Gould's Goldberg Variations
Michael Lee
Variations on Sony? Which one is more desirable in your opinion?
Michael Lee
__________________________________________________________
E-mail: le...@netvigator.com
Home Page: http://home.netvigator.com/~leeji/
Mahler Club: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/gustavmahlerclub
Hughes
Michael Lee <le...@netvigator.com> wrote in article
<73ote1$nfu$1...@imsp009a.netvigator.com>...
Simon Roberts
: Can someone comment on Glenn Gould's three recordings of the Goldberg
: Variations on Sony? Which one is more desirable in your opinion?
The difference between the first two and the third is considerable: the
first two are fleet, mercurial, exuberant affairs (repeat-free), the last
much slower at times (the aria may seem ludicrously slow), more
"considered", and has a few repeats. The latter may seem more
interesting, the first two more spontaneous. If I had to have only one of
them, I would probably take either of the first two.
Simon
Gyorgy Sajo
> Can someone comment on Glenn Gould's three recordings of the Goldberg
> Variations on Sony? Which one is more desirable in your opinion?
>
I like best the one from 1981 - very thoughtful and coherent
interpretation. I do not find the first one interesting enough - like he
did not have so much to say about the piece that time -, and the Salzburg
recital is sometimes just too rushy. I absolutely agree with Gould
himself, when he says about his first recording of the Goldberg: "There's
a lot of piano-playing going on there...".
Gyorgy
khows...@zdnetmail.com
"Michael Lee" <le...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> Can someone comment on Glenn Gould's three recordings of the Goldberg
> Variations on Sony? Which one is more desirable in your opinion?
Today at mid-day, I would take the official Columbia debut recording (1955
was it?). Later, after supper if I want consider each variation more
carefully in a mellower mood, I would take the last digital one. Then there
is Rosen ...
--
K. Howson-Jan
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
samir ghiocel golescu
On Sat, 28 Nov 1998, Michael Lee wrote:
> Can someone comment on Glenn Gould's three recordings of the Goldberg
> Variations on Sony? Which one is more desirable in your opinion?
I consider Gould's "Goldberg" (all the versions, with their wilful and
speculative differences) one of the most overrated interpretations in the
history of recording. "Sensational"? Yes. "Revelatory" (for Bach's
masterpiece)? No (for me).
Regards,
Samir Golescu
JPapillon2
>Can someone comment on Glenn Gould's three recordings of the Goldberg
>Variations on Sony? Which one is more desirable in your opinion?
If you time the pieces, you'll see he slows down with age. I'm sure Bach
could play it even faster than Gould's first recording, and even include
the repeats. Too bad Gould had to play it on piano rather than harpsicord!
Don Drewecki
Get the 1955 one in the Glenn Gould Edition on Sony Classical, and get
the 1981 version on video, which is worth the extra $13.
--
Don Drewecki
<dre...@rpi.edu>
John Harkness
John
Michael Lee wrote:
> Can someone comment on Glenn Gould's three recordings of the Goldberg
> Variations on Sony? Which one is more desirable in your opinion?
>
ESH Tooter
Goldbergs, I am curious to hear your comments on the Rosen. I adore Rosen's
Beethoven, but I have had his Odyssey Bach set for many years and it leaves me
cold.
Alan Cooper
>Can someone comment on Glenn Gould's three recordings of the Goldberg
>Variations on Sony? Which one is more desirable in your opinion?
My favorite is Salzburg 1959. I can't stand the 1981 rendition.
AC
Matthew B. Tepper
pondered what I'm pondering as follows:
>
>Can someone comment on Glenn Gould's three recordings of the Goldberg
>Variations on Sony? Which one is more desirable in your opinion?
And then there are those of us Unconvinced, who prefer musicians of
other stripe to the late Mr. Gould. I would not want to be without
Pierre Hantaï (on harpsichord).
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/index.htm
My main music page --- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/berlioz.htm
And my science fiction club's home page --- http://www.lasfs.org/
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Pierpaolo Penco
Michael Lee wrote:
> Can someone comment on Glenn Gould's three recordings of the Goldberg
> Variations on Sony? Which one is more desirable in your opinion?
>
> Michael Lee
> __________________________________________________________
> E-mail: le...@netvigator.com
> Home Page: http://home.netvigator.com/~leeji/
> Mahler Club: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/gustavmahlerclub
--
Pierpaolo Penco
------------------------------------
AREA Science Park
Padriciano, 99 - 34012 Trieste (Italy)
Tel.: +39 (0) 40 3755280
Primary e-mail: <pierpao...@area.trieste.it>
Internet: <http://www.area.trieste.it>
Secondary e-mail: <pop...@geocities.com>
Personal home page:
<http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/7330/index.html>
cupahgne yes
samir ghiocel golescu wrote in message ...
>
>
>On Sat, 28 Nov 1998, Michael Lee wrote:
>
>> Can someone comment on Glenn Gould's three recordings of the Goldberg
>> Variations on Sony? Which one is more desirable in your opinion?
>
>speculative differences) one of the most overrated interpretations in the
>history of recording. "Sensational"? Yes. "Revelatory" (for Bach's
>masterpiece)? No (for me).
>
>Regards,
>Samir Golescu
>
Gould bashing.
He was a great musician.
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> Gould bashing.
>
> He was a great musician.
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. It is not, however,
universally held "truth."
samir ghiocel golescu
On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, cupahgne yes wrote:
> samir ghiocel golescu wrote in message ...
> >On Sat, 28 Nov 1998, Michael Lee wrote:
> >
> >> Can someone comment on Glenn Gould's three recordings of the Goldberg
> >> Variations on Sony? Which one is more desirable in your opinion?
> >
> >I consider Gould's "Goldberg" (all the versions, with their wilful and
> >speculative differences) one of the most overrated interpretations in the
> >history of recording. "Sensational"? Yes. "Revelatory" (for Bach's
> >masterpiece)? No (for me).
>
> Gould bashing.
> He was a great musician.
A great pianist, yes -- few pianists had "a brain in each finger" as Gould
undoubtedly had. An accomplished musician, yes -- if we understand with
that a very intelligent and cultivated person who has a certain conception
and knows how to concretize it on the keyboard, with great skill.
All I said was that he, IMHO, didn't understand Bach's masterpiece and so
being he used it as a pretext for speculations -- "I'll show you that I'm
able to play now the Variation x slow and Variation Y fast and in the
later performance the Variation Y slow and x fast".
Among the musical defects of his interpretations: the focus is on
ornamentation and figuration brilliancy, not at all on the bass lines,
supportive of (and unifying the) whole piece
the (outstanding)
polyphonic clarity is emphasized with the price of completely neglecting
the rich harmonic features (Bach was The harmony master as much as he was The
polyphonist!)
the choice of tempos
(even in the later, generally slower versions) is focused on the principle
of contrasting "afetti" -- which, of course, is the performer's right if
(as in Gould's case) the contrast wouldn't become a caricature: the fast,
G Major Variations are played as in a Madhouse Party Dance and the G Minor
Variations (especially the sublime Var. 25) is slowed down to the point of
lethargy, with an "decomposed" sense of the musical time... The greatest
tempo contrast in his performances (between Var 25 and Var 26) is what I
call the best example of a brilliant fake-effect in interpretation.
I could continue to a great length. Do not believe that I claim to know
The "right conception" of the piece. I wish an Edwin Fischer would have
recorded it and a Kempff would have recorded it much sooner than he did.
I am very opened to different performances but (as in the case of
Furtwangler) when the "evolutive" elements of the various performances is
organic, deeply felt and not smartly superimposed to the music.
Some people have the greatest professional skills, except a deep love,
respect and nobility in approaching the great masterpieces. Dixi et
salvavi!
Best regards,
Samir Golescu
samir ghiocel golescu
> I am very opened to different performances but (as in the case of
> Furtwangler) when the "evolutive" elements of the various performances
> *is* organic, deeply felt and not smartly superimposed to the music.
Errata -- *are*
fredf...@my-dejanews.com
o yez o yez the odyssey bach set, that's where i fust heard the gb's. 'zat
'cording still 'vailable of rosen? like me to get it! o yez.
-freddy
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> >
> > cupahgne yes wrote:
> > >
> > > Gould bashing.
> > >
> > > He was a great musician.
> >
> > however, universally held "truth."
>
>
> I think he was fantastic. Something special.
>
> -ROni
If only all disagreements on this newsgroup could be so civilised!
samir ghiocel golescu
On 30 Nov 1998, Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> Roni wrote:
> >
> > Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> > >
> > > cupahgne yes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Gould bashing.
> > > >
> > > > He was a great musician.
> > >
> > > That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. It is not,
> > > however, universally held "truth."
> >
> > Not very many opinions are (if any).
> >
> > I think he was fantastic. Something special.
> >
> > -ROni
>
> If only all disagreements on this newsgroup could be so civilised!
Yep
S.G.
Roni
Roni
>
> On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, cupahgne yes wrote:
>
> > samir ghiocel golescu wrote in message ...
> > >On Sat, 28 Nov 1998, Michael Lee wrote:
> > >
> > >> Can someone comment on Glenn Gould's three recordings of the Goldberg
> > >> Variations on Sony? Which one is more desirable in your opinion?
> > >
> > >I consider Gould's "Goldberg" (all the versions, with their wilful and
> > >speculative differences) one of the most overrated interpretations in the
> > >history of recording. "Sensational"? Yes. "Revelatory" (for Bach's
> > >masterpiece)? No (for me).
> >
> > He was a great musician.
>
> undoubtedly had. An accomplished musician, yes -- if we understand with
> that a very intelligent and cultivated person who has a certain conception
> and knows how to concretize it on the keyboard, with great skill.
