Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!oscar
From: oscar@utcsrgv.UUCP (Oscar M. Nierstrasz)
Newsgroups: net.music.classical
Subject: Technical expertise vs. (?) interpretive skills
Message-ID: <4129@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-May-84 13:12:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.4129
Posted: Wed May  2 13:12:40 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 2-May-84 14:25:56 EDT
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 26

Okay, since the musicians are coming out of the woodwork, I'd like
to pop this question.  In recent years it appears that playing
standards have increased, whether articificially or not (see Greg
Paley's recent comments).  Some musicians have been criticized for
playing note-perfect but without adding any life to the music.
One musician that has been accused of this is the pianist Maurizio
Pollini.  Now, I happen to find his playing not only `precise'
(i.e. he makes no noticeable mistakes and he doesn't muck around
with what's on the page) but also very moving.  It seems to me that
if a pianist isn't `eccentric', grunts like a pig or `improves'
what's on the page then he's merely pedestrian (alright, I exaggerate).

The point is that I believe it *is* possible to be faithful to a composer
and still add something unique -- I think that Pollini accomplishes this.
My question is, what do other pianists think of him -- or of others
compared with him?  (I should add that I *don't* think he is God,
and I have difficulty imagining him playing Rachmaninoff or Tchaikovsky.)

A parenthetical remark: it seems, in my limited experience with musicians,
that they are not so interested in `canned' music, and they seldom
listen to records with anywhere near the enthusiasm of non-musicians.
Probably because the experience of performing live totally overshadows
that of merely listening to someone else's `non-live' (dead?) performance.
Contradict me, please.

					Oscar Nierstrasz