Don't worry about the highjacking.
But I want to comment on this:
This is why I enjoy presenting unknown fluff.
What you've presented, and also played well, is lesser known music of high merit. If there was some "fluff" there, it wasn't a significant amount. But that aside, it resonates with me. As you know I've presented a large amount of music composed by under-appreciated late romantic composers. It's often been an honor to do so--but a burden too in a way. But it always excites me to know that I've produced an interpretation that will join the company of a handful of pianists or less.
One thing that I've said before--adamantly--is that I have no interest whatsoever in playing the 2,476,351st rendition of Chopin's "Fantasie Impromptu" or any other conservatory anvil! There is positively nothing new that I could conceivably say about it in my interpretation. To me it would be an awful waste of time. As you know, I do like Rachmaninoff's music a lot. In the mid-1980s I recorded 10 of his preludes Opp. 23 and 32. I believe that some of them are quite good, while others are not so good. But they are in analog sound and I thought that it would be great to make new digital recordings. It would be an arduous undertaking, of course. But now I believe I should leave well enough alone there, and return to lesser known music. I might attempt another go at this F#m prelude, but let the rest go. I'm thinking that maybe I don't have the same inspiration, agility and determination that I had in my younger days needed to replay this music now. The Rachmaninoff preludes are actually less complex etudes than his Etudes Opp. 33 and 39. They're difficult to play well.
I'm reminded of Wilhelm Backhaus' remark and I paraphrase slightly: You need not make a bouquet of mighty oak trees when so many flowers abound.