No, that's not naive. In fact the London computer whizzes who presented their analytical charts comparing tempo, dynamics, and regularity of notes in a few hundred recordings of Chopin mazurkas found that, for instance, three recordings of one mazurka by Arthur Rubinstein over the years differ more from each other than from some other recordings by different pianists. (The punchline that followed this was that when a recording by Joyce Hatto comes up as virtually identical to that by somebody else, it's not coincidence; and indeed that is how Hatto's recordings were proved to be plagiarized.)
There is, however, a family resemblance in all Rubinstein's playing, and you can also detect similarities between teachers and their pupils. The types of differences that the letter-writer was citing are not night-by-night variants, but fundamental differences in interpretive style. You don't expect someone to play like Jascha Heifetz one night and like Fritz Kreisler the next, not if he's being serious, not if he's making a recording.
Or do you? It was suggested at the symposium that the very act of going in and making a recording, *For Posterity* - and recording in those days was A Big Deal, not the casual act it is today - is what led to the rise of the more formal, literal playing style of later times in the first place. Piano rolls didn't have the heavy significance that sound recordings did in the 1910s and early 20s, largely because piano rolls at the time were easier to make. (It was also suggested that sound recording made performers anxious because short pieces had to be cut and/or speeded up to fit into the 4.5 minute maximum playing time of a side.)
So you can see these are deep waters. The letter-writer's mistake wasn't raising the question, but assuming that my short article had provided all the available answers.
no subject
There is, however, a family resemblance in all Rubinstein's playing, and you can also detect similarities between teachers and their pupils. The types of differences that the letter-writer was citing are not night-by-night variants, but fundamental differences in interpretive style. You don't expect someone to play like Jascha Heifetz one night and like Fritz Kreisler the next, not if he's being serious, not if he's making a recording.
Or do you? It was suggested at the symposium that the very act of going in and making a recording, *For Posterity* - and recording in those days was A Big Deal, not the casual act it is today - is what led to the rise of the more formal, literal playing style of later times in the first place. Piano rolls didn't have the heavy significance that sound recordings did in the 1910s and early 20s, largely because piano rolls at the time were easier to make. (It was also suggested that sound recording made performers anxious because short pieces had to be cut and/or speeded up to fit into the 4.5 minute maximum playing time of a side.)
So you can see these are deep waters. The letter-writer's mistake wasn't raising the question, but assuming that my short article had provided all the available answers.