Oh dear, yes, it is an age-old debate, isn't it?
Please forgive me for popping in and being a dissenting voice as usual
But first, as to the performance, my two cents (please take it for what it's worth) are that it's perfectly acceptable for the site. I'd have to side with Heather that 22 seems a gross exaggeration to my ears, but maybe I just don't care about such trivialities until they become a major issue.
While nothing mistakewise bothers me here, I do think it could be a bit more polished in other ways. I admire, and fully agree about, your energy in the outer "rasch" sections, but the tempo sags and struggles a bit in the subsequent sixteenths, which are sometimes uneven (it's very difficult to keep this going, I know). You might also work on your balance more, which is a bit opaque overall. Balance IMO is one of the most difficult aspects of Schumann and his rather lush polyphonic textures. Also, I'd work more on the pedalling, which is blurring some of the harmonies too much in places, potentially contributing to some of the muddled passages Chris mentioned. One detail that stuck out to me is the ending, which seemed abrupt -- whatever way you do it, I'd pull in and park more and give it a greater sense of finality.
The fruits of a very strong and interesting conception are here, though. IMHO, it just needs to gel more so that the fire you introduce at the beginning can be sustained throughout.
Now, as for some of the other views expressed:
Of course, all other things being equal, more right tones = better.
Well, that would be true . . . if this were mathematics. But it's not -- only qualitative judgments matter in music. From performance to performance, all other things never
I certainly agree, it is not perfect
Not that I haven't sometimes been guilty of doing so myself, but I often wonder why people throw around this word so much. Of course it isn't perfect. It never will be, whether she hit every right note or not.
It seems to me that a clean performance is not necessarily boring. And that an engaging performance does not necessarily have to have a lot of clonkers (which is stating the bleeding obvious, as both statements are logically equivalent).
Yes, it's obvious; it's practically a truism. However, what doesn't seem so obvious to so many pianists these days is that risk taking tends
to lead to more exciting performances and worrying about accuracy tends to lead to cautious performances and detract from spontaneity and music making. Personally, I wholeheartedly agree with Heather's view on this matter and admire her willingness to take risks to deliver the performance she wants.
Personally I find that mistakes will grate on repeated hearing.
I think the problem with this viewpoint, one I've very often heard expressed about the need for note perfection in "professional" recordings, is that most people don't listen to recordings, even one they like, over and over in one sitting. Actually, they tend to treat it more like a live performance but one they have the opportunity to relive. They'll let the experience percolate in their memory without obsessing over details, and come back to it, say, a week later with a fresh perspective ready to hear new things. The thing is, any
detail one doesn't like tends to grate on "repeated" hearing -- the phrases or touches one might think one could do better, for instance -- not just mistakes. But that doesn't mean one overall isn't interested in or doesn't love a performance.
Of course there is a limit where misses become distracting. This limit depends a bit on circumstances. For a recording by Kissin my threshold would be low. For a live performance by a pro, higher but still quite low. Coming here I have a much higher tolerance. If I want perfection I go somewhere else. Here I can find interesting ideas and expressions and music I wouldn't come across otherwise.
Why should this matter? Is it because you feel you've wasted your money if Kissin plays a few wrong notes? Don't you feel more robbed if you pay and then you're bored by an uninspired performance, regardless of whether you consider the playing amateur or professional? There really isn't such a fine line between amateur and professional playing anyway. I've heard professional playing (only meaning they get paid for it) that was mediocre and amateur playing that was superb, even on the note-accuracy level. Kissin's playing, incidentally, I find one great big turd of a mistake -- crude, brittle, unmusical in the fast passages -- playing over every detail so that he can grab every note, all at the same time straining his slow phrases with maple-syrup emoting. I wouldn't walk across the street to hear him. Would much rather listen to Heather's playing even as it is now (but would encourage her to listen a bit more carefully and iron out some of the as-yet unrefined details).