Brendel is talking about his young pupil as an “extraordinary talent”. He will be his mentor as long as the young man will be able to express his artistic personality and his passion in piano playing.
A quite interesting TV-documentation, yet not extended enough to discover talent and capabilities of this young pianist, which I could nevertheless recognize. Kit Armstrong’s approach to music is unprejudiced, he is open-minded for new things, his analytic thinking and artistic creativity are can be found in his already clearly expressed compositions. Maybe a new “Glenn Gould”-similar personality is arising? Yes, but his mentor should not be Alfred Brendel.

Brendel’s teaching style reminds me of a typical Viennese piano lesson, hedging around interpretation of Schubert, encouraging to use more pedal for the upper voice without giving exact advice on pedalizing technique, glorification of the beautiful, rounded piano sound, as this topic would be the ultimate truth about piano playing. Why not explaining in details how a really beautiful and cultivated piano sound can be produced?

Dear Mr. Brendel, sound esthetic originates from a profound knowledge of polyphonic playing ( !!! ).
You are mentioning polyphony when teaching your pupil, but any of Your performed works in a polyphonic way is totally outside of my knowledge.
Why?

There is one question without answer:
What is “Viennese piano tradition”? What is “Viennese piano school”?

After 6 years I spent at the Wiener Musikhochschule for further musical education, at that time, I deeply regret about Viennese piano teachers as Paul Badura-Skoda, Hans Petermandl, and, last but not least, Alfred Brendel. They used a teaching method consisting in “cloning” their students.
Not even a single one has any idea about polyphony or polyphonic piano playing, let alone knowledge about the right piano technique. Last was always considered as a tabu, like topics about sex or money…
No dedication into depth, no exploring the truth in music, only a superficial imposing of a pseudo Viennese style has been done. In other words: didactic razzle-dazzle.

“Moaning” on the piano, this is the impression I immediately get when Viennese pianists play Schubert.
Or the typical textual fidelity on Beethoven-Sonatas: “Everything is written in the score, nothing more is required…”
Perhaps we will find out what real Viennese Piano tradition has once represented. But we should get back to Leschetitzky, Paderewski, Schnabel, Moiseiwitsch, Friedman…
And this is another story.

Schumann’s art of composing was focused on the strong character of German cultural influence “Sturm und Drang”, perpetuating Beethoven’s message of a universal impact of music. Due to his early education, Schumann further developed a more personal style between literary ideas and musical representation. This can be heard in his pieces Papillons Op.2 and mostly in the Carnaval Op.9.
Pianists have generally a problem by interpreting Schumann, especially when they have to follow the indications of Tempi in his piano works. Schumann also characterized his state of mind by regularly changing the speed related to the different thematic expositions. In fact this was the way how the composer perfectly reflected his tormented soul. The pianist should be able to immerge in Schumann’s divided psyche, otherwise the execution of his works will remain nothing but a distorted interpretation which is dispraising the author’s intention.

Chopin was the eternal romantic poet of the black and white keys.
His entire inner being was dedicated to his instrument, the piano. His style is particularly known for the rubato (Italian stolen time ), a special feeling by playing musical phrases in the balance between speeding up and slowing down the tempo.
Chopin’s nature was introverted. Like Schumann he also perfectly reflected this character into his music, creating a very personal and unique art of musical painting.
Chopin was definitely inspired by Bach and Mozart. Bach delivered him the understanding of polyphony and motivic thorough-composition, instead Mozart offered him the simplicity and clarity of a melodic line. Nevertheless Chopin was able to be idiosyncratic enough to personalize his compositions.

Many pianists will get their hands full next year with these two masters.
A question still remains: who will be finally able to pay the most respectful interpretative tribute to Schumann and Chopin?
We will listen full of expectation…