Glenn Gould - not alpha and omega
co...@my-deja.com
outstanding pianist and his 1955 Goldberg Variations stand as a
landmark in Bach performances, but much of his stuff is hard work to
listen to. And there have been several interpreters of Bach who have
been much closer to the 'perfection of the work'. Isn't this a case of
a fascination with the eccentricity of Gould's life coloring people's
views of his recordings. And can anyone trust a musician who has no
time for Mozart?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
HellSpree
>time for Mozart?
Gould certainly did give time for Mozart. Listen to how he uses Mozart's
sonatas to accompany his singing on the CBS label.
Gary Levinson
the sentence below was what is your criterium for excellence in music you listen to. I
can put it another way: Is music which is "hard" listen to autmatically lower on your
totme pole than one that is "easier"?
piper wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:34:23 -0500, Gary Levinson <fiddl...@rcn.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >Is your criterium for music the ease of listening to it? Then may I
> >recommend the complete werks of Pochabel?
> [snip]
>
> Do you find all of Pachelbel's works "easy listening"? I don't. He was
> very much respected by J.S. Bach, and for good reason.
>
> Michael
>
> To reply by email, please eliminate "NOSPAM" from my address. Personal messages only!
co...@my-deja.com
listener's perception of the 'spirit' of the work, and the clarity with
which that spirit is conveyed and interpreted by the performer. Beyond
a certain point of technical ability, it's a question of individual
preference. That's why for me, humming aside, the later Gould is hard
work to listen to. His performance of the '48', for example, is just
blatantly eccentric in parts and, to my mind, greatly inferior to many
others; e.g. Schiff, Fischer.
In article <38AEBF23...@rcn.com>,
Gary Levinson
You have a bright future as a defense attorney, if you choose to pursue it. The skirting
the issue and changing the subject moves are admirable. Fine, I grant you that my example
of Pachebel was lousy. Now, is there any more to your "easy" and "hard" listening choices
than the laconic "no"?
Gary
piper wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 11:04:55 -0500, Gary Levinson <fiddl...@rcn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't know ALL the works by Pachebel. But you are avoiding the issue.
>
> I'm pointing out that you're giving a bad example for your issue. I
> don't like the fact that Pachelbel is only known for that Canon, which
> really is not bad, but which is incredibly overplayed. Pachelbel was a
> distinguished composer of non-easy-listening contrapuntal music, and
> well-known for such during his lifetime.
>
> > The subject of
> >the sentence below was what is your criterium for excellence in music you listen to. I
> >can put it another way: Is music which is "hard" listen to autmatically lower on your
> >totme pole than one that is "easier"?
>
> No.
>
> Michael
Gary Levinson
couldn't agree more. Any time you play 1% of the music, but the 1% where
99% of the tune is, you are sure to please 99% of the people. See, the
people know the tune and like it, so they get really happy if they hear it.
It's the grumpy guys that play those pesky secondary lines and middle
voices that we should avoid. We never heard those before and they are
dangerously there all the time. Hell, let's delete all the countersubjects
in Bach's fugues, so we can more enjoy the loudest and highest voices in
the score! That's what I call HIP:-)
Gary
co...@my-deja.com wrote:
> One of the criteria for excellence in music must be the individual
> listener's perception of the 'spirit' of the work, and the clarity with
> which that spirit is conveyed and interpreted by the performer. Beyond
> a certain point of technical ability, it's a question of individual
> preference. That's why for me, humming aside, the later Gould is hard
> work to listen to. His performance of the '48', for example, is just
> blatantly eccentric in parts and, to my mind, greatly inferior to many
> others; e.g. Schiff, Fischer.
>
> In article <38AEBF23...@rcn.com>,
> fiddl...@rcn.com wrote:
> > I don't know ALL the works by Pachebel. But you are avoiding the
> issue. The subject of
> > the sentence below was what is your criterium for excellence in music
> you listen to. I
> > can put it another way: Is music which is "hard" listen to
> autmatically lower on your
> > totme pole than one that is "easier"?
> >
> > piper wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:34:23 -0500, Gary Levinson
> <fiddl...@rcn.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > >Is your criterium for music the ease of listening to it? Then may I
> > > >recommend the complete werks of Pochabel?
