" keep the initial signal as near to real as you can (whether 'real' means sans effects or dry to you is your choice.)  but work on getting 'that' performance that you need and don't be satisfied with less (there's usually no point in even listening back if you 'think' you may have fluffed it because recording is unforgiving. In my experience 99% of the time even if you vaguely 'think' you fluffed it YOU DID!  Just retake.).  You may be able to make something mediocre acceptable after the event but if you end up capturing real magic you'll be hard pushed to mess it up after the event.  And whatever happens you'll always be in possession of that pure unadulterated take."

That seems like a good way to think about it.

So "sans" doesn't equal Smoking Analog NuggetS anymore?

This digital stuff is hard to keep up with.

And, if you are talking about saving money, are you going to keep all those musicians around for days, or just have them track 20 variations in an hour then send them on their way and go back and shuffle it into something after the fact?

It's almost like that but not quite.  I've been called in many a time to lay down tracks for a band when it looks like the bands actual player is looking likely to take a week to track what I'd do in a morning, and of course I'd be playing the actual tunes not just likely parts of them in order to cut and paste.  Also on most of the material by most of those you mention there are more commonly session players on there buried within the production than not.  And for the Alan Parsons example, sure many players work from home now but they still need to be able to do the required job in order to get that work.

Being as I'm in a place now where I have to fake it I can tell you it was a darned sight quicker and easier to sit down and play it rather than fake it even with all the trickery available at my disposal.  Not only that the result of playing it still almost always yields a better end product, even when the result is used as a mere guide for drum replacement.  The fact that I'm engaging in this conversation here rather than still working surely bears that out.

Sure the 'Star' will likely mostly derive a final cut from many takes in order to end up with the highly polished product, nothing new there, but you'll find many of these people can cut it live too, even if it takes several months of drilling them to get them to that stage.

But I still maintain the 'better' the performance that goes into the production machine the more likely it is to yield the required result.  And sometimes it's just the simple equation of the personnel involved that makes the result amount to more than the individual parts.

Talent and skill will always fetch a premium, even if that talent is being able to operate the equipment to the best effect.

The working axiom still remains, garbage in, garbage out.