And if the recording sounds too "dry", use reverb or do it in a church.
I've heard some recordings with quite a few microphones sound pretty good. DG didn't know how to do it in the 1980s or whenever that was.
It wasn't just a DGG thing. Bad recordings, I mean. Someone had to make the decisions, and we must remember how in the 'early' days of stereo a lot of people wanted a stereo demonstration to show off their hi-fi. If they bought Igor and David Oistrach, they wanted to hear Igor and David, even if their violins were louder than the Wiener Symphony that was behind them. Something to show for their extra dollar, which was what a stereo record cost.
Few people really thought of 'natural' sound, at least in the context of living room imaging and accurate placement of instruments in their records. Why? Because a lot of music lovers placed loudspeakers wherever they were unobtrusive--their idea was simply to fill the room with sound. Think back. If you don't remember people with hi-fi systems in the '60s (maybe you were too young), then look at photos of subscriber systems from old
Audio magazines.
Audio typically featured reader's systems. Typically, loudspeakers were not set up with pinpoint imaging in mind, but rather hidden/placed in locations no one would think about doing, today.
In important ways, early and mid classical recordings were not that different than pop recordings. Consider the EMI Ring--the first released stereo recording of that work. It was a major event, but really was an event in artificiality. Multiple short takes, with the best of the bunch subsequently spliced together to form each extended act. Rheingold anvils? Reports tell how real anvils (that were difficult to record because transients would overload the tape head) were used, because of a desire for 'authenticity'. How authentic were they in the final mix? Sadly, the contrast between anvils and orchestra is not a happy one. While orchestral parts and singing highlight the venue's acoustical properties (echo/reverb), the anvils were placed in the center of the mix, scrunched up, monophonic, and really out of place, not keeping with the sonics of the rest of the recording. They could have used a little 'artificial' reverb within the context of this highly artificial recording.
My recollection, FWIW, was how audiophiles were less concerned over how it was recorded, than the poor quality of the physical product you bought in stores. In the US you paid about a dollar more for DGG imports, in addition to a dollar more for stereo over mono, but the quality of their vinyl was no better than what you'd get from domestic RCA or CBS. That concern, and not how many microphones were used, was the biggest concern to consumers.
Finally, I have to wonder how much the recording industry was influenced by manufacturers of pro gear. Did microphone and console 'reps' push their gear to record execs in questionable ways? Was it simply the appeal of 'flash and bling'? From a human nature standpoint, who wouldn't want to work in a fancy million dollar studio, with all the latest multichannel gear at your finger tips?
In any case, once 'audiophile' oriented classical recordings (featuring better miking techniques and quality vinyl) made the scene, consumers had a choice: 1) top tier artists, but poor quality recordings that you might not want to listen to for very long; or 2) high quality recordings, but average artists that you might not want to listen to for very long.