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:.