumental or voice timbre. A poor performance can have good sonics and vice versa. I have a theory that good sound grows less important for the musically educated and for us mere mortals it is.

[prémont]

I don't understand the question.

Nor do I.

[BasilValentine]

I don't understand the question.

I think we are being asked to say how much we value the aesthetic qualities of interpretation in a performance versus the acoustic quality of the recorded sound(?) For example, would you rather listen to a historically lauded performance with wretched sound quality or a merely good performance with excellent acoustics and engineering.   

[Florestan]

I think we are being asked to say how much we value the aesthetic qualities of interpretation in a performance versus the acoustic quality of the recorded sound(?) For example, would you rather listen to a historically lauded performance with wretched sound quality or a merely good performance with excellent acoustics and engineering.   

You got it right, thanks.

A poor performance can have good sonics and vice versa.

Yes, this.

[prémont]

I think we are being asked to say how much we value the aesthetic qualities of interpretation in a performance versus the acoustic quality of the recorded sound(?) For example, would you rather listen to a historically lauded performance with wretched sound quality or a merely good performance with excellent acoustics and engineering. 

Not unsurprisingly I prefer a good performance in good sound. But forced to choose I prioritize the performance with the caveat that certain - especially older recordings are so bad sound-wise that this spoils the musical enjoyment.

[Mandryka]

Sometimes you can't really hear the performance because the sound quality doesn't reveal it. It's because timbre, dynamic control, balancing chords and such like can be as central to an interpretation as tempo and phrasing.

To give an example, I recently got a much better transfer of Anthony de Bonaventura playing the Debussy etudes, and it really was the case that, from my former bad transfer, I had misunderstood what he had achieved. I'm sure there are many other examples, I just can't think of them.

[Madiel]

I think we are being asked to say how much we value the aesthetic qualities of interpretation in a performance versus the acoustic quality of the recorded sound(?) For example, would you rather listen to a historically lauded performance with wretched sound quality or a merely good performance with excellent acoustics and engineering.   

Then the question should be whether I prefer the performance or the sound quality, not the music or the sound.

My view has pretty much been already expressed: if the sound quality is sufficiently bad I'm not going to be able to tell what the "music" is like anyway. But translating that into PREFERRING the sound quality? Well that doesn't make sense either. I'll take both, thanks.

How anyone can actually tell something is a great performance when it's barely audible, I'll be fascinated to hear.

[caters]

Does that not come under performance? How I read the question is beauty or not of instrumental or voice timbre. A poor performance can have good sonics and vice versa. I have a theory that good sound grows less important for the musically educated and for us mere mortals it is.

When I saw the question of whether the music or the sound is more important, I figured the music would just be that, the music, whereas the performance would be part of the sound rather than the music. And that if the performance is not to my taste, than the sound isn't either, but the music very well may be. Take for instance Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, that's one piece for which I'm especially picky, like even more picky than I am on average for Beethoven as a whole.

If the first movement is not around quarter note = 160 BPM, then that's not a performance I want to listen to, but one bad performance, or many, doesn't make me like the symphony itself any less, it's my favorite Beethoven symphony and has been for years. Indeed, nothing has ever made me like Beethoven's Fifth Symphony any less. Not how overplayed it is, not recordings outside my tempo sweet spot, nothing.

If the first movement is being played too fast, approaching 190 BPM, my reaction is like:

You are putting in a Presto where it doesn't belong. The notes are too flighty now, there's not enough dramatic weight. It's not a perpetum mobile, nor should it be, the weight is important. And look, the brass can't even keep up with your tempo, it's literally too fast.

If the first movement is being played too slow, approaching 140 BPM or even less, my reaction is like:

The momentum that made this an Allegro con brio instead of just Allegro is gone. There's too much weight. It's not like a Mozart Allegro you moron.

And I mention Mozart there specifically because his Allegros do tend to be around the quarter note = 120-140 BPM range.

But that tempo pickiness with regards to Beethoven's Fifth, and other pieces, I'd regard as being the sound, not the music. Maybe you'd disagree, but that's my thinking on it, that the music can be great, and the tempo can ruin the sound, but it does not ruin the music.

[Madiel]

When I saw the question of whether the music or the sound is more important, I figured the music would just be that, the music, whereas the performance would be part of the sound rather than the music. And that if the performance is not to my taste, than the sound isn't either, but the music very well may be.

Yes, this is part of why I found the question confusing.

If "music" was really meant to be "performance", it feels rather like the poll was pushing towards one answer already being the one you were supposed to pick.

[aukhawk]

For me they are equally important.
To go further, I would say that I need to hear:
1) music that I like
2) well performed
3) well recorded/reproduced
ideally to make it worth my time at least one of those would have to be more - music I like a lot, or very well performed or recorded.
And if any of those three is lacking in some way then the others would have to excel in compensation.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

For me they are equally important.
To go further, I would say that I need to hear:
1) music that I like
2) well performed
3) well recorded/reproduced
ideally to make it worth my time at least one of those would have to be more - music I like a lot, or very well performed or recorded.
And if any of those three is lacking in some way then the others would have to excel in compensation.

I think that we can all agree with your No. 1 and No. 2 being necessary requirements from the get go.  No. 3 is were things get a bit tricky.  For me, I enjoy listening to things like older and/or especially historical performances.  Some of these were well-recorded and hold up well in terms of vs. today's recordings (in my view anyway).  It has to be a really rough-sounding recording for me not to be able to relax and get into the music.

I think that it's great that engineers are trying their darnedest to help older recordings blossom shall we say (sometimes working better than others), but I don't have the time, money and space to be constantly trying to make comparisons and update my collection.  I'd rather just play the music and enjoy it. 

PD

[Szykneij]

I voted "music". While I can still enjoy music I like on inferior equipment, I'm never going to enjoy music I don't like regardless of how well it "sounds".

[eoghan]

I have a sort of minimum threshold for sound quality. In general it would need something to be truly extraordinary for me to choose a pre-stereo recording over something more recent and there are decent recent performances with poor sound that I tend to leave unloved.

I have an illogical bias against live recordings, telling myself (usually incorrectly) that they're going to sound thin and be full of coughing and applause, which is often simply not the case, but I can't get over myself.

[Florestan]

I have an illogical bias against live recordings, telling myself (usually incorrectly) that they're going to sound thin and be full of coughing and applause

If you lived in the pre-recordin era(s), that would have been the only way to experience music. 

[Irons]

I have a sort of minimum threshold for sound quality. In general it would need something to be truly extraordinary for me to choose a pre-stereo recording over something more recent and there are decent recent performances with poor sound that I tend to leave unloved.

I have an illogical bias against live recordings, telling myself (usually incorrectly) that they're going to sound thin and be full of coughing and applause, which is often simply not the case, but I can't get over myself.

I am always surprised by the elimination of any audience noise on CD's included with BBC MM and most are from live events. The only giveaway is applause at the end of each work which admittedly I find annoying. The general sound is quite good, even from the notorious poor acoustics of the Royal Albert Hall.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

I am always surprised by the elimination of any audience noise on CD's included with BBC MM and most are from live events. The only giveaway is applause at the end of each work which admittedly I find annoying. The general sound is quite good, even from the notorious poor acoustics of the Royal Albert Hall.

Yes, sometimes that applause can be distracting (particularly after slower/more intimate pieces of music--rather jarring).  Often though, I wish that I was at that concert and part of the audience. 

PD