In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Notes 58.2 (2001) 382-383



[Access article in PDF]

Book Review

Virtuosi: A Defense and a (Sometimes Erotic) Celebration of Great Pianists


Virtuosi: A Defense and a (Sometimes Erotic) Celebration of Great Pianists. By Mark Mitchell. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000. [x, 193 p. ISBN 0-253-33757-7. $24.95.]

This is a bizarrely heterogeneous book--partly an autobiography, partly a series of concert reviews, partly a random history of piano playing, and partly a homosexual tract. If that were not enough, it is also, according to the description on the dust jacket, "an investigation into the nature of genius," although I must admit that I fail to see quite how it fulfills that particular ambition. This is undoubtedly a puzzling volume to appear under the imprint of a university press, even if the coy phrase "sometimes erotic" had not been inserted smirkingly into the title. Mark Mitchell's approach is willfully subjective, and he would surely not claim the intention of academic rigor. One of his reasons for writing, again according to the dust jacket, is that "for centuries, the artistic merit of performers with superior technique has almost ipso facto been denied"; he argues, on the contrary, that "no musician can reach the summit of his art if he is restrained by materials, or unreceptive to pleasure, amplitude and dazzlement." On a basic level this is almost a truism--any performer needs at least enough technique to communicate his interpretative ideas--but it is certainly true that some outstanding virtuosos have been criticized for sacrificing a coherent overview of a piece on the altar of mechanical dexterity (none more so than Vladimir Horowitz, for example). Mitchell, however, inflates the importance of this issue, and tries partly to justify his book, by giving the impression that criticism of virtuosos is almost universal and that nearly every virtuoso is thus criticized. This is far from true. He also responds to subjective criticism of certain of his favored performers and performance styles with equally subjective belittling of pianists, such as Artur Schnabel and Alfred Brendel, whom he regards as being in an opposing camp.

All of this is written fluently and clearly, and the book is well crafted. Mitchell is obviously enthusiastic and knowledgeable about many aspects of the history of piano performance, coloring his pages with several obscure, but intriguing, pieces of information gleaned from his investigations. His [End Page 382] discussion of pianistic grotesques like Liberace and David Helfgott is particularly pointed and enjoyable. Yet ultimately we are left too many times asking, why should we care? Certain readers will be amused and stimulated by Mitchell's evident passion for his subject. Others, like myself, may wonder why it should matter to them that Mitchell was electrified by one pianist and not another. Moreover, why should I be interested in the author's autobiographical recollections, or his very personal memories of going to such-and-such a concert, or indeed his fervent belief that a certain type of virtuosity and homosexuality go hand in hand? Mitchell's prose style is lucid, but hardly of an artistic level to make his proustian reminiscences fascinating to anyone but friends and family. Moreover, the element of homosexual polemic and wish fulfillment further suggests a niche market. The tired subject of Franz Schubert's sexuality, for example, is brought in for a surprise guest appearance. Despite the topic's less-than-immediate connection with virtuosity, it is dragged sleepily out of its cell for another flogging. Although Mitchell admits that nothing can be proven, he objects to "the crude imposition of heterosexuality" (p. 114) on the composer, and he announces that "[w]hen irrefutable documentary evidence establishes a composer's (or interpreter's) homosexuality, one rejoices because, at the very least, such evidence takes the wind out of the bigot's sails" (ibid.). Does one indeed? So, is it completely unreasonable for commentators to assume that Schubert was heterosexual, until there is firm evidence to the contrary, merely because the vast majority of people are? In Mitchell's worldview, perhaps. A modicum of this...

pdf

Share