I understand where you are coming from but there are also other reasons to try to record as close to "perfect" as possible - as a reference recording or for transcribing from the recording for example. There enough poor editions of pieces which have wrong notes - add in other ones in the recording & it's not helpful!Mark Clifton-Gaultier wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:08 pmI don't buy recorded music in order to admire the skill of the engineer. I appear to stand alone here but I find that I am indeed more irritated by the coldness of this modern style of multi-edit presentation than by the odd minor error, squeaks (or in some cases even breathing/extraneous noise) - to the extent that repeated listenings simply don't happen.Conall wrote:A professional studio recording is intended for repeated listening so needs to be as perfect as possible. Nothing irritates more than hearing or predicting a mistake at exactly the same point every single time you listen to the track.
I recently bought a CD by a guitarist that I've enjoyed live many times and who's performances are full of passion, intelligence and individuality. The CD is simply not representative of their work - what incentive then for me to listen to it again?
I accept that any recording process impacts on the resultant sound - efforts to mitigate this are understandable. I prefer edits correcting performer error to be at least minimal, preferably absent.
Generally if I can't find a piece from a recording I'll try to transcribe it. Ironically once I found the sheet music for one I had transcribed I decided I preferred my version with a couple of inaccurate notes!
I also accept that some studio recordings lack the atmosphere of live recordings. In pop music I much prefer Paul Simon's "live" version of Kathy's Song to his studio versions because he truly sounded "in the moment" / as if he genuinely meant & felt the words he was singing.