John Fiset replies to my question about what "intellectual" means when
the word is used to describe a musician:

>Think of the way Alfred Brendel and Arhur Rubinstein might approach
>playing, say a Mozart or Beethoven piano sonata or a Beethoven piano
>concerto.  What do you notice as the differences of interpretation?

Well, I've noticed listening to his Schubert and Schumann trios that
Rubinstein's approach to these pieces (and that of his partners too) is
lively, emotional, almost raucous.  As Rubinstein, at least according
to Harris Goldsmith, is "not an intellectual," I wonder if it is precisely
this exuberance which keeps him, in Goldsmith's estimation, from being
one.  Is "intellectual" in this context code for cool, calm, measured,
something like that?

I suppose a grasp of the overall architecture of the pieces a musician
plays might come into a definition of musicianly intellectualism, but
it seems to me that if a musician fails to grasp the forms of the
compositions he or she is interpreting this would not mean that he
or she is a non-intellectual musician.  It would mean he or she is a
bad musician.  (Goldsmith allows that, although Rubinstein is not an
intellectual, he does grasp the architecture of the pieces he plays.)

I'll not sure if I can muster out of my collection Rubinstein and Brendel
playing the same pieces, but I'll see what I can do.

Thanks for responding.

David Cozy
[log in to unmask]