Olivier Solanet:

>To me, if one has a predilection for a particular piece of music - as I
>presume we all do - wouldn't the superlative interpretations be the only
>ones sought?

I share your bafflement about this predilection for so *very* many
recordings of one work, but in another sense I don't empathize with your
puzzlement.  It only makes sense that the superlative version will emerge
on the heels of the positive, and then the comparatively better.  Followed,
of course, by checking against a more recent, still-unheard version, and
then another one that one saw well-reviewed...

>...ask the same question: Why would anyone want so many different
>interpretations of any singular work?

Presumably to listen to them: Once (Hugett) and again (Maksymiuk),
and over (Pinnock) and over (von Karajan) and over again (Pickett). 
And then, just once more (Hogwood).  Pinnock's may be _my_ superlative
Brandenburgs, but who knows about a version I have yet to hear?  I admit
that I remain curious enough to still want to.

Although I also find those massive numbers of recordings of a single
work baffling, it's not on logical grounds, but simply because there's
so much other music to be heard -- in various genres, as you said -- and
we each have only so much time to hear our share.  Right now Eric Dolphy's
'Out There' has got me in its sway, so updating my current take on the
superlative Brandenburg set takes a back seat.

Bert Bailey

             ***********************************************
The CLASSICAL mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R)
list management software together with L-Soft's HDMail High Deliverability
Mailer for reliable, lightning fast mail delivery.  For more information,
go to:  http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html