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Do you find all of Pachelbel's works "easy listening"? I don't. He
> was
> > > very much respected by J.S. Bach, and for good reason.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > To reply by email, please eliminate "NOSPAM" from my address.
> Personal messages only!
> >
> >
>
Gary Levinson
Gary
piper wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:36:53 -0500, Gary Levinson <fiddl...@rcn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Michael,
> >
> >You have a bright future as a defense attorney, if you choose to pursue it. The skirting
> >the issue and changing the subject moves are admirable. Fine, I grant you that my example
> >of Pachebel was lousy. Now, is there any more to your "easy" and "hard" listening choices
> >than the laconic "no"?
>
> Sir, I will never become a defense or even a prosecuting attorney
> [laughter] because though I can enjoy a good argument at times, I get
> much more pleasure from the fulfilling cooperative ventures I
> experience as a professional musician.
>
> I didn't think there was anything wrong with "skirting the issue" and
> dealing with what I found an annoying detail in your post. I'm sorry
> you thought so, and I'm glad you are granting my point.
>
> Now what is it you'd like me to talk about in regard to "easy" and
> "hard" listening choices, keeping in mind that I did not address that
> issue at all?
>
> All right, I'll offer a very general comment: I don't think that the
> complexity of a work or its degree of "difficult listening" has
> anything to do with its quality. That said, a great work which can be
> appreciated on many different levels can be more INTELLECTUALLY
> INTERESTING than a work which is great but very straightforward. Now,
> if you want me to go further and try to define "quality" or
> "greatness," I will bow out immediately.
piper
Jimmy Smith
<co...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:88k7v6$f6c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Why is there so much concentration on Glenn Gould? Granted, he was an
> outstanding pianist and his 1955 Goldberg Variations stand as a
> landmark in Bach performances, but much of his stuff is hard work to
> listen to. And there have been several interpreters of Bach who have
> been much closer to the 'perfection of the work'. Isn't this a case of
> a fascination with the eccentricity of Gould's life coloring people's
> time for Mozart?
forget the Mozart line and you are right on about fascination of the masses.
Jimmy Smith
Bruce Peer <wel...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:38AF9A36...@sympatico.ca...
>
>
> co...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > And there have been several interpreters of Bach who have
> > been much closer to the 'perfection of the work'.
>
> of art itself, that is to say, the performer is free to take any liberties
> he/she feels are necessary to his/her interpretation of the work. Gould's
> philosophy was always that no "perfect interpretation" exists to which the
> performer strives, any approach is valid that can justified musically. I
> love Gould's interpretations, yet I appreciate those of other performers
> and consider them all equally valid. To suggest that any work can only be
> properly performed in one manner is an assault on the performer as a
> creative force. Both performer and composer play an equal role in
creating
> music; let us be thankful that Gould, and others, thought so.
Right you are with the addition of personal sacrifice of the self. This
Gould believed and practiced with every piece he played and every
interpretation he made until he couldn no longer bring the self into public
viewing for he felt it detracted from the sancticity patterned from the
music.
>
> David Peer
>
co...@my-deja.com
equally valid. In the same way that Chopin, for example, can be played
in a grossly over-sentimentalised manner, so can Bach be played in
peculiar and distorted ways. That doesn't invalidate the
interpretation per se, but it might well do so in terms of the
composer's intention.
I don't want to come across as some kind of anti-Gould fanatic; I think
some of his recordings are superb. It just seems to me, sometimes,
that this site should be renamed the Glenn Gould Appreciation Society.
There is a whole wonderful world of Bach keyboard interpretations out
there, and some people seem fixated on one performer. Try Fischer,
Kempff, Tureck, Perahia, Hewitt - for example - and especially - try
Lipatti. I quote from the sleeve notes of his 1950 recording of Bach,
Schubert, Scarlatti and Mozart - "if...Bach has, arguably, attracted
more personalised and mannered interpreters than any other composer,
few have equalled let alone escelled Lipaati in his expressive
gentleness, force and clarity."
