I agree about the historical part, maybe because I'm a pianist. I far prefer Bach on piano to harpsichord and clavichord, and honestly, I think if he were alive today he'd also prefer modern piano. And I also play him with a wider range of emotions and more dramatic dynamics, because I think you can get more subtlety out of piano. And I *gasp* use a little pedal on the passages where Bach obviously wanted it somewhat smoother. Who's to say he wouldn't have done it himself if pedals had existed then? But the purists stare at me like I'm an idiot when I use it. Honestly, restricting interpretations to the historical way of playing is so confining. Not that there can't be room for creativity in it or that historical recordings aren't good... But it just seems so confining to criticize anyone for trying something new. Weren't most (ok, not Brahms) of the great composers original and daring in their times? I'm sure they'd appreciate the experimentation

I think almost anything can work so long as it's deliberate and well-informed. A musician who fully understands the subtleties of his/her instrument, historical periods and the music itself and then consciously plays something differently is fine. Let the snobs say what they want. But a mediocre pianist playing Bach with little understanding of the counterpoint, or even a skilled technical pianist playing Schubert like it's Rachmaninoff (which, God forbid, I never want to hear again)... This is pure bad taste. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but well-informed opinions are always better

And I think Horowitz's "legendary" recording of rach3 is awful. Yes, it's fast and technically impressive, but there's little subtedly and beauty. I like Ashkenazy's so much better