Playing It Again in the Helfgott Debate

Both Lawrence Teeter and David N. Sadowitz (Counterpunch, March 31) overlook the fact that many classical music lovers (and consumers) are sticklers about having the music performed as written. They groan when other concert-goers hum along or tap their feet to their favorite themes. And it was precisely for them that Times music critic Mark Swed wrote his thoughtful warning.

Teeter is naive when he asks that music critics judge [David] Helfgott “simply on the merits of his art,” for if they did they would surely rip the pianist to shreds. It is precisely because Helfgott should be treated as a rather quirky performance artist, as an event, that usual critical analysis becomes superfluous. Even Vladimir Horowitz hit his share of wrong notes and inflamed critical disdain, yet aroused packs of rabid followers who were less concerned with pianistic perfection than with their emotions.

Diane Haithman’s fine March 27 piece on Helfgott was refreshingly realistic, recognizing that large and appreciative crowds are drawn to his concerts more by their emotional connection to his triumph over adversity than by any expectation of pianistic purity. Let’s face it: Helfgott is a phenomenon who transcends the usual constraints of classical music and criticism.

RON HARDCASTLE

Los Angeles