>
> All I said was that he, IMHO, didn't understand Bach's masterpiece and so
> being he used it as a pretext for speculations -- "I'll show you that I'm
> able to play now the Variation x slow and Variation Y fast and in the
> later performance the Variation Y slow and x fast".
I don't think so. I think he brought out a lot that of the piece but also played it to what
for me feels like a very personal interpretation. I think that you really hear _him_, more
that Bach. In the earlier recordings, he sounds like a very sensitive eratically behaved
young man who was buzzing with creativity. In the later one, I think he sounds like an
old(ish) man.
> Among the musical defects of his interpretations: the focus is on
> ornamentation and figuration brilliancy, not at all on the bass lines,
> supportive of (and unifying the) whole piece
I can't hear anything wrong with the bass lines.
> the (outstanding)
> polyphonic clarity is emphasized with the price of completely neglecting
> the rich harmonic features (Bach was The harmony master as much as he was The
> polyphonist!)
Can you give any examples of where he doesn't do it very well so that I can listen?
I think the mastery of harmony comes from the mastery of counterpoint and the way the
voices are related to each other. For me that element is brought out superbly.
> the choice of tempos
> (even in the later, generally slower versions) is focused on the principle
> of contrasting "afetti" -- which, of course, is the performer's right if
> (as in Gould's case) the contrast wouldn't become a caricature: the fast,
> G Major Variations are played as in a Madhouse Party Dance and the G Minor
> Variations (especially the sublime Var. 25) is slowed down to the point of
> lethargy, with an "decomposed" sense of the musical time... The greatest
> tempo contrast in his performances (between Var 25 and Var 26) is what I
> call the best example of a brilliant fake-effect in interpretation.
I found this on the '55 recording. It seems like maybe (as I guess it might have been in
the studio) each var. was recorded like separate piece or take by take or something. I feel
sometimes that each var. doesn't lead into the next so well. I suppose this of the
drawbacks of recording. However, on the Salzburg recording (it's a concert isn't it?) I
think this is better.
> I could continue to a great length. Do not believe that I claim to know
> The "right conception" of the piece. I wish an Edwin Fischer would have
> recorded it and a Kempff would have recorded it much sooner than he did.
> I am very opened to different performances but (as in the case of
> Furtwangler) when the "evolutive" elements of the various performances is
> organic, deeply felt and not smartly superimposed to the music.
> Some people have the greatest professional skills, except a deep love,
> respect and nobility in approaching the great masterpieces. Dixi et
> salvavi!
> Best regards,
> Samir Golescu
This seems to ask the question of why people actually perform other people's music for
others to hear. Is it just because there's a market for it? To give us something to argue
about? To show everyone how brilliant the composer was? To show everyone what the music can
mean to them? To show everyone what the music means to the performer? Obviously everyone
will have there own reason, but for me, the latter is most important along with the
penultimate and if the same was true for Gould, I think he brought it out remarkably.
Donald Rice
to the harmonic structure of various pieces of music, and his anaylsis of that
structure in relation to performance. If I read your critique correctly, you feel
Gould sacrifices that sensitivity to harmonic structure for clarity in the
contrapuntal texture of the music. I think Goulds writings contradict that point
of view. I must allow that his assertions may not be realized in his performances
but it should be noted that his intent most definitely encompassed acute
sensitivity to the harmonic implications of the music he played.
Don
samir ghiocel golescu wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, cupahgne yes wrote:
>
> > samir ghiocel golescu wrote in message ...
> > >On Sat, 28 Nov 1998, Michael Lee wrote:
> > >
> > >> Can someone comment on Glenn Gould's three recordings of the Goldberg
> > >> Variations on Sony? Which one is more desirable in your opinion?
> > >
> > >I consider Gould's "Goldberg" (all the versions, with their wilful and
> > >speculative differences) one of the most overrated interpretations in the
> > >history of recording. "Sensational"? Yes. "Revelatory" (for Bach's
> > >masterpiece)? No (for me).
> >
> > Gould bashing.
> > He was a great musician.
>
> A great pianist, yes -- few pianists had "a brain in each finger" as Gould
> undoubtedly had. An accomplished musician, yes -- if we understand with
> that a very intelligent and cultivated person who has a certain conception
> and knows how to concretize it on the keyboard, with great skill.
>
> All I said was that he, IMHO, didn't understand Bach's masterpiece and so
> being he used it as a pretext for speculations -- "I'll show you that I'm
> able to play now the Variation x slow and Variation Y fast and in the
> later performance the Variation Y slow and x fast".
>
> Among the musical defects of his interpretations: the focus is on
> ornamentation and figuration brilliancy, not at all on the bass lines,
> supportive of (and unifying the) whole piece
> the (outstanding)
> polyphonic clarity is emphasized with the price of completely neglecting
> the rich harmonic features (Bach was The harmony master as much as he was The
> polyphonist!)
> the choice of tempos
> (even in the later, generally slower versions) is focused on the principle
> of contrasting "afetti" -- which, of course, is the performer's right if
> (as in Gould's case) the contrast wouldn't become a caricature: the fast,
> G Major Variations are played as in a Madhouse Party Dance and the G Minor
> Variations (especially the sublime Var. 25) is slowed down to the point of
> lethargy, with an "decomposed" sense of the musical time... The greatest
> tempo contrast in his performances (between Var 25 and Var 26) is what I
> call the best example of a brilliant fake-effect in interpretation.
>
Raymond Hall
>
> Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> >
> > cupahgne yes wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > He was a great musician.
> >
> > universally held "truth."
>
> Not very many opinions are (if any).
>
> I think he was fantastic. Something special.
I agree entirely. Gould was ALWAYS interesting, and it is sad that he
died at such a relatively young age (from a stroke). Such is life, or
death!
| Ray Hall: < hallr...@bigpond.com >
| "My God! What has sound got to do with music!" (Essays) Chas. Ives
samir ghiocel golescu
This answer is both for Roni and Donald, to whom I want to thank for
answering very politely to my posting, even if (at least in Roni's case)
they obviously like Gould.
I believe it would be useful to establish the premises: our choices, in
artistic matters at least (but, I believe, also in matters regarding
ethics, religion, cuisine et caetera) are not at all based on rational
approaches. Nobody is listening a musical piece (performance) with a
perfectly cold ear, judging the "pro" and the "against" as in the Supreme
Court, in order to reach an infallible verdict...
I think the order is different, in most cases. We listen to that
particular performance, once or twice or whatever, we strongly like it or
dislike it, on an irational basis, and after that, if at all, we build the
argumentative construct around our irational (should I say superrational?)
choice. Based on that, we try (or not) to "fertilize", at a lighter or
heavier degree, the surrounding people with our opinions, because of our
vanity, yelling ego or, who knows, because we would like other people to
share what we love or to reject what we do not love.
I believe also that many times we forget the human element encrypted in
composing or interpreting a certain piece of music. The '60s and '70s
madness of "objectivity" and historical "authenticity" in art divided,
artificially, performers in performers which express "the will of the
composer" and performers which express "themselves". Actually, each and
every performer can do nothing else but expressing himself. In the
"objective" performances of the named decades, what one could listen to
was not "the will of the composer" (God knows what was the will of the
poor man) but still the ego of the performer. Only that instead of people
like Furtwangler, Mengelberg, Koussevitzky, Kreisler, Huberman, Enescu,
Fischer, Hofmann, Casals [and others], whose personalities had in common,
besides their human weaknesses and differences, knowledge of the
tradition(s), warmness, nobility, passion, greatness, imagination,
unicity, faith (if not always in God, in extremely high humanistic
values), so, instead of people like them, the "objective" plethora of
new-comers expressed, in the same degree, themselves: lack of imagination,
"dragged" adherence to the printed letter (which, on the other hand, were
not always capable to decipher with the acuity of an Mengelberg or
Hofmann), deep, deep mediocrity.
Where do I place Gould in this context? I place him (and of course my
judgment is not compulsory in any respect) in the restrained category of
the very skillful erratics. Who could say he wasn't very original and
daring? The degree in which his conceptions are compatible with the
listener's understanding becomes, in the end, a personal and highly
subjective choice. I simply do not like what I feel behind the sounds. I
believe that in interpreting Bach, between pale, dead, "academic"
reverence and erratic, rebellious, willfully personalized approaches,
there is a better way, the unostentatiously imaginative and loving way
interpreters as different as Casals, Fischer, Mengelberg, Landowska,
Feinberg, Nikolaeva, A. Busch, Menuhin knew to interpret him.
For those who love him, I do not expect my postings or even much better
argumentative constructs to change their opinion. I could enter in other
details, or to answer the questions they asked me, but that would become a
too specialized discussion for this newsgroup and also, believe me, is
really hard to explain (excuse me if that sounds pretentious), without a
live contact, a piano, a score, much more than what I already did. If you
ever come in Urbana-Champaign (IL) and you want us to meet, let me know!
Best regards,
Samir Golescu
Donald Rice
visit for such a demonstration, but alas I live in California. I do not play
an instrument but I do have a basic understanding of musical notation and the
barest of rudimentary knowledge of harmonic theory. My comment therefore was
not critical in the sense of challenging your original assertion but rather
was intended to offer some additional information about Goulds intentions and
attitudes. I do like some of his playing and despise some (most particularly
his attacks on Mozart.)
Don
Simon Roberts
: All I said was that he, IMHO, didn't understand Bach's masterpiece and so
: being he used it as a pretext for speculations -- "I'll show you that I'm
: able to play now the Variation x slow and Variation Y fast and in the
: later performance the Variation Y slow and x fast".
[snip]
You are, of course, free to dislike the various performances/recordings
Gould made of this work, and your explanations of the sort of performance
you prefer make for interesting reading. But to say that Gould "didn't
understand Bach's masterpiece" is just silly; I doubt if any pianist knew
or thought about the music more than he did; why can't you just say
that his understanding is different from yours, or that according to your
criteria his understanding is wrong? Or is that all you meant?
