I'd like to expand this idea slightly. I was listening to a punk band called Black President yesterday on my commute. It was the only highlight of having to work on a Sunday. I've had the album for some time now and while it's grown on me it always falls a little short of great. The songs are catchy, the musicians are talented and the performance tight. I was thinking about what was holding this album back and it struck me that it was recorded too well for a punk album! For me a good punk album needs to be a little messy and rough. This was too clean, too precise. It's not "punk". Another example would be a couple of old blues songs that I really love. One in particular has a really noisy background including the strong hum of what I assume is the guitar amp. That's one of the thing that brings this particular track to life for me. It's that noise that creates nostalgia, that amp hum that transports me to a dark smokey room with the performer, complete with a big scotch in hand! I have a clean studio version of the same song, and it does not have the same impact on me. It's because of this personal connection that I do use this track when comparing gear because I am so intimate with every detail.I am often drawn to live tracks because I find them easier to connect with for this very reason. Many of them are not recorded well at all. I think that a poor recording is not only good for testing your system, but sometimes important to add life to music. Perfect mastering and recording may end up being accurate, but it won't always be the best overall sound. IMHO music production remains more art than science, and I think that's a good thing.
As soon as the drums start...The Bee Gees- 'New York Mining Disaster 1941'
