His interpretation are not something always making unanimity...
We must be conscious of his mania in old age and limitations..
Then some of his playings will schok you at first, especially if you look for "tasteful" orthodox playings...
He let me discovered Liszt on whom i pass over young, listening Scriabin in ectasy , who i consider the greatest piano composer with Chopin...
But i was wrong...
Exactly as Scriabin is very difficult to interpret in the way intended , it is the same for Liszt... We know how Scriabin must be played because there is a Russian school tradition around his greatest disciple : Sofronitsky.. E.Ny. is the one who open my eyes to one of the greatest composer and not just a pianist... Liszt... ( Christus for example is a work of mastery that impacted greatly on Brucker soul)
If you for example are with reason an admirer of the beautidul playings of Arrau in the Olbermann Valley, one of the greatest work of Liszt, you MAY find the interpretation of E. Ny. in old age "disturbing" even "horrible" at first listening... I just answered to someone elsewhere , a pianist, claiming that this piece by E. Ny. is the worst piece ever played... I am not a pianist nor a musical specialist, but i listen with my heart... I listen music for the transformation i felt sometimes from it in my consciousness and experience of the world and soul...i dont just take it as a pleasurable leisure object of esthetic contemplation which must be played as all others pianists played it only "well"..
E. Ny. sometimes played overboard in a way bordering on madness, it is not madness, it is pure expression in a very intense way and in the two time musical dimensions : horizontal melodic and pulsating vertical he plays as Furtwangler directed,not Toscanini, with the birthing of the melody from the vertical dimension and not with a written melodical score put in the horizontal metronomical dimension ... As the main quality of his master Liszt , through Frederic Lamond, he refused to be a worker and a slave of the written score...He improvized in a way and immerse himself in this dimension of time where the soul does not belong to the world and where the melody is put to be born in the playing of "exécution" not from the written score metronomical orthodox suggestions...
We then listen to an event with him not to orthodox translation... He is volcanic sometimes way more than only clean and smooth... Our ears are not used at all to this playings bordering on thunders sometimes.. The only pianist who resemble him is Sofronitsky furor in Scriabin with the same sense of the vertical pulsating time from heights and depths , and as you know, in Scriabin, in his first works progressively horizontal melodic time become pure vertical time , AND vertical time BIRTH horizontal time especially in the last sonatas...Scriabin works explore the second vertical dimension of musical time without any algebraic recipe as Schoenberg will did but with a more subtle chords tool set ready to be use for any expressions between tonality and atonality, instead as Schoenberg of creating a new FORMULATION out of traditional tonality ...
In Liszt E.Ny. playings there is pure hubris expressiveness, and hues of colors and texture, pulsation, "the speakings and talkings" voices create the singing, and he does not use the written score as a jail , his freedom is over simple clarity and modesty, over horizontal metronomical time is complete and it is why he goes in depths of emotions never communicated before on a piano since Liszt who hypnotized crowds in trance with way more than just a perfect and just clean playing ... After all, the teachers of piano devoted to the young E. Ny. were all direct Liszt pupils ...
Music understanding and experience is more for me about my readiness to go through some new territories than about my "tastes" even if as everyone i had mine, but it is certainly not about "good taste" even if good taste exist and bad tastes too...
My very best to you...