Simon
samir ghiocel golescu
On 2 Dec 1998, Simon Roberts wrote:
> You are, of course, free to dislike the various performances/recordings
> Gould made of this work, and your explanations of the sort of performance
> you prefer make for interesting reading. But to say that Gould "didn't
> understand Bach's masterpiece" is just silly; I doubt if any pianist knew
> or thought about the music more than he did; why can't you just say
> that his understanding is different from yours, or that according to your
> criteria his understanding is wrong? Or is that all you meant?
Thank you for the use of "silly". [I'm a fan of silly cartoons, so no
offense at all] I could justify myself with my limited knowledge of the
English language but that's no excuse, here at least. So, yes, I insist
that, IMO, Gould "didn't understand Bach's masterpiece". If you give to
the verb "understanding" a limited intellectual meaning -- as "did Gould
understand _something_, with his brilliant (so much superior to mine)
mind?" -- I must give up. But I understand (with "understanding")
something else...
As much as I used to defend (including discussions in this group) the
beauty of free, highly individual interpretations, I can not praise
(despite their great popularity among musicians and music lovers as well)
interpretations which, again IMO, become an opaque screen between Bach's
music and listener, interpretations which are contradicting the roots
themselves of Bach's spirituality. But "how do *you* know so well what
<<Bach's spirituality>> is about?" you could rightfully ask.
Let me try a comparison. Let's take the Bible--the Old Testament. What
actually *is* the Old Testament? [I'll try to be very short]
1.For Jewish people, it is not even the "old", is the live and always New
Testament. Is interaction between God and the chosen people. And many
other things...
2.For mystics, Jewish and others, it is the place of the mystical
revelations...
3.For other monotheist religions, the Old Testament is the preparation and
the solid rock for the "New" Holy Book, the Christian scriptures or
others...
4.For historians, it is a blessed way thousand years of history of a great
and old nation got preserved...
5.For moralists, it is the place where the Ten Commendments were spoken...
6.For philosophers, it is the place where Jov put the dilemma of
of the sin and of the reward, the Ecleziast sang the
passing character of life, and Jona became angry with God thousands of
years before Nietzsche...
7.For poets, it is the host of the most beautiful love poem, that of
Sulamita...
8.For atheists, it is the place where the most incoherent assertions are
considered holy letter...
9.For some people, it is the place where all the predictions could be
deciphered, a kind of super-sybillinic literature, based on the
brilliant - minded arithmetic connections and interpretations of the
biblical numbers... Eventually, for every humble or vain human being, the
Old Testament means something (with the precondition of knowing it, at
least by name).
10.Even for devil worshipers, Bible means _something_ (God forbid), and they
*understand* it, in their own way.
What has all this to do with Gould? [except of course the number 11], it
does have! Bach is not only a matter of notes and intellectual or personal
understanding.
With a complexity of perspectives, in Bach music's appreciation, not much
lighter than the Biblical problems, I can afford to say, in my silly way,
that IMHO Gould *didn't understand Bach's masterpiece*. It is a shorter
way of conveying my feeling that Gould betrayed the spiritual, broadly
(but not _infinitely_ so) approachable meaning of The Goldberg Variations.
Even if the music's *ethos* is hard to discuss, and to establish, by
consensus, certain limits is impossible, that is not taking away my right
of saying, when I do feel so, "vade retro...!". I am not going to take a
Martian as a Bible specialist!
Regards,
Samir Golescu
Paul Kintzele
>
> Thank you for the use of "silly".
>
How would you feel about the use of "mad as a hatter"?
Paul
samir ghiocel golescu
On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Paul Kintzele wrote:
> How would you feel about the use of "mad as a hatter"?
>
> Paul
Anything the range of your education allows, Sir!
Regrads,
Samir Golescu
samir ghiocel golescu
On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Paul Kintzele wrote:
> How would you feel about the use of "mad as a hatter"?
>
> Paul
And the important thing is if *you* do feel at least a little bit better
that way!
Regards again,
Samir Golescu
ESH Tooter
all. I've often thought that a wonderful recording might be made of Gould
outtakes. There is a wonderful video of a posed recording session for the
English Suites in which GG plays a section of one suite in several different
ways and discusses a bit, explaining why he might choose one over another. How
many performers can find so many equally interesting ways of approaching the
same work? Yes, Gould is Gould and as this exchange makes clear, some people
would skip all. I know my own life would be much poorer without his way with
music, even Mozart.
Ted
ESH Tooter
(despite their great popularity among musicians and music lovers as well)
interpretations which, again IMO, become an opaque screen between Bach's
music and listener, interpretations which are contradicting the roots
themselves of Bach's spirituality. >>
I'm interested in this explanation because it explains perfectly what I feel
when I listen to Richter's WTC. On the other hand, while Gould's instrument
and touch have nothing to do with what Bach could have expected from any
instrument he knew, his Bach whether Goldbergs or WTC, seems mucvh more in
keeping with what I understand to be of importance in Bach.
I'd appreciate comment on any thoughts in relation to Gould's Bach vs.
Richter's Bach.
Alain
away from the canvas, a writer re-reading his or her text, or a musician
listening to the playback of his or her recording in the studio, if I can't
picture a smile being cracked I am less likely to like that artist.
Examples of obvious "smilers" include Veronese, Turner, Nietzsche, Nabokov,
Kafka, Bach, Haydn, and, of course, Shakespeare.
By "smilers" I don't mean that these people were generally happy (think of
Nietzsche or Kafka for instance), or that their art was particularly sunny. Just
that they reveled in the creative act, and that you can tell they did.
Now, try to picture Glenn *not* smiling.
qed
ad
Simon Roberts
samir ghiocel golescu (gol...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
[snip]
: beauty of free, highly individual interpretations, I can not praise
: (despite their great popularity among musicians and music lovers as well)
: interpretations which, again IMO, become an opaque screen between Bach's
: music and listener, interpretations which are contradicting the roots
: themselves of Bach's spirituality.
But there's no such thing as uninterpreted music. To that extent (if you
must use this language) all interpreters erect a screen between you and
Bach; the question then becomes whose screens you find the most
persuasive.
: With a complexity of perspectives, in Bach music's appreciation, not much
: lighter than the Biblical problems, I can afford to say, in my silly way,
: that IMHO Gould *didn't understand Bach's masterpiece*. It is a shorter
: way of conveying my feeling that Gould betrayed the spiritual, broadly
: (but not _infinitely_ so) approachable meaning of The Goldberg Variations.
Here we go again; instead of saying, as you implicitly did last time, that
there's only one "understanding" of Bach (yours, apparently), now your
saying there's one "spiritual... meaning" of this music and Gould didn't
know what it was (or did but ignored/violated it, or whatever). Again,
why can't you just say that there are different meanings and you think
Gould misses the one you find most persuasive?
Simon
samir ghiocel golescu
Nice posting, and I agree is one of the possibilities of interpreting
Gould's "musical-practical jokes". I love also humor, even humor in music
-- ever heard Hambourg or Hofmann playing Beethoven-Rubinstein's Turkisch
March or Rosenthal in Liadov's Musical Snuff-Box ? enjoyable light spirit
in music... But a deep masterpiece should, I believe, involve you in a
genuine way, caleidoscopic "masques" being excluded. Is that
fundamentalism? Perhaps... in real life I am more tolerant.
Regards,
Samir Golescu
samir ghiocel golescu
On 4 Dec 1998, Simon Roberts wrote:
> samir ghiocel golescu (gol...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>
> : Nice posting, and I agree is one of the possibilities of interpreting
> : Gould's "musical-practical jokes". I love also humor, even humor in music
> : -- ever heard Hambourg or Hofmann playing Beethoven-Rubinstein's Turkisch
> : March or Rosenthal in Liadov's Musical Snuff-Box ? enjoyable light spirit
> : in music... But a deep masterpiece should, I believe, involve you in a
> : genuine way, caleidoscopic "masques" being excluded. Is that
> : fundamentalism? Perhaps... in real life I am more tolerant.
>
> But surely "a deep masterpiece" invites "caleidoscopic 'masques'";
Not in the meaning I gave to that (faking expression using professional
tools -- technique, knowledge, power of projection --, without heartfelt
sincerity.
> anyway,
> are you seriously suggesting music isn't part of "real life?"
I did not suggest that. If I say coughing and sneezing is part of the real
life and music is part of the real life, that doesn't mean
Coughing & Sneezing = Music!
If music is _also_ part of the real life, that doesn't imply every
attribute of the real life must be included in music's definition.
Could I be spared of other sophisms, please?
Regards,
Samir Golescu
MT
<<But surely "a deep masterpiece" invites "caleidoscopic 'masques'";
anyway, are you seriously suggesting music isn't part of "real life?" >>
There are composers and composers, and musics and musics. When the music
is greater than any interpreter, the interpreter should realize it and
be humble. This is a paraphrase of Schnabel, who knew about these things
- and practiced what he preached. You can fiddle with a Hungarian
Rhapsody, nudge it, prick it, milk it -- but when you are playing, say,
Op. 110 or Op. 111, or some of Mozart's or Bach's music, you can't fool
around. Of course, people's sense of the ridiculous varies widely.
If I had to choose sides, I would side with Samir's sentiment.
Regards,
mt
MT
<<Well, yes, he said something along the lines of great music better
than it could ever be performed. But it doesn't follow that there's
only one way to do it (that's all I was getting at: that the better the
work the more likely it is to invite a greater diversity of
interpretations), only one "true" understanding (as Samir puts it),
etc.>>
My point was that a great interpretation is much more than a collection
of tricks. It requires total immersion in the work and, yes, some
self-effacing of the interpreter. Some pianists play as if the public
went to hear *them* instead of Beethoven, Bach, or Mozart. Maybe the
public does, but I do not endorse this attitude. Volodya Horowitz did
this sometimes, to the detriment of the music. I am not talking of not
interpreting but of substituting fireworks for an integrated and deep
interpretation. Hear Horowitz play Beethoven and then hear Serkin and
you'll know what I mean (I hope).