In article <#B5fB$Nf$GA.256@cpmsnbbsa02>,
Bruce Peer
> I don't think it's right to say that all musical interpretations are
> equally valid. In the same way that Chopin, for example, can be played
> in a grossly over-sentimentalised manner, so can Bach be played in
> peculiar and distorted ways. That doesn't invalidate the
> interpretation per se, but it might well do so in terms of the
> composer's intention.
>
True, but then the performer must decide to what degree is the composer's
intention a priority. Certainly historical accuracy is en vogue these days,
though Gould cared little for these concerns. He often ignored tempo
indications (particularly in Mozart's and Beethoven's sonatas), and even
suggested to the composer Oskar Morawetz that he did not understand his own
music. A little pretentious perhaps, but perfectly in keeping with Gould's
philosophy regarding the composers intentions.
> I don't want to come across as some kind of anti-Gould fanatic; I think
> some of his recordings are superb. It just seems to me, sometimes,
> that this site should be renamed the Glenn Gould Appreciation Society.
> There is a whole wonderful world of Bach keyboard interpretations out
> there, and some people seem fixated on one performer. Try Fischer,
> Kempff, Tureck, Perahia, Hewitt - for example - and especially - try
> Lipatti. I quote from the sleeve notes of his 1950 recording of Bach,
> Schubert, Scarlatti and Mozart - "if...Bach has, arguably, attracted
> more personalised and mannered interpreters than any other composer,
> few have equalled let alone escelled Lipaati in his expressive
> gentleness, force and clarity."
>
No doubt many fine artists are playing fine Bach these days, and I
appreciate their contributions as well. I have not, however, discovered any
other performer who I believe approaches such magnificent and sublime
interpretations as Gould. If it seems that he is very often a subject of
discussion in this group, it could well be because others feel the same way.
Francis
> co...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>
> No doubt many fine artists are playing fine Bach these days, and I
> appreciate their contributions as well. I have not, however, discovered
any
> other performer who I believe approaches such magnificent and sublime
> interpretations as Gould. If it seems that he is very often a subject of
> discussion in this group, it could well be because others feel the same
way.
>
Yep, at least one other !
Gary Levinson
Bruce Peer wrote:
> co...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I don't think it's right to say that all musical interpretations are
> > equally valid. In the same way that Chopin, for example, can be played
> > in a grossly over-sentimentalised manner, so can Bach be played in
> > peculiar and distorted ways. That doesn't invalidate the
> > interpretation per se, but it might well do so in terms of the
> > composer's intention.
> >
>
> True, but then the performer must decide to what degree is the composer's
> intention a priority. Certainly historical accuracy is en vogue these days,
> though Gould cared little for these concerns. He often ignored tempo
> indications (particularly in Mozart's and Beethoven's sonatas), and even
> suggested to the composer Oskar Morawetz that he did not understand his own
> music. A little pretentious perhaps, but perfectly in keeping with Gould's
> philosophy regarding the composers intentions.
I can't buy into either of the above posts. Gould was anal about history and
knew intimately the circumstances the works were written in. Check out his
writings on the REASONS he employed unorthodox tempi and articulations rather
than dismiss his work as flippant self indulgence.
>
>
> > I don't want to come across as some kind of anti-Gould fanatic; I think
> > some of his recordings are superb. It just seems to me, sometimes,
> > that this site should be renamed the Glenn Gould Appreciation Society.
> > There is a whole wonderful world of Bach keyboard interpretations out
> > there, and some people seem fixated on one performer. Try Fischer,
> > Kempff, Tureck, Perahia, Hewitt - for example - and especially - try
> > Lipatti. I quote from the sleeve notes of his 1950 recording of Bach,
> > Schubert, Scarlatti and Mozart - "if...Bach has, arguably, attracted
> > more personalised and mannered interpreters than any other composer,
> > few have equalled let alone escelled Lipaati in his expressive
> > gentleness, force and clarity."
> >
>
> No doubt many fine artists are playing fine Bach these days, and I
> appreciate their contributions as well. I have not, however, discovered any
> other performer who I believe approaches such magnificent and sublime
> interpretations as Gould. If it seems that he is very often a subject of
> discussion in this group, it could well be because others feel the same way.
Absolutely. BTW, I dug out a few of my recordings of Lipati's French Suites.
