I want to be pointed towards these "definitive sources", and apparently the ENTIRE WORLD thinks Hamelin is inferior to Perahia (a total judgement call, and of course it's absolute bullshit; like there are a bunch of musicologists sitting around going "Who is better, pianist X or pianist Y?" and they go, "Let's refer to Marc-Andre Hamelin and Murray Perahia, because that's what all the other musicologists are talking about) so since it's EVERYONE, it shouldn't be hard to show us some sources. Unless it's a ridiculous lie. Which it is. So spare us. By the way franz, still waiting on at least a single one of the many "dissertations" and "essays" you have written on only the most complex and esoteric aspects of music at the behest of none-other than only the most regarded and esteemed minds in music today. Perhaps these great minds, which it has been made abundantly clear do not exist, are the same people you're writing for? Perhaps you should seek psychological evaluation. I have seen Hamelin and Perahia live; Hamelin is exciting, Perahia is like going to a lecture on "how quiet and slow can I play some Chopin piece you've already heard 60000 times?". Playing quiet and slow and like a MIDI file does not make you some unique interpreter with this other-worldly understanding of music; it makes you quiet and slow and boring. Sure, Hamelin's interpretations don't always have the utter-most tact, but at least they're entertaining and fun, which I think is what a concert should be. No need to be some stuffy old snob about music; if that's what you like about music, quit trying to play the piano and go read some Stockhausen essays or something, because that's not what pianism is, or has ever been, about.
Topic: Hamelin!!!