<<I don't see why not (especially when the composer in question had a
great sense of humor); but of course one man's "fooling around" is
another's profound interpretation -- cf Dan Koren's fondness for
Ugorsky's op. 111 (have you heard that?).>>
Putrid. Ugorsky is a terrible interpreter of Beethoven.
Regards,
mt
MT
<<Well, Mario, stick with your scowlers. I will now put on Glenn's
recording of the Beethoven piano sonata Op.31 No.1 and picture the
grin on his face. And on Ludwig's if he's listening.>>
What gave you the idea that I have a strong dislike for Gould? Despite
the title of this thread, I was not discussing Gould. It's true that his
Mozart is one of the worst examples of musical butchery ever, but he did
make some very good recordings, including the Goldbergs and some
Beethoven. Except for the Mozart sonatas, I've never gotten rid of any
of his LPs or CDs and I still listen to them. He had tremendous fingers
and great intelligence, though apparently he never fully matured as a
person.
But I'd better stop here; this is rehashing old discussions that have
cropped up periodically here.
Regards,
mt
Clifford Ando
> My point was that a great interpretation is much more than a collection
> of tricks. It requires total immersion in the work and, yes, some
> self-effacing of the interpreter. Some pianists play as if the public
> went to hear *them* instead of Beethoven, Bach, or Mozart. Maybe the
> public does, but I do not endorse this attitude. Volodya Horowitz did
> this sometimes, to the detriment of the music. I am not talking of not
> interpreting but of substituting fireworks for an integrated and deep
> interpretation. Hear Horowitz play Beethoven and then hear Serkin and
> you'll know what I mean (I hope).
I don't know how many times the group has debated this issue...
Perhaps Mario can tell me how he distinguishes between performances in
which he hears Beethoven and those in which he hears someone interpret
Beethoven. Do wicked performers simply change key signatures at will?
Improvise new codas? Or is Mario willing to share with us his secret
method of listening to Beethoven, Bach and Mozart without the mediation of
an interpreter.
Ooops. Mario wasn't speaking of interpreting. He's removed the wicked
from the set of interpreters altogether. Thanks to the new rubrics he has
offered, I simply need to detect the fireworks coming from my speakers.
If the performance is exciting, I'll know that it can't be what Beethoven,
Mozart, or Bach intended.
How are these fireworks to be distinguished from the heavenly glow that
will emanate when my speakers reproduce a performance by someone who
understands Bach's spirituality? I suppose the secular blaze of fireworks
will produce smoke, where spiritual enlightenment will simply suffuse the
room with a deeper sense of humanity (rather than a stronger smell of
alderwood?).
Why can't people just say they don't like Gould's Mozart, or Horowitz's
Beethoven. And God forbid they should be able to say why....
Clifford Ando ca...@usc.edu
Classics Department phone: (213) 740-3683
University of Southern California fax: (213) 740-7360
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0352
Matthew B. Tepper
pondered what I'm pondering as follows:
>
>So now it comes out: what people don't like about Glenn Gould is that
>he couldn't play without being ... playful!
If you call an obnoxious and sadistic child "playful," well, yes.
His rendition -- and I mean "rending" in its most unpleasant sense --
of the Chopin Sonata #3 illustrates the most spiteful hatred of a
composer that I have ever heard. The Columbia recordings of Mozart
sonatas are not far off; I recall the A Major/Minor as particularly
odious.
Simon Roberts
: Nice posting, and I agree is one of the possibilities of interpreting
: Gould's "musical-practical jokes". I love also humor, even humor in music
: -- ever heard Hambourg or Hofmann playing Beethoven-Rubinstein's Turkisch
: March or Rosenthal in Liadov's Musical Snuff-Box ? enjoyable light spirit
: in music... But a deep masterpiece should, I believe, involve you in a
: genuine way, caleidoscopic "masques" being excluded. Is that
: fundamentalism? Perhaps... in real life I am more tolerant.
But surely "a deep masterpiece" invites "caleidoscopic 'masques'"; anyway,
are you seriously suggesting music isn't part of "real life?"
Simon
Simon Roberts
samir ghiocel golescu (gol...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: On 4 Dec 1998, Simon Roberts wrote:
: > samir ghiocel golescu (gol...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: >
: > : Nice posting, and I agree is one of the possibilities of interpreting
: > : Gould's "musical-practical jokes". I love also humor, even humor in music
: > : -- ever heard Hambourg or Hofmann playing Beethoven-Rubinstein's Turkisch
: > : March or Rosenthal in Liadov's Musical Snuff-Box ? enjoyable light spirit
: > : in music... But a deep masterpiece should, I believe, involve you in a
: > : genuine way, caleidoscopic "masques" being excluded. Is that
: > : fundamentalism? Perhaps... in real life I am more tolerant.
: >
: > But surely "a deep masterpiece" invites "caleidoscopic 'masques'";
: Not in the meaning I gave to that (faking expression using professional
: tools -- technique, knowledge, power of projection --, without heartfelt
: sincerity.
Which interpreters do you think "fake[] expression using professional
tools"?
: > anyway,
: > are you seriously suggesting music isn't part of "real life?"
:
: I did not suggest that. If I say coughing and sneezing is part of the real
: life and music is part of the real life, that doesn't mean
: Coughing & Sneezing = Music!
: If music is _also_ part of the real life, that doesn't imply every
: attribute of the real life must be included in music's definition.
: Could I be spared of other sophisms, please?
You wrote: "in real life I am more tolerant" (look above); if you weren't
contrasting "real life" with music, what were you contrasting it with?
(Anyway, my comment was flippant....)
Simon (the sophist)
Raymond Hall
>
> Can someone comment on Glenn Gould's three recordings of the Goldberg
> Variations on Sony? Which one is more desirable in your opinion?
>
I am not really qualified here, other than to say I always enjoy Gould
(even at his most irritating). I always feel there is a fierce and
supreme intellect at the keyboard, which perhaps colours my feelings
towards him as an artist. I do enjoy the 1981 version BTW, without
having many other comparisons as a reference.
I remember an ABC TV documentary, introduced by (and I hope my memory
hasn't failed me) Zoltan Kocsis, who made the point that he thought the
1981 Goldberg Variations by Gould was a more *cosmic* affair. Whatever
that really means?
Simon Roberts
Distribution:
MT (matr...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
: Simon:
: <<But surely "a deep masterpiece" invites "caleidoscopic 'masques'";
: anyway, are you seriously suggesting music isn't part of "real life?" >>
: There are composers and composers, and musics and musics. When the music
: is greater than any interpreter, the interpreter should realize it and
: be humble. This is a paraphrase of Schnabel, who knew about these things
: - and practiced what he preached.
Well, yes, he said something along the lines of great music better than it
could ever be performed. But it doesn't follow that there's only one way
to do it (that's all I was getting at: that the better the work the more
likely it is to invite a greater diversity of interpretations), only one
"true" understanding (as Samir puts it), etc.
You can fiddle with a Hungarian
: Rhapsody, nudge it, prick it, milk it -- but when you are playing, say,
: Op. 110 or Op. 111, or some of Mozart's or Bach's music, you can't fool
: around.
I don't see why not (especially when the composer in question had a great
sense of humor); but of course one man's "fooling around" is another's
profound interpretation -- cf Dan Koren's fondness for Ugorsky's op. 111
(have you heard that?).
: If I had to choose sides, I would side with Samir's sentiment.
Well, of course; one mustn't allow a musician to impose himself between
the composer and the listener....
Simon
Alain DAGHER
: There are composers and composers, and musics and musics. When the music
: is greater than any interpreter, the interpreter should realize it and
: be humble.
This reminds me of Churchill's famous dictum about a man described as
humble: "Well, he had much to be humble about." Humility is pretty
much the last thing I look for in an artist. (well, for the purpose of
this argument at least).
So now it comes out: what people don't like about Glenn Gould is that
he couldn't play without being ... playful!
Maybe the parallel with Nietzsche (note the allusion in the header)
is not so far-fetched. The pros (philosophers in this case) also blame
him for never passing up an opportunity for a good joke. Gave the
whole profession a bad name.
Well, Mario, stick with your scowlers. I will now put on Glenn's
recording of the Beethoven piano sonata Op.31 No.1 and picture the
grin on his face. And on Ludwig's if he's listening.
--
regards,
alain
Alain DAGHER
: Nice posting, and I agree is one of the possibilities of interpreting
: Gould's "musical-practical jokes". I love also humor, even humor in music
: -- ever heard Hambourg or Hofmann playing Beethoven-Rubinstein's Turkisch
: March or Rosenthal in Liadov's Musical Snuff-Box ? enjoyable light spirit
: in music... But a deep masterpiece should, I believe, involve you in a
: genuine way, caleidoscopic "masques" being excluded. Is that
: fundamentalism? Perhaps... in real life I am more tolerant.
You've misunderstood me. I was referring to a "smile". VOltaire's
smile.
The humour you refer to is more of a snicker.
I agree, one shouldn't snicker while playing a masterpiece.
There! The paint has dried. You and Mario can step out of that corner
now.
--
regards,
alain
ottor...@my-dejanews.com
si...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Simon Roberts) wrote:
> 0607.2036...@ux10.cso.uiuc.edu>Distribution:
Simon is entirely right. And instead of simply reasserting your "HO" that
Gould "didn't understand Bach's masterpiece," why don't you illustrate his
misunderstanding -- and your own understanding, for that matter -- with a few
musical examples? The "meaning" (or "meanings") of a musical work lies first
and foremost in its form and structure -- and in the harmonic, rhythmic, and
dynamic components thereof -- and might be best approached by formal and
structural analysis. Noting that Gould neglected to emphasize the work's
"bass line" -- perhaps the most rudimentary element of a set of variations,
and thereby the least in need of emphasis -- indicates neither a lack of
understanding on his part, nor an abundance on yours.
