Steven Schwartz wrote:

>I'd be more comfortable listing 10 greatest recordings of the 19th
>century - not as wide a field to cover.

I think that the title of the voting - The Ten Greatest Classical Recordings
of the 20th Century - is not very appropriate, but the recording techniques
and the industry of CM records developed mainly in this century. Is there
any recording of CM made in the 19th century?

Lavrenti Vachnadze:

>Even if a recording of a somewhat adventurous nature qualifies,  it is
>very hard to rally enough votes to get it to the board (...) You will be
>amazed how many Bartok discs there out there, for example. Then >you do
rush out to get the "top ten list" or the Fischer/Ct for >Orch/Philips?

Lists are always a subjective matter, of course.  But when recordings
are chosen by a panel of renowned critics and published by a magazine
like Gramophone or Classic CD, I think it is worth considering what they
suggest.  So, when I was trying to add to my collection a recording of
Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra and Music for Strings, Purcussion and
Celesta, my choose was guided by the critics, and now I have in my record
library the wonderful Fritz Reiner's recording of these pieces (with the
Chigaco Symphony Orchestra, RCA) - by the way, I was tempted to include
this recording in my choice of the Ten Greatest...  To clarify this matter,
look at what Gramophone's editor, James Jolly, says:  "Greateness is a term
too lightly bandied around, so some very strict critical criteria need
aplying.  Among the many meanings of the word 'great', the Oxford English
Dictionary lists 'Of more than ordinary importance; weighty; distinguished,
pre-eminent; famous'.  The recordings we select must be 'pre-eminent', they
must tell us something about the work as well as something about the
performers.  They must have changed history and will probably even have
changed people's lives; in short they must have achieved classical status."

Is the voting process easier now?

Wilson Pereira.