There are beautiful, complex, fascinating, and unique machines.
Playing like a primitive, clumsy, obsolete, or assembly line machine is a problem.
Full of masculine virility the enthusiastic young pianist dug up the corpse of a genius composer and violated it.
While we believe to be wildly innovative and imaginative, we seem to be destined to inevitably imitate and recombine pre-existing interpretation traditions. Why not make it more inclusive, add a few trump cards to the deck.
We are at a Halloween party with a strict 1960's (plus a few eccentrics) dress code - why not include 150 years of solid tradition? We are in a barren fish tank with a modern minnows (plus a few whales) filter - why not invite a few ancient Tritons?
There is an established but compromised academic interpretation tradition today: we play Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, and many others in a quasi-romantic 20th century tradition while trying to follow note and symbol Urtext editions. Why? We are in a castle with many ghosts and few spirits. If we are shackled in front of a cave wall, why not add a few shadow casters to behold? Short of trailblazing new interpretation approaches in the way of Gould, it should be, and actually is, our choice to interpret baroque, classical, and romantic music following a multitude of traditions.
"The last romantic pianist" ... died in the 20th century.
So what is left as we mostly play, hear, and promote romantic music and style?
Who are the 70 to 90 years old great pianists alive today ... "the last modern pianists?"
And who are we then and our pianistic children?
Not classical, nor romantic, nor modern pianists ... the next incarnation of our profession, promoted at institutions and by agencies, is going to be: "modern romantic pianist impersonator"
The corn field will be pleased.