Otto
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Simon Roberts
Alain DAGHER (al...@nil.mni.mcgill.ca) wrote:
: MT <matr...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
: : There are composers and composers, and musics and musics. When the music
: : is greater than any interpreter, the interpreter should realize it and
: : be humble.
: This reminds me of Churchill's famous dictum about a man described as
: humble: "Well, he had much to be humble about." Humility is pretty
: much the last thing I look for in an artist. (well, for the purpose of
: this argument at least).
A Haitink fan speaks.... (Wasn't it, re a colleague in Parliament, "a
modest man with much to be modest about"?)
: So now it comes out: what people don't like about Glenn Gould is that
: he couldn't play without being ... playful!
Which, of course, is a sin. Classical music is *serious* so we must all
dress up and go to church.
Simon
Nicolas Hodges
samir ghiocel golescu <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> writes
>
>Nice posting, and I agree is one of the possibilities of interpreting
>Gould's "musical-practical jokes". I love also humor, even humor in music
>-- ever heard Hambourg or Hofmann playing Beethoven-Rubinstein's Turkisch
>March or Rosenthal in Liadov's Musical Snuff-Box ? enjoyable light spirit
>in music... But a deep masterpiece should, I believe, involve you in a
>genuine way, caleidoscopic "masques" being excluded. Is that
>fundamentalism? Perhaps... in real life I am more tolerant.
What is 'real life' if not a kaleidoscopic masque?
And what greater works are there than those which, like the Diabelli
Variations for example, embrace life in all its variousness? (Rhetorical
question, before anyone produces a list!)
--
Nic
Nicolas Hodges
<si...@dept.english.upenn.edu> writes
>Which interpreters do you think "fake[] expression using professional
>tools"?
Quite a lot I'm afraid to say, the saddest example being Kissin. (They
are not usually as spectacularly talented as that though!) It is usually
a result of being over-schooled.
Gould is not an example.
--
Nic
Nicolas Hodges
<ducky兀deltanet.com> writes
>In article <747of5$k...@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>, al...@nil.mni.mcgill.ca
>pondered what I'm pondering as follows:
>>
>>he couldn't play without being ... playful!
>
One has to be careful equating people with their playing. Gould was the
precise opposite of obnoxious and sadistic. Broadly speaking he was
polite and courteous to a fault (check out his hundreds of replies to
fan mail which he could have just ignored (and should have so that he
could record the whole Art of Fugue!)). He was also terribly sensitive
about the well-being of animals.
I don't find his playing obnoxious and sadistic anyway.
--
Nic
Simon Roberts
: My point was that a great interpretation is much more than a collection
: of tricks. It requires total immersion in the work and, yes, some
: self-effacing of the interpreter. Some pianists play as if the public
: went to hear *them* instead of Beethoven, Bach, or Mozart. Maybe the
: public does, but I do not endorse this attitude. Volodya Horowitz did
: this sometimes, to the detriment of the music. I am not talking of not
: interpreting but of substituting fireworks for an integrated and deep
: interpretation. Hear Horowitz play Beethoven and then hear Serkin and
: you'll know what I mean (I hope).
Well, I think I know what you mean (and frankly I would rather hear
neither Serkin (R) or Horowitz in Beethoven), but I'm not sure if you're
not merely using this language ("fireworks" etc.) to describe
interpretations you find unpersuasive rather than describing a special
category of "fake" interpretations. It's not possible to hear
Beethoven without also hearing the interpreter, after all. When Serkin
plays Beethoven, you're not hearing Beethoven but
Serkin-playing-Beethoven; and it's not clear to me why that's not in the
same boat as Horowitz's (even if we both agree that Serkin's Beethoven is
better than his). "Self-effacing" in practice means merely "doesn't do
something to the music which, by my understanding of it, is weird" or some
such. The music can't "speak for itself"....
Simon
Simon Roberts
: One has to be careful equating people with their playing. Gould was the
: precise opposite of obnoxious and sadistic. Broadly speaking he was
: polite and courteous to a fault (check out his hundreds of replies to
: fan mail which he could have just ignored (and should have so that he
: could record the whole Art of Fugue!)). He was also terribly sensitive
: about the well-being of animals.
: I don't find his playing obnoxious and sadistic anyway.
Of course not. Anyway, "sadistic" to whom? Those lacking the requisite
imagination and sense of humor, perhaps, but they don't need to listen;
Gould had no captive audience -- that's one of the advantages of an artist
who mainly records rather than giving concerts.
Simon
Paul Kintzele
>
> I remember an ABC TV documentary, introduced by (and I hope my memory
> hasn't failed me) Zoltan Kocsis, who made the point that he thought the
> 1981 Goldberg Variations by Gould was a more *cosmic* affair. Whatever
> that really means?
Whatever it means, I agree; although I suppose an additional layer of
mystique has settled over this recording due to Gould's untimely death.
I do like the youthful exuberance of the 1955 account, but for me the
'81 recording is something special. By introducing a greater range of
tempi (the slow arias, as is often noted; but after the slow initial
aria that first truculent variation has such brilliance!), Gould gives
me a sense of having traversed a greater distance, surveyed a wider
area, and experienced more of the inner and outer worlds. If I weren't
wary about misusing the word, I would call the '81 Goldbergs one of the
most metaphysical recordings I know of--in turns dazzling and
inward-looking, it is the highest tribute to Bach's genius. In
listening to it, I feel closer to life--and, in a strange way, to death
as well.
Paul
samir ghiocel golescu
On 4 Dec 1998, Alain DAGHER wrote:
> You've misunderstood me. I was referring to a "smile". VOltaire's
> smile.
>
> The humour you refer to is more of a snicker.
Yes, but I never heard a "Voltaire-smile" in Gould's music.
Grimaces, yes, too many.
> There! The paint has dried. You and Mario can step out of that corner
> now.
Your humble servants wish to thank you, your Highness!
Mario, welcome in the humorless people club! And, for God's sake, don't
laugh! I'm [as] serious [as I can]!
Samir Golescu
Bruce Bennett
> one shouldn't snicker while playing a masterpiece.
But even if one does, the masterpiece survives in numerous appropriately
respectful performances. It would be hard to say which is actually
worse, snickering or meticulously exalted reverence. I suspect the
former is by far the more rarely encountered sin against a masterpiece.
Many Gould-haters carry on as if he were some kind of dangerously
malignant Woody the Woodpecker exuberantly hacking away at the
foundations of musical culture, even civilization itself. Even if this
were so, the threat could hardly be so contagiously corrosive as to
warrant the all-rejecting vehemence and ever-ready vigilance of their
reaction.
After all, he is/was only one classical pianist among many -- and one
who founded no school (except, maybe, of record-buying ;^).
--
Bruce Bennett
Alain
> Simon:
>
> <<Well, yes, he said something along the lines of great music better
> than it could ever be performed. But it doesn't follow that there's
> only one way to do it (that's all I was getting at: that the better the
> work the more likely it is to invite a greater diversity of
> interpretations), only one "true" understanding (as Samir puts it),
> etc.>>
>
> My point was that a great interpretation is much more than a collection
> of tricks. It requires total immersion in the work and, yes, some
> self-effacing of the interpreter.
I agree. However, my original point was not that I liked interpretations
that were mocking or disrespectful, but that I needed to be able to imagine
the musician smiling. If you've seen the video of Gould listening to the
playback of his Italian Concerto you'll know what I mean.
Buffoonery, as implied by your "bags of tricks" analogy, was the farthest
thing from my mind.
ad
samir ghiocel golescu
I appologize to the non-professional people for some of the language used
in this posting.
On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 ottor...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> structural analysis. Noting that Gould neglected to emphasize the work's
> "bass line" -- perhaps the most rudimentary element of a set of variations,
> and thereby the least in need of emphasis -- indicates neither a lack of
> understanding on his part, nor an abundance on yours.
I'm not astonished that, if you can call "rudimentary" the bass line, in a
set of variations, you like Gould's Goldberg Variations .
Wilhelm Furtwangler said, and others as well: "everything great is
simple". With such a "rudimentary" device as a dominant-tonic prolonged
cadenza (made even more "rudimentary" by the absence of the third
[c sharp] in the dominant chord), Beethoven built one of the most powerful
symphonic beginnings of the literature (Ninth Symphony, first mvt).
From where comes the unbelievable dramatic force of Bach's Passacaglia in
C Minor if not from the constant revival, in a "set of variations", of the
"rudimentary" bass-line (c-g-e flat-f-g-a flat-f-g-d-e flat-b-c-
[low]f-g-c), a theme with immense developing potential, in its harmonic
ambiguities and polyphonic opportunities. If an organist would, by means
of registers and dynamics options, obscure that theme, everybody would
jump against him. But if Mr. Gould choose to pay attention to the
nervous fastness of his mordenti and trills, interrupting the music with
details which are nothing else than pathetic "trouvailles", he is
allowed to do that, because, isn't so, if the performer *anyway* is
interpreting music, why should him be limited by rules?
