Ulvi wrote:

>Isn't Ashkenazy (on Decca) digital? It certainly has better sound than
>Pollini, and I like it interpretation-wise as well. But I'm sure the
>Chopin specialists on the lists will bombard you with more exotic choices.

Do you really think ashkenazy has better sound than Pollini?.  Well i
supose you are speaking about sound quality.  Anyway even if is not true
what i am saying,i think sound quality is not the only atribute to take
in consideration for a decision like that.  As an example Arrau's sound
quality was superb, but if you listen his "Chopin's Waltzer" recording at
1,980 they are just a disaster.  On the other hand i want to make clear i
like a lot Ashkenazy playing,but i think Chopin is exactly his weakest
side.  Regards.

Gerardo:.