I agree with some of your points, OP, but
There is no such thing as the "objective sound of a performer". The sound depends on several factors, such as room acoustics, mic choice or mic placement, for example. The recording, mixing and mastering jobs all include some creative freedom and, for the most part, that's inevitable.
Terms such as natural sound and objective sound of the performer are protean in nature. As has been stated if listening to a live performance it will depend on where you are in a venue, venue acoustics, sound levels etc. In a studio or orchestral venue there are issues like mic placement, sound levels, mixing etc. Performers do not hear their performance as such, their foldback monitors will have the sound levels set to their preference to assist them to perform. Different musicians ask for completely different foldback levels. Which means there is not really any such thing as the sound as heard by the performer (well, there is, but it's unlikely to be one many would want to listen to). And that's before getting to use of compression which is largely about playback equipment. Which means that sound engineering is a confluence of art and engineering, you need at least some musical sensibilities to be good at it and usually musicians will be guided by their engineers in terms (I'm not sure it ends well very often when they get too involved and start telling the studio guys how to do their jobs). Much of this isn't actually that affected by the recording technology, whether it is digital or analogue, it's not unusual to listen to orchestral and operatic performances made in the 60's that still sound superb despite the limitations of the technology of the time.
What century are you living in?
The idea of a recording being simply some kind of objective documentation of a musical performance was antiquated by the 1930s. At least since the mid 50s it has been impossible to separate the 'performer' from the 'producer' or 'engineer' in any meaningful way for the vast majority of popular music. Was George Martin's involvement with the Beatles recorded output any less artistically important than Ringo's? Nowadays the writer, artist, performer, producer, engineer, and promoter is as likely to one and the same person with a laptop in their bedroom ...
I remember purchasing the MFSL half speed mastered Rolling Stones Sticky Fingers record. I also had the standard commercial release. The Mobile Fidelity record was quite amazing regarding the stuff you could pick out in the mix... things I never heard on the regular record. Funny thing though. It didn't 'sound' like I thought a Rolling Stones record should sound. That 'compressed' raw and rough sound was missing. It didn't have that 'need to crank it up monophonic AM car radio feel'. It was too good, sonically. LOL
On the cover was a disclaimer. That the distortion you will hear was a part of the original recording, and a trademark of the band. Not a fault of the pressing. As if anyone needed that reminder.
I'm not trying to seperate the performer from the recording engineers. We wouldn't have any recordings otherwise. It's a question of competency and care.
Much like the other products reviewed here on ASR, there are those that are well designed/produced and others that are not. Most of the products Amir are functional but there is a range and in this range are those where it is quite apparent that the designers/producers are either incompetent, or just don't give a shit and rely on some slick bullshit, or lack of consumer discernment to sell the product.
Such is the nature of the market some may say and shrug their shoulders. Fair enough, they can buy the stuff.
When it comes to the music which is what I am led to believe all this stereo equipment is for, I can't see why anyone should object to any measures that may weed out the crap from the decent. It might even be fun.
Many of the music lovers I know look for the better recordings of their favourite artists. I do so myself. Someone mentions that such and such a recording is better, or they prefered it to another I may well check it out much as anmpr1 has above.
Sal1950 makes a very valid point regarding The Cowboy Junkies Trinity sessions which I agree with, it's seriously boring, but they are seriously boring, but the recording is half decent.
I find the RMP series of the Rolling Stones a more pleasurable listening experience to the MFSL offerings so of course there is going to be personal preference invloved.
I find the same with the original Reprise releases of Jimi Hendrix. We even did a rough ABX test between this and another remaster years ago and the difference was discernable.
The drum work in Metallica's Enter Sandman would not have the same effect without compression, but there is I suggest an acceptable and competent use and then there are the so called engineers who compress the crap out of a recording so you end up listening to a wall of sound.
The recording is important. Whether one believes it is the most important aspect doesn't really matter. It's important enough to warrant some discussion and maybe some kind of grading if it can be achieved.
Compressors, microphone types and placements all have their part in the reording process but the knowledge and experience in their use has nothing to do with art.