Watching the varied way Bach is developing his "rudimentary" bass-line in
Goldberg is really fascinating. Sometimes it appears closer to the initial
statement (Var. 4, for instance) other times must be more guessed than
read, but it is still there. In the first minor variation, the bass
appears in a more improvisatoric form, closer, melodically speaking,to the
main statement (trough a skillful use of the melodic coincidence of the
steps 5-6-7-8(1) in the melodic minor with those of the major (I
mean d-e-f sharp-g). In the second minor variation (Var. 21), the bass
becomes more "organized", with added chromatic half-tones: g-f sharp-f
natural-e-eflat-d...In the Var. 25 (the emotional climax of the piece),on
the same skeleton, Bach is developing a recitative-like supporting bass,
insisting, in a "three"-rhythm pattern (unrecognizable in Gould
performances [IF you listen to them without knowing the score]):
G--g.g g/G fsharp - f.f f/F e- eflat.eflat eflat/D etc. Mr Gould is just
playing in a self-indulgent, overbroadened way the theme (made worse by
the fact that he was all his life incapable of really sustaining, in one
genuine breath, a long line -- that's why he hated Chopin).
Nowhere the Matthaus Passion-like noble, tragic greatness the music would
be supposed to express.
In most great "theme and variations" (think of Brahms Fourth Symphony)
masterpieces, the composer is choosing a certain balance between the
constant skeleton of his main musical ideas and the various embodyings of
that. In philosophical terms, that's about the relation between uni[ci]ty
and multiplicity. Bach's "Goldberg" has, by the force of obviousness,
enough variety, in metric, rhythmic, polyphonic [number of used voices,
canonic approaches and so on], figurations specificity, varying density of
musical events in the given space, thousands of other features, so has
enough variety in itself. The duty of the performer should be not only to
bring to life all this variety, but also to find, to listen to and to
reproduce the voice of the hidden, organic unity Bach so masterfully
encrypted in his piece. To overplay the contrasting elements, if you have
the necessary technique (and Gould had it in abundance) is easy.
The "bass-line" is only one of the features I made reference to. Another
one (also "rudimentary") is the ubiquitous presence, in Bach's music, of
certain hidden "cementing" thematic cells, transcending the measures'
border, cells totally obscured by Gould's playing always, in the fast
variations at least, on the light-music principle up-beat -- down-beat,
up-beat -- down-beat and so on.
Speaking about contrasting elements, for the authentic great interpreters,
the rhythm and the melody are not opposing principles, the rhythm is
"melodic" and the melody is always "rhythmic". Only in the worst kind of
light music, the dancing hit is followed by the syrupy, begging,
rhythm-deprived bad-tasted melody. Yes, at least in Goldberg Variations,
Gould seems to me a phenomenon of a pop-like sub-culture, unifying in a
paradoxical way the abilities and intellectual knowledge of a
classic-trained musician with the *artistical* standards of a pop-star.
He is making Bach accessible, yes (I know people which do not
listen to Bach, do not listen to classical music, but they enjoy, during
"dolce far niente" sessions, Gould's Goldberg). This popularity comes
not from expressing Bach's music with enough clarity and eloquence as to
bring the listener to Bach, but lowering Bach's inner world to a level
which, IMO, is hard to accept. To those who enjoy that, my greetings. When
I am in such a mood, I prefer Edith Piaf and Nat King Kole. At least they
were low-level music stars who transcended what they were "supposed" to be
and not the reverse...
Weingartner is not my favorite conductor but sometimes, when I listen to
badly distorted music, I am grateful that there is always a man who,
without being a real or faked genius, embodied the concept of _basic
honesty_ in interpretation...
Regards,
Samir Golescu
samir ghiocel golescu
On 4 Dec 1998, Simon Roberts wrote:
> 42FF...@sprintmail.com> <747of5$k...@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>Distribution:
>
> Alain DAGHER (al...@nil.mni.mcgill.ca) wrote:
> : MT <matr...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> : : There are composers and composers, and musics and musics. When the music
> : : is greater than any interpreter, the interpreter should realize it and
> : : be humble.
>
##################
> : So now it comes out: what people don't like about Glenn Gould is that
> : he couldn't play without being ... playful!
>
> Which, of course, is a sin. Classical music is *serious* so we must all
> dress up and go to church.
NO! We must put on a Chicago Bulls shirt and bring the music in the
restaurants. A Bach, a bar, come on man, why are you so stiff about?...
(I don't dare sign myself)
samir ghiocel golescu
On 3 Dec 1998, ESH Tooter wrote:
> <<I can not praise
> (despite their great popularity among musicians and music lovers as well)
> interpretations which, again IMO, become an opaque screen between Bach's
> music and listener, interpretations which are contradicting the roots
> themselves of Bach's spirituality. >>
>
> I'm interested in this explanation because it explains perfectly what I feel
> when I listen to Richter's WTC. On the other hand, while Gould's instrument
> and touch have nothing to do with what Bach could have expected from any
> instrument he knew, his Bach whether Goldbergs or WTC, seems mucvh more in
> keeping with what I understand to be of importance in Bach.
>
> I'd appreciate comment on any thoughts in relation to Gould's Bach vs.
> Richter's Bach.
I'm sorry, dear friend, but the experience of two guys I don't particularly
admire (Napoleon & Hitler), namely the "bravery" of opening two wars
in the same time makes me reluctant about sharing with you my opinion
regarding Richter's Bach.
For my Gould comments I was sent to www.madhouse.com, by an extremely
distinguished English lord. I can't even imagine what it could happen to
my Net being if I would say, for instance, that I find Richter's Bach too
abstract, without transcendence. Sorry, I'm not saying anything.
Regards,
Samir Golescu
samir ghiocel golescu
On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, samir ghiocel golescu wrote:
> I am not going to take a Martian as a Bible specialist!
Please excuse the autoquotation. I just found out that Gould's 1981
"Goldberg" was awarded the enviable honor of being sent in space, together
with other products considered representative for the human culture.
Splendid! I couldn't have found a more appropriate destination...
Samir Golescu
vladimir
Nicolas Hodges wrote in message ...
To my mind such faking happens quite a lot, and virtually no
performers are immune. Whenever they feel uninspired but must
play, they fill in with professional techniques. (Either that or
my ears are at fault and lack professional fake hearing techniques.)
Having said that, Gould did labor at great lenghts in the studio
to impart to posterity his views on the music he was playing. Faking
in that context must mean something a little different.
Phil
vladimir
MT wrote in message <366767...@sprintmail.com>...
>Simon:
>
><<Well, yes, he said something along the lines of great music better
>than it could ever be performed. But it doesn't follow that there's
>only one way to do it (that's all I was getting at: that the better the
>work the more likely it is to invite a greater diversity of
>interpretations), only one "true" understanding (as Samir puts it),
>etc.>>
>
>My point was that a great interpretation is much more than a collection
>of tricks. It requires total immersion in the work and, yes, some
>went to hear *them* instead of Beethoven, Bach, or Mozart. Maybe the
>public does, but I do not endorse this attitude. Volodya Horowitz did
>this sometimes, to the detriment of the music. I am not talking of not
>interpreting but of substituting fireworks for an integrated and deep
>interpretation. Hear Horowitz play Beethoven and then hear Serkin and
>
My view is that music in general has built-in allowance for a wide
range of performing personalities. It's a factor that makes listening
endlessly fascinating. Beethoven specifically often seems to sound
great with a variety of interpretations. I do like Serkin's Beethoven,
despite the rather narrow range of things he did pianistically, because
he was energetic and faithful to the score, and believed in his
own insights enough for them to come across. I also like Horowitz's
Beethoven, most of it anyway, for very different reasons - and yes,
some of them are closely connected to the pianist and his peculiarly
wide range of things he could do pianistically. Most of those things
I find successful and enjoyable - again, I think their possibility is
an inherent value in the music.
Phil
Simon Roberts
: In article <747ig1$vlg$2...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Simon Roberts
: <si...@dept.english.upenn.edu> writes
: >Which interpreters do you think "fake[] expression using professional
: >tools"?
: Now that's an interesting question.
: Quite a lot I'm afraid to say, the saddest example being Kissin. (They
: are not usually as spectacularly talented as that though!) It is usually
: a result of being over-schooled.
: Gould is not an example.
My question was partly rhetorical; I'm not sure what it means to "fake"
expression in this context. I'm also doubtful that (m)any musicians fake
it. So I would be interested if you explained a bit why you think Kissin
(or anyone else you want to use as an example) does. That he has nothing
of his own to express and, like an actor (?) just pretends? But we don't
care if an actor pretends....
Simon
Simon Roberts
ubc.ca>
Distribution:
Bruce Bennett (bben...@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: Alain DAGHER <al...@nil.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
: > one shouldn't snicker while playing a masterpiece.
: But even if one does, the masterpiece survives in numerous appropriately
: respectful performances. It would be hard to say which is actually
: worse, snickering or meticulously exalted reverence. I suspect the
: former is by far the more rarely encountered sin against a masterpiece.
Quite; "meticulously exalted reverence" seems beaten into too many
musicians, which may explain why so many current performers seem
interchangeable. Unthinking, pious reverence seems to me by far the
greater vice, resulting in, inter alia, vast tracts of boring records; at
least those who "snicker" (of course, that's not what they really do) are
honest about what they're doing.
Simon
Simon Roberts
: G--g.g g/G fsharp - f.f f/F e- eflat.eflat eflat/D etc. Mr Gould is just
: playing in a self-indulgent, overbroadened way the theme (made worse by
: the fact that he was all his life incapable of really sustaining, in one
: genuine breath, a long line -- that's why he hated Chopin).
He was perfectly capable of it; he merely didn't like it.
[snip]
: Weingartner is not my favorite conductor but sometimes, when I listen to
: badly distorted music, I am grateful that there is always a man who,
: without being a real or faked genius, embodied the concept of _basic
: honesty_ in interpretation...
None of your catalogue of complaints about Gould has anything to do with
his "honesty." In what ways was he (or anyone else you want to throw in)
"dishonest"? (Or, for that matter, in what ways was Weingartner "honest"?)
