Noticing that von Bülow was described by Dannreuther as a "passionately intellectual" pianist we fell to wondering about the relationship between skill and intellect in musicians. Perhaps there is none, in which case performers may be categorised into four classes as follows:

Class 1) executants who are skilful but stupid
Class 2) executants who are unskilful but intellectually gifted
Class 3) executants who are both unskilful and stupid
Class 4) executants who (like von Bülow by all accounts) are both skilful and intellectual.

Probably most members will agree that a certain degree of skill is necessary if one is persuasively to perform, but what about the intellect? Do executants need to have any at all? Can members cite any examples of first-rate skilful and successful performers who have at the same time been extremely stupid?

Trouble is, Sydney, that a single performer may fall into more than one category, depending upon the music that he/she attempts to play. For instance, one well-known pianist of my acquaintance can undoubtedly learn a huge number of notes very quickly and could be said to excel in certain genres, but one would not want to hear him/her play (say) a Chopin Nocturne . . .

I think it possibly depends on what you mean by stupid here Syd, do you mean stupid in general life? stupid in music? or just no good at , shall we say, Mathematics?

There are many examples of autistic or other people who can't in some instances cope with the world in general but who are very talented performers.

I do think the '2% of talent that is added to the skill technically of a performer is what makes the difference between a good player and a brilliant one.

Suzuki instrumentalists are an example here.. in my opinion, they learn to play by rote and the 'feelings' take a long time to come ( and yes I have seen many examples of this)

As to naming some performers - I don't know enough soloists to be able to quote , but I do know for example that Jennifer Pike ( very talented and emotional ) is highly intelligent.

A

The above classifications we believe only arise if one accepts the view, posited above only as a negative possibility, that connectivity between "skill" and "intellect" does not exist. For those of us who believe that it does they are irrelevant.

Meaningful musical discourse, like that of poetry or prose, is impossible we believe unless (in whatever terms it is judged) it stems from an intellect. Few (if any) of us could credibly claim that we have not, at some time, been adjudged by others as "stupid" in one way or another. (We may often have felt that such admonishments tell us more about the accusers than about ourselves, but some of us reeling under such accusations have often been reduced to feeling that it is WE who are completely sane while EVERYONE ELSE around us is completely stupid - and no doubt that situation might supply more-than-adequate material for a Conference of Psychology.)

It is our view that anybody capable of conveying a musical performance that is fluent, meaningful and convincing can be doing so only as a consequence of intellectual capability. (And we may, for example, even include such entities as Nigel Kennedy - the "punk lookalike" and sartorial renegade - to support this view. Even though he has rejected all accepted musico-social stereotypes, and could not be less interested in anything remotely "musicological" that might inform his music-making, he still manages somehow, seemingly in vacuo, to string all those notes together in some kind of meaningful way).

So we do not feel that the need to analyse the above categories exists.

Baz

This remarkable essay in psychology should not be dismissed lightly - Mr Philidor we think strikes a clear note! Our only cause for concern is his view of the "HIP" movement of the 1980s. Having myself (in a self-effacing way) been part of that movement, I must honestly say that my undertakings were entirely the result of open-mindedness. And, by golly, they had to be! A statement was being uttered that challenged "accepted wisdom" (going back over half a century) and provided something of (as we thought) a "spring clean" to works of the standard repertory. It was our view that in performing, say, Baroque music upon (as we thought) "authentic" instruments with (as we also imagined) "correct" forces, we were offering something similar to an art gallery that might have taken an 18th-century oil painting - looking very dingy after centuries of dust, tobacco stains and other atmospheric intrusions - and cleaned away all the dirt and grime to reveal again - in all its true glory - the original colours and textures as created by the original artist.

But one thing we never ever thought was that our efforts were in any way a matter of "class". The idea (then both unknown and unthinkable) that this might somehow be allied with "UKIP" ideals is as irrelevant to that initiative as it is unthinkable to those of us who strove to offer what we did.

Baz

Right - so we now realise how wrong we were to take (in all good faith) Mr Philidor's words so seriously. We therefore retract our comments in the realisation that he was - after all - writing in a manner designed really to fit more readily at TOP alongside the many other comments about HIP and Norrington (et al). We are sorry we misunderstood.

Mr Sheen, we think, is in any case a very poor medium for the restoration of old masters.

Baz

I think you only half misunderstood and that's because I wasn't clear. When I said I saw bigotry etc 'in the HIP movement in the 1980s' I meant I saw it as a (albeit minor) member of that movement in the reactions of traditionalists. For example, I remember vividly a soprano matron, a stalwart of provincial music making in a South of England Cathedral city, puff her bosom up with fury at the sound of Emma Kirkby's voice.

"Who is that ghastly little woman?" she asked, Lady Bracknellish, on hearing the Nelson, Kirkby, Thomas, Hogwood etc Messiah: "She's betraying the bel canto tradition with her little mousy voice!"

I don't apologise for my Mr Sheen joke. There's nothing wrong with giving a TOP buffton a good polish. Besides, they secretly enjoy the attention and it gives them something (more) to complain about.