Interpretation

Good question.  I will stream to listen to new interpretations of music.  If I like the new version and the sound quality is good enough to listen to repeatedly I will save it to my favorites or buy depending on what’s available.  So interpretation first but there has to be at least acceptable sound quality to listen to a performance more than once.  

As a devotee of historical recordings, it probably goes without saying that sound quality isn't always the main factor in my choices. ;-)  Taking Mozart as an example, there's a rather crusty 1955 broadcast of Walter Gieseking and Guido Cantelli performing piano concerto #21 that is, IMO, the single best performance of a Mozart concerto I've ever heard.  Cantelli conducts the New York Philharmonic with tremendous gusto and Gieseking, who could play quite indifferently in his last years, delivers a sparkling performance that is simply irresistible.  Similarly, there's another broadcast from the same period of PC #22 with Edwin Fischer and the Danish Chamber Orchestra that is just sublime.  For Bach, I return often to Georges Enescu's recordings of the Bach Sonatas and Partitas.  Some listeners can't get past his deteriorating technique and the deplorable recording, but I find them achingly beautiful.  And of course there are a myriad number of great historical performances in less than modern sound that classical music lovers treasure.

OTOH, there's no shortage of beautifully recorded, exciting new artists.  (A friend of mine keeps saying "They're coming out of the woodwork!")  And current remastering techniques have added new lustre to classic recordings from the 60's and 70's.  I was recently struck by Peter Serkin's excellent Chopin disc from 1979--I had no idea.  

I think if recording quality is one's sole criterion, one is missing out on a lot of superb music.  A real music lover isn't going to be deterred in this way.  But it's certainly nice when the two circumstances come together.  And I think bassbuyer makes a good point about sound quality being helpful when you want to explore music that is new to you.

I disagree with Gemini on some of their recommendations.  They cull reviews from a variety of sources, some of which are antiquated.  For example, Ashkenazy and Perahia recordings were sonically excellent for their time, but have since been super-ceded. Also, on my set Uchida’s first set of the concertos is exemplary in SQ.

I will be focusing primarily on sound quality, with accurate instrumental localization, pinpoint imaging, and an immersive soundstage—arguably even surpassing the actual performance experience.

Interpretation is also important, but it is a secondary priority for me. I will likely pick up two to three versions in my playlist for comparison.

I discovered  Beethoven piano concerto with him and i dont mind the sound i hear the soul...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAfCW2-3NxA

Nothing beat Furtwangler direction  very often...

In the history of  remote viewing a soul with music Furtwangler reading of the 4th of Schumann is unsurpassed, i pity those who listen "sound" not music : 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t5I7PYh_EU&list=RD9t5I7PYh_EU&start_radio=1

 Probably one of the greatest interpretation of music i know.... Who care about the sound which remastered anyway is "good" ...

 Audiophilia  hiding  musical genius is an impediment ....

It is like marrying a beautifully artificially enhanced woman body ....

 Anyway i dont hear  "sound"  after my system optimization was completed, i hear music ...All recordings appear as they are some better some worst, but music like a spiritual woman is beautiful in spite of being dressed in rags ....

Who cares about the "sound" here need a new heart not a new system : 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cv_wV7H-JU&list=RD4cv_wV7H-JU&start_radio=1