Simon
John Harkness
samir ghiocel golescu wrote:
> On 4 Dec 1998, Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> > samir ghiocel golescu (gol...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
> >
> > : Nice posting, and I agree is one of the possibilities of interpreting
> > : Gould's "musical-practical jokes". I love also humor, even humor in music
> > : -- ever heard Hambourg or Hofmann playing Beethoven-Rubinstein's Turkisch
> > : March or Rosenthal in Liadov's Musical Snuff-Box ? enjoyable light spirit
> > : in music... But a deep masterpiece should, I believe, involve you in a
> > : genuine way, caleidoscopic "masques" being excluded. Is that
> > : fundamentalism? Perhaps... in real life I am more tolerant.
> >
>
> > But surely "a deep masterpiece" invites "caleidoscopic 'masques'";
> Not in the meaning I gave to that (faking expression using professional
> tools -- technique, knowledge, power of projection --, without heartfelt
> sincerity.
>
Well, you know what they say about sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it
made.
John
ottor...@my-dejanews.com
One should not venture into deep water when one can hardly swim. What you
offer here is not analysis -- musical or otherwise -- nor is it a refutation
of the idea that the most rudimentary (perhaps you would have preferred
"fundamental"?) element of a set of variations requires emphasis. What's
truly astonishing is that you're willing to serve up such dilletantish fare
with such slight provocation. Be warned that an understanding of the
variation form -- or of any other aspect of music, for that matter -- cannot
be gleaned from CD liner notes. Your pretending to musical expertise places
you squarely among the "non-professional people" you condescend to at the top
of your post.
> Only in the worst kind of
> light music, the dancing hit is followed by the syrupy, begging,
> rhythm-deprived bad-tasted melody. Yes, at least in Goldberg Variations,
> Gould seems to me a phenomenon of a pop-like sub-culture, unifying in a
> paradoxical way the abilities and intellectual knowledge of a
> classic-trained musician with the *artistical* standards of a pop-star.
>
> He is making Bach accessible, yes (I know people which do not
> listen to Bach, do not listen to classical music, but they enjoy, during
> "dolce far niente" sessions, Gould's Goldberg). This popularity comes
> not from expressing Bach's music with enough clarity and eloquence as to
> bring the listener to Bach, but lowering Bach's inner world to a level
> which, IMO, is hard to accept. To those who enjoy that, my greetings. When
> I am in such a mood, I prefer Edith Piaf and Nat King Kole. At least they
> were low-level music stars who transcended what they were "supposed" to be
> and not the reverse...
>
It's too bad that Gould failed in making Bach's music more accessible to you.
Be careful not to confuse the commercial success of Gould's Bach recordings
with their musical worth. My first-semester L&M professor at Juilliard used
to to complain bitterly about Gould's Bach interpretation, employing all the
standard clichés. He eventually admitted that what bothered him most about
Gould was the widespread appeal of his recordings. Damn the Philistines!
Playing the connoisseur does not, however, grant one access to "Bach's inner
world" -- knowledge of which is a rather arrogant conceit, wouldn't you say?
John Harkness
Ditto.
John
John Gavin
highly developed minds (at the expense of a somewhat undeveloped
spiritual heart). It is as if, from the earliest age, they find a way
to channel all their life energy to the brain. People in this category
are brilliant, but unbalanced - and often develop physical ailments, due
to uneven distribution of prana, or life-force.
Yogananda explained that when a mystic, with an ability to "see from
within" looks at one of these individuals, their subtle bodies look like
"Mr. Potato Head" with a huge head, and an somewhat atrophied heart.
I've long believed that Glenn Gould was a Mr. Potato Head.
samir ghiocel golescu
On 5 Dec 1998, Simon Roberts wrote:
> : the fact that Gould was all his life incapable of really sustaining,
> : in one genuine breath, a long line -- that's why he hated Chopin).
>
> He was perfectly capable of it; he merely didn't like it.
I have a different opinion.
> None of your catalogue of complaints about Gould has anything to do with
> his "honesty." In what ways was he (or anyone else you want to throw in)
> "dishonest"?
Josef Hofmann followed, from heaven, where he was appointed the "prince of
pianists" (as a French critic -- Tubeuf, I'm not sure? -- called him), our
friendly exchange, Mr. Roberts (by the way, I appreciate that you do not use
offensive points in answering. I'm sick and tired by the "I'm smarter
than you are, you damn fool" attitude -- music should be never reason for
animosity). Hofmann sent you, with the overnight delivery angel, an
answer:
<<...many young aspirants to public renown... resort to aesthetic violence
in order to make sure of "good notices"; to use power where it is not
called for; to make "feeling" ooze from every pore; to double, treble the
tempo or vacillate it out of all rhythm; to violate the boundaries of both
the composition and the instrument -- and all this for no other purpose
than to show as quickly as possible that the various qualities are
"all there". These conditions produce what may be called the pianistic
nouveau-riche or parvenu, who practices the vices of the dilettante
without, however, the mitigating excuse of ignorance or a lack of
training. >>
[from "The piano and its player"]
Best regards,
Samir Golescu
samir ghiocel golescu
I did not only liked very much your posting (not *only* because is serving
my point of view) but also I envied it for having expressed in a short
form the essence of what I tried to say in many more words.
Best regards,
Samir Golescu
samir ghiocel golescu
On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, samir ghiocel golescu wrote:
> Josef Hofmann followed, from heaven, where he was appointed the "prince of
> pianists"
and what's funny is that he looked there for Gould -- his opinion is that
Gould has very good fingers and he could do some music, at least
post-"festum" but -- surprise! -- Glenny wasn't there...
samir ghiocel golescu
On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, samir ghiocel golescu wrote:
> *** by the way, I know my English is quite awful, but your Italian, if
> any, is, if possible (!), worse than my English. The correct spelling of
> the word you honor me with has two "t", one "l"! In French dilettante, in
> Italian dilettante... sempre t+t
Addenda:
If the Webster still gives the dilletante ,for the word "dilettantish"
the alternative is "dilettant*e*ish".
Simon Roberts
samir ghiocel golescu (gol...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: Josef Hofmann followed, from heaven, where he was appointed the "prince of
: pianists" (as a French critic -- Tubeuf, I'm not sure? -- called him), our
: friendly exchange, Mr. Roberts (by the way, I appreciate that you do not use
: offensive points in answering. I'm sick and tired by the "I'm smarter
: than you are, you damn fool" attitude -- music should be never reason for
: animosity). Hofmann sent you, with the overnight delivery angel, an
: answer:
: <<...many young aspirants to public renown... resort to aesthetic violence
: in order to make sure of "good notices"; to use power where it is not
: called for; to make "feeling" ooze from every pore; to double, treble the
: tempo or vacillate it out of all rhythm; to violate the boundaries of both
: the composition and the instrument -- and all this for no other purpose
: than to show as quickly as possible that the various qualities are
: "all there". These conditions produce what may be called the pianistic
: nouveau-riche or parvenu, who practices the vices of the dilettante
: without, however, the mitigating excuse of ignorance or a lack of
: training. >>
Well, those may well all be vices that ought to be avoided, but why is
that sort of thing "dishonest" (as opposed to "vulgar", "tasteless" etc.)?
Simon
samir ghiocel golescu
On 5 Dec 1998, Simon Roberts wrote:
> samir ghiocel golescu (gol...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>
> : Josef Hofmann followed, from heaven, where he was appointed the "prince of
> : pianists" (as a French critic -- Tubeuf, I'm not sure? -- called him), our
> : friendly exchange, Mr. Roberts (by the way, I appreciate that you do not use
> : offensive points in answering. I'm sick and tired by the "I'm smarter
> : than you are, you damn fool" attitude -- music should be never reason for
> : animosity). Hofmann sent you, with the overnight delivery angel, an
> : answer:
>
> : <<...many young aspirants to public renown... resort to aesthetic violence
> : in order to make sure of "good notices"; to use power where it is not
> : called for; to make "feeling" ooze from every pore; to double, treble the
> : tempo or vacillate it out of all rhythm; to violate the boundaries of both
> : the composition and the instrument -- and all this for no other purpose
> : than to show as quickly as possible that the various qualities are
> : "all there". These conditions produce what may be called the pianistic
> : nouveau-riche or parvenu, who practices the vices of the dilettante
> : without, however, the mitigating excuse of ignorance or a lack of
> : training. >>
>
> Well, those may well all be vices that ought to be avoided, but why is
> that sort of thing "dishonest" (as opposed to "vulgar", "tasteless" etc.)?
You can use your adjectives instead of mine.
Regards,
Samir Golescu
Alain
That should be "addendum" ...
dum-dum.
alain
Clifford Ando
That's not an acceptable response, given what the adjectives mean.
"Dishonest" implies much more than an error in judgment or disagreement
over aesthetics.
And please don't issue another self-serving lament about your lack of
fluency in English. By suggesting that this is a matter of diction, you
claim to understand and not to acknowledge the different in these words'
connotations.
Clifford Ando ca...@usc.edu
Classics Department phone: (213) 740-3683
University of Southern California fax: (213) 740-7360
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0352
ESH Tooter
found Richter's Bach "authentic."
I adimire any performance that can make me hear a work freshly. I can't
pretend to know what the magic is that makes this happen. Some performances
make the work glow once or twice and then the thrill fades. Others captivate
me each time I go back. Gould falls in to the latter group. In his late
Goldberg's, particularly, I hear much that has to do with fundamental human
experience. May this always be the case. However, it would be a poor world if
Gould's way was the only way I could hear the Goldbergs or the Tempest Sonata
of Beethoven or...
