I was listening to Joanna MacGregor this afternoon. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/lunchtimeconcerts/pip/noh6f/
She usually has different programmes than majority of pianists we have here. We usually have winners of competitions, the last was Romain Descharme (France) winner of ANA Dublin competition. People tell me he was boring and Brahms Sonata no. 3 was very long to listen to. He played Rzewski Winnsboro cotton mill blues, and people thought it was fun piece (especially after Brahms). He played Ravel Sonatine and Gaspard de la nuit as well on the programme.

I was brought up on Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Romantics (heavy doses of profound and serious compositions). I can not say that Piazzolla stikes me as intellectually profound composer. I enjoyed the concert very much (although it did not feature my beloved Bach). Young people take to her kind of programmes very well. I wonder if the times have changed and it is better to play this kinds of programmes than what typical winners of competitions play and what leaves majority of the audience bored and uninspired.

Hear hear!

There are some who'd say she plays some of that (admittedly eclectic) repertoire rather badly, in particular the Ligeti 'Autumn in Warsaw' which sounds, ahem, rather as if the autumn rain had smudged her eyeshadow.

The phrase 'Jack of all trades' comes to mind, though JMacG's certainly done some groundbreaking things in her time. It's just that having made the bold repertoire decisions she often seems to be on autopilot when it actually comes to the playing.

The solo piano repertoire is so vast and varied that exploring its outer limits is good,but I would always recommend mixing the familiar and the unfamiliar.An entire programme of Ornstein, Forster, Clementi,Barber and  Foss would be indigestible.

My criticism of J McG isthat she is  glib,smart, and too 'pat' as she polishes off one piece after another as if to say 'aren't I a good girl'?. I've not heard her in the intellectually-heavy repertoire and I feel that would really show her up (e.g.t he Schumann Fantasia). 

She's an unforgivable bandwagon-jumper. There are other pianists who could play the same repertoire much better (Andrew Ball is an obvious example). She is remarkably nimble-fingered but utterly lacking in colour and rhythmically defective - listen to her playing Bach for Chrissake !

Her activities are not altogether self-seeking. She does publicize deserving repertoire - but just doesn't play it very well in my opinion. And she's worked hard on behalf of COMA (Contemporary Music-making for Amateurs) for which she deserves hearty congratulations.

Yes, I think I'd agree with every word of that, Autoharp. As jumpers go, though, there are bandwagons and bandwagons - I mean she's no Katherine Jenkins is she?

 

Looked at any Cézannes recently, smittims?

t-p, smittims thinks the artist Lowry can't 'draw perspective'.  Judge for yourself...

Thank you so much martle and time_is_now for answering. This is a new name for me. He obviously lived during industrial revolution time (end of 19th century). He does use perspective, I think, though perhaps in a different way. His paintings remind me of Dutch painters of earlier time.
In music it is good to find shape of the piece and perspective of development. Rachmaninoff is known to have a specific point in each piece of music to which he built the whole piece.
By association with painting I started to think that it is perhaps too much. May be if some people are like Cezanne they can play differently and have a different perspective (not everything goes into one particular spot.

If I return to MacGregor playing I can say that some musicians are better with smaller forms. May be she is one of them. She is clever because she is playing into her strength on records (nor live performance, because I don't think she should play Beethoven sonatas or some heave intellectual things because they don't suit her).