Nick wrote:

>A suggestion is this (and it goes beyond agreement with the use
>of particular categories or the inclusion of this or that conductor
>under them): when some people express, say, an aversion to this or that
>conductor, aren't they often betraying their taste for this or that style
>of music making? In any case, what characterizations would you regard as
>most illuminating? (I'll confess I'm not very happy with my own.) Which
>conductors are you inclined to group together as naturally akin?

That's a good point.  I recently read an article of a Brazilian musical
critics about the differences between Paderewski and Horowitz and their
Chopin interpretations.  At the end he concludes - obviously, to me - that
Horowitz is a great pianist, but not a great 'interpret' - what surprised
me, but, in fact, thinking about it and extending the analysis to other
musicians, I could see what he meant:  Horowitz plays Horowitz, not
Beethoven, Chopin or Mozart (But I think his Scarlatti is pure Scarlati).
Heifetz is the same, and among the modern ones, I thing Argerich and
Kissing are in the same team:  They play the way they want, and the way
they think is more 'beautiful'.  In the other hand, Scnhabel, Haebler,
Brendel, Gould play the score, and go deep in it to discover it's own
seecrets and bring their revelations.

But no problem; I prefer both kinds.

Renato Vinicius