More than this, I don't know.
samir ghiocel golescu
On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, Alain wrote:
> samir ghiocel golescu wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, samir ghiocel golescu wrote:
> >
> > > *** by the way, I know my English is quite awful, but your Italian, if
> > > any, is, if possible (!), worse than my English. The correct spelling of
> > > the word you honor me with has two "t", one "l"! In French dilettante, in
> > > Italian dilettante... sempre t+t
> >
> > Addenda:
> >
> > If the Webster still gives the dilletante ,for the word "dilettantish"
> > the alternative is "dilettant*e*ish".
>
> That should be "addendum" ...
>
> dum-dum.
>
> alain
Sorry, yes, I am (very) fallible, generally speaking, but not necessarily
because of the mistake you found: AFAIK, the use of the plural form
*addenda* is pretty free, traditionally meaning "what is added" -- I don't
have to enumerate a dozen of things in order to use it... there were two
information "bits" -- about the form of two words. If you consider it
one phrase (idea), of course, the use of "addendum" would be also
appropriate.
So the rime could be dum-dum as it could be ja-ja.
But not that is my point.
Believe me, with the consciousness of my own intellectual
limits, I know I wouldn't be at all the most appropriate claimer for the
job of "errors-hunter"...
You should have noticed that I avoided to offend any
person with different opinions, which treated me in the elementarily
reverential way I like to treat the others.
Regards,
Samir Golescu
samir ghiocel golescu
On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, Clifford Ando wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, samir ghiocel golescu wrote:
>
> > On 5 Dec 1998, Simon Roberts wrote:
> >
> > > Well, those may well all be vices that ought to be avoided, but why is
> > > that sort of thing "dishonest" (as opposed to "vulgar", "tasteless"
> > > etc.)?
> >
> > You can use your adjectives instead of mine.
>
> That's not an acceptable response, given what the adjectives mean.
> "Dishonest" implies much more than an error in judgment or disagreement
> over aesthetics.
>
> And please don't issue another self-serving lament about your lack of
> fluency in English. By suggesting that this is a matter of diction, you
> claim to understand and not to acknowledge the different in these words'
> connotations.
First, I do not understand too well the reason of your "ultimative" tone.
Second, I did not imply, with all my admitted ignorance, that
"dishonest"="vulgar"="tasteless".
Third, I'm not "lamenting" (I prefer Purcell's music in that area). The
statement that my English language knowledge is limited and imperfect is
not an acted modesty, just the (sad) truth.
Eventually, I could ask someone here to "define" and to "demonstrate" what
is the sunshine, the beauty of sound, an inspired melody or God. After
that, I will come with my definition of "musical dishonesty".
Regards,
Samir Golescu
samir ghiocel golescu
On 5 Dec 1998, ESH Tooter wrote:
> I admire any performance that can make me hear a work freshly. I can't
> pretend to know what the magic is that makes this happen. Some performances
> make the work glow once or twice and then the thrill fades. Others captivate
> me each time I go back. Gould falls in to the latter group. In his late
> Goldberg's, particularly, I hear much that has to do with fundamental human
> experience. May this always be the case. However, it would be a poor world if
> Gould's way was the only way I could hear the Goldbergs or the Tempest Sonata
> of Beethoven or...
>
> More than this, I don't know.
Allow me to express my appreciation for your answer. Because of people
like you, who like Gould without feeling the need of hunting someone with
a different opinion to "cybernetic death",
I feel a certain regret that I opened this chain of discussions. Too
irritable myself, I should have avoided hurting the feelings of other
people, even if I strongly dislike Gould, or at least I should have
expressed my opinion in much more moderate terms. Obviously Gould *had* a
very strong personality, otherwise his performances wouldn't provoke
passionate discussions. The fact that I resent that personality as
"malignant" could be, after all, a matter of personal (silly,
Mr. Roberts?) idiosyncrasy (happily, that doesn't happen, for me, with
many performers and performances).
If a certain musical experience, which for me was unpleasant, becomes a
cherished memory for other people, why should I interfere with that...
Regards,
Samir Golescu
John Harkness
samir ghiocel golescu wrote:
> Nice posting, and I agree is one of the possibilities of interpreting
> Gould's "musical-practical jokes". I love also humor, even humor in music
> -- ever heard Hambourg or Hofmann playing Beethoven-Rubinstein's Turkisch
> March or Rosenthal in Liadov's Musical Snuff-Box ? enjoyable light spirit
> in music... But a deep masterpiece should, I believe, involve you in a
> genuine way, caleidoscopic "masques" being excluded. Is that
> fundamentalism? Perhaps... in real life I am more tolerant.
>
> Regards,
> Samir Golescu
Just out of curiousity, can you name any shallow masterpieces?
John
samir ghiocel golescu
On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, John Harkness wrote:
> Just out of curiousity, can you name any shallow masterpieces?
>
> John
If you put it that way, of course the syntagm seems an oxymoron.
But yes, there are some pieces, especially miniatures, which don't have
too profound a content and still, because of their delightful,
"exterior" perfection, could be called at least authentic gems, if not
masterpieces.
Regards,
Samir Golescu
John Harkness
samir ghiocel golescu wrote:
Oh, sure, do the easy one first.
John
Simon Roberts
: I feel a certain regret that I opened this chain of discussions. Too
: irritable myself, I should have avoided hurting the feelings of other
: people, even if I strongly dislike Gould, or at least I should have
: expressed my opinion in much more moderate terms.
As far as I can tell you haven't hurt anyone's feelings; speaking only for
me, I am puzzled by *how* you express your dislike of his performances
(claiming he had "no understanding", is "dishonest", etc.), not by the
fact that you dislike them. I've been going on about this because you
aren't alone in using these words; one often reads in reviews that a
performance is "honest" etc., a concept I find rather odd in this context.
Simon
Andrys D Basten
samir ghiocel golescu <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On 5 Dec 1998, ESH Tooter wrote:
>
>> I admire any performance that can make me hear a work freshly. I can't
>> pretend to know what the magic is that makes this happen. Some performances
>> make the work glow once or twice and then the thrill fades. Others captivate
>> me each time I go back. Gould falls in to the latter group. In his late
>> Goldberg's, particularly, I hear much that has to do with fundamental human
>> experience. May this always be the case. However, it would be a poor world if
>> Gould's way was the only way I could hear the Goldbergs or the Tempest Sonata
>> of Beethoven or...
>>
>> More than this, I don't know.
>
>Allow me to express my appreciation for your answer. Because of people
>like you, who like Gould without feeling the need of hunting someone with
>a different opinion to "cybernetic death",
>irritable myself, I should have avoided hurting the feelings of other
>people, even if I strongly dislike Gould, or at least I should have
>very strong personality, otherwise his performances wouldn't provoke
>passionate discussions. The fact that I resent that personality as
>"malignant" could be, after all, a matter of personal (silly,
>Mr. Roberts?) idiosyncrasy (happily, that doesn't happen, for me, with
>many performers and performances).
>If a certain musical experience, which for me was unpleasant, becomes a
>cherished memory for other people, why should I interfere with that...
>
>Regards,
>Samir Golescu
Samir,
You and ESH Tooter have written two of the best posts I've seen
having to do with strong differences in emotional response to
whatever music or musician. A very good read. Normally, the
fighting just goes on and on, each party sure they are 'right' and
anyone else is 'wrong.'
- A
--
===========================================================
Andrys Basten <and...@netcom.com> CNE, Basten Micro Consulting
San Francisco area - 510/235-3861
http://www.andrys.com/books.html -SEARCH for Books/Films/Classical Music
Argerich discography. Also SEARCH FANFARE Review-Titles
http://www.andrys.com -Online resources
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html -Peru photos w/Canon Elph
Have music, will travel: piano, harpsichord, recorders
samir ghiocel golescu
On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, John Harkness wrote:
> > samir ghiocel golescu wrote:
> > Eventually, I could ask someone here to "define" and to "demonstrate" what
> > is the sunshine, the beauty of sound, an inspired melody or God. After
> > that, I will come with my definition of "musical dishonesty".
> >
> > Regards,
> > Samir Golescu
>
> Oh, sure, do the easy one first.
I liked that.
Regards,
Samir Golescu
ESH Tooter
it would be interesting to see if appreciation of and disapproval of Gould's
Bach is consistent with other Bach preferences or even performing preferences
in a wider range of music. Like others, I'm interested in knowing what causes
the violent reactions (pro & con) to some performers. Stokowski & Celibidache
come quickly to mind as examples. Beyond this, I'm interested in knowing if
there are some patterns to our tastes which might enable us to better
understand our differences. This seems preferable to me to issuing decrees
upon the nature of Beauty. Of course, the result might be broader definitions
of some aesthetic principles to try to pin down thoughts on that elusive B
word.
I asked for thoughts awhile back on Gould vs. Richter, not to open a second
front, but because I find both of these pianists to have markedly original
approaches to most of what they play. In discussions with friends in a small
listening circle we have cultivated, I have gone so far as to suggest that both
might even be termed "perverse" in some of their performances. My use of this
term is not intended to derogate either performer. Rather, it is a term of
respect for their artistic risk-taking, a willingness to challenge our opinions
of the music with new ideas. Of course I also respect the flawless technique
of both artists, but this is of much less importance to me.
Having indicated my profound respect for both Gould and Richter, I would say
that in the case of Gould, my feelings go beyond respect. I find his
performances of Bach (and much else) almost always captivating, even
invigorating. This does not keep me from finding things in other performances
that Gould's performances lack. Nikolayeva's Goldberg Variations seem to me to
be warmer - have greater humanness to them. I would also never want to be
without either of Landowska's recordings for their organ-like scale, and the
recent Schepkin performance, though not to me quite in that league, also has
special merit. Ruth Watermin / Morey Ritt in the violin & keyboard sonatas
have a gentle spirituality that I don't find in Gould/Laredo. When I listen to
them I think of sections of the St. Matthew Passion.
With Richter the case is different. While his Bach is usually fascinating, it
often seems lacking in the basic polyphonic tug that I crave. I rarely come
away