I have a theory that there are six kinds of pianists, based on three core factors: whether their playing focuses on themselves, the music, or the instrument. So, we have . . .
Hams: Full of technical display. Seek to strike the audience with a sort of friendly awe, as if to say, “Isn’t it great that I can wow you with fingers and fireworks?” Horowitz. Lang Lang.
Eccentrics: Interesting, unique, and convincing interpreters. Provoke the audience to think, “So, that’s how that piece goes–never thought of it that way!” Glenn Gould. Andre Watts.
Knights: Seekers of THE GOLDEN TONE, with a chivalrous, courtly attitude. Obcessed with presenting the piano in its best light with idiomatic literature. Rubinstein. Dame Myra Hess.
Nice so far, then we encounter these pianists:
Protagonists: Hams gone too far. Thorns of life and inner demons. May produce genuine catharsis, when not indulging in silly histrionics. Sviatoslav Richter at his worst. Serkin sometimes.
Prophets: Eccentrics gone off the deep end. Specialize in channeling a dead composer’s CURRENT thoughts about a piece (often on harpsichord or fortepiano). Wanda Landowska. Rosalyn Tureck.
Professionals: Modern knights. They want to be perfect and use the instrument to please everybody. The “not too” pianists: not too fast, not too slow, not too obscure, not too familiar, not too pretty, not too percussive, not too interesting. Ralph Votapek. Emanuel Ax at his worst.
I don’t mean to be harsh about the last three, dismissive of Hams, or awestruck about Eccentrics and Knights. Horowitz could be profound, Landowska right, Hess boring, Serkin courtly, Gould silly, etc.; but, these are useful generalizations.
So, the next time you hear a piano competition, try to identify these six types of pianists–one each usually shows up among the finalists. Heck, with some modification, this might even work for American Idol. Personally, I’m partial to a sort of hybrid eccentric-knight, which of course, might just be another way of saying Pirate!