The playing is lovely, intimate. But, it is on a smaller scale, less
vivid than
Gould's dramatic readings. The E minor Toccata, BWV914, in Gould's is a
gripping experience, carefully structured, brilliantly executed, leading
to an unmistakable culmination. It is monumental. Lipati's is ... very
nice. Believe me, I love Lipati's playing, I don't want to take anything
away from his genius or the tragedy of his untimely death, but, this is,
unfortunately, a comparison in which he does not hold up. This is one of
the reasons Gould is perpetually discussed, worshipped, hated, quoted.
He is perpetually fascinating through his uniqueness rather than some PR
stunt. BTW, while he shied away from associations with any one religious
denomination, his residence was littered with tomes on Christianity,
Judaism, Buddhism and others.
Gary
Bruce Peer
> knew intimately the circumstances the works were written in. Check out his
> writings on the REASONS he employed unorthodox tempi and articulations rather
> than dismiss his work as flippant self indulgence.
I thank you for your comments on the remainder of my post and for these,
though I regret that I must disagree with the above statement. Gould's knowledge
of musical history was relatively spotty and quite conventional. Those of his
arguments (to support whatever conceit) that are substantiated historically tend
to be weak, and often rely heavily on oversimplifications, such as North vs.
South, Italian vs. French, etc. In fact, part of Gould's admiration of Richard
Strauss evolved out of the latter's disdain for (or perhaps independence of is
better) the stylistic conventions of his day. Gould was the great ahistorian,
whether a work preceded or followed Beethoven's "Hammerklavier", whether a work
could or could not be considered "modern", such concerns were of no interest to
him. To quote, Gould has said the calendar:
"is a tyrant; submission to its relentless linearity, a compromise with
creativity; the artist's prime responsibility, a quest for that spirit of
detachment and anonymity which neutralizes and transcends the competitive
intimidation of chronology"
Now in terms of his unorthodox interpretations, never was it the intended
suggestion that they arose out of "flippant self-indulgence". Neither do they out
of historical fidelity, however. I will avoid a lengthly and cumbersome analysis
of the bases for Gould's playing, though to examine his firm belief in the
importance of counterpart and his favouring of structural rather than dramatic
elements would be a start. I hope I have clarified my position, as I see now I
was not clear on my previous post. Kevin Bazzana's book, "Glenn Gould: The
Performer in the Work", provides excellent insight into the considerations above.
An informative read for all Gould fans.
Many thanks.
Gary Levinson
All points well taken. I do not know Mr. Bazzana's book, but I will pick it up, as it
seems like an interesting book. Let me comment on it at a later time. Meanwhile, why
do you say that "Gould's knowledge of musical history was relatively spotty and quite
conventional"? Bernstein, Menuhin, Tim Page (author of the Glenn Gould Reader), Bruno
Monsaingeon (violinist/producer of many Gould films and videos) all say that his
knowledge of the above was encyclopedic to the minutest detail. I have been lucky to
study with Tim at Juilliard and grilled him a number of times about the subject. Page
talks about many a time that Gould would call him at home at 1 am or later and would
sing the latest transcription of a Strauss or Wagner opera - until 4 am! Once, Tim
fell asleep only to wake up some hours later - to Gould's singing!! His impromptu
"performances" of complete operas in piano reduction from memory are common knowledge
to Andy Kazdin and many others who were on the CBS record team for those 30th St.
recordings as well as the ones that took place in Toronto. Take a look at some of the
essays he wrote for the Piano Quarterly and High Fidelity. His analysis of the
Shoenberg Fantasy, Berg Sonata, Orlando Gibbons are logical, precise to the last
detail and somehow manage to transport the author's excitement about the piece to the
reader. If Mr. Bazzana's book implies that Gould was prone to "oversimplification",
he is wrong. This diametrically opposed to every person who I have talked with or
whose works I read, provided they had a minimal personal relationship with Gould.
Granted, he had a way with the media that could lead one to believe that the man is
just off his rocker; we know this not to be the case.
Best wishes,
Gary
Bruce Peer
Gary Levinson wrote:
Well said, and I have no argument with any of the above points. It is indeed true
that Glenn's musical memory was astounding, even from a very early age he was able to
memorize music almost on sight (equally as notorious was his habit of calling people and
demonstrating his capability). And it is also true that he was quite skilled at
analyzing music, this talent has been given it's due credit by Bazzana as by others whose
works I have read.
There is a definite distinction, however, between the abilities mentioned above and
knowledge of music history. Now, I do not profess to have intimate knowledge of Glenn's
historical criticisms, and would lack the skill to pronounce them underdeveloped
anyways. Thus, having located that statement in Bazzana's book which I paraphrased in my
earlier post, I leave it to him.
"His (Glenn's) thinking was always prone to such simplistic binarisms as German-Italian
and North-South, and he lacked - purposefully, it seems - the sophisticated grasp of
historical issues that might have corrected them." (Bazzana, 33)
It was never my intent to denigrate Gould's abilities as a musician, they are well
documented and his reputation is more than substantiated. It is his skill as a historian
that I call into question, however. If you know of any authorities who carry a view
contrary to that which is stated above, I would be quite interested to hear it. Best
wishes.
Bruce Peer
co...@my-deja.com
that Gould's pianism is held in far greater esteem in the North
American / Canadian axis than it is in Europe, or indeed Russia. It
seems to me that Gould is to America as Richter is to Russia; a
somewhat artificially created legend. Maybe this is simplistic, but I
think the cultural and historical context of the listener is
important. The European audience (I generalise)may have come to the
view that 'more is less' and that simplicity and clarity in performance
is everything. The American / Canadian audience (I generalise
outrageously again) may lean toward the personal and idiosyncratic.
Maybe Gould made the mistake of trying to move from the latter (his
true cultural milieu) to the former - I quote from the Oxford Composer
Companion to JS Bach - "Gould's 1955 debut recording of the Goldberg
Variations is provocative, entertaining and lively. How different from
his last recording of the work, in 1981, which, by contrast, is
stripped of personality, mechanical and expressively bland." I realise
that stones from the Gods may rain down on my head for saying this, but
Perahia, as a pianist, has come far closer to the essence of Baroque
music than Gould ever did. Gould's undoubted genius has been eclipsed
by a latter-day cult of the personality.
Perestrello
Gary Levinson wrote:
> Absolutely. BTW, I dug out a few of my recordings of Lipati's French Suites.
> The playing is lovely, intimate. But, it is on a smaller scale, less
> vivid than
> Gould's dramatic readings. The E minor Toccata, BWV914, in Gould's is a
> gripping experience, carefully structured, brilliantly executed, leading
> to an unmistakable culmination. It is monumental. Lipati's is ... very
> nice.
Facts? Where are the facts?
Here we see impressions, opinions, the word "nice" for instance, what
the meaning of nice in musical terms?
Remember Petrus in the M. Passions when he cuts the servant's ear...
Remember the words of the Christus.
Miguel
Gary Levinson
of a listener. Which is different than your pet assertion that "he had something
to prove in cultural matters", "talented monkey" and so forth. You are confused
about what is objective and what isn't. As for my definition of "nice", it is
playing that is on a high level, but below the truly breathtaking, memorable
performances which are etched in memory forever. This is just a personal
definition.
Perestrello wrote:
> Gary Levinson wrote:
> > Absolutely. BTW, I dug out a few of my recordings of Lipati's French Suites.
> > The playing is lovely, intimate. But, it is on a smaller scale, less
> > vivid than
> > Gould's dramatic readings. The E minor Toccata, BWV914, in Gould's is a
> > gripping experience, carefully structured, brilliantly executed, leading
> > to an unmistakable culmination. It is monumental. Lipati's is ... very
> > nice.
> (212) 964-
Ira
Schoenberg Piano Concerto score from the U of Penn music library. It
was long overdue when I finally gave up trying to learn or play it. It
simply made no sense to me. Then, about five years later, GG recorded
it with Robert Craft conducting (Mozart on the flip side, I think). It
was a revelation. It made perfect sense in his hands. That
demonstrated to me as nothing else could just how accomplished a
musician he was.
IG
Gary Levinson
Same with a lot of rarely played (dare I say "obscure") 20th century
pieces which came to life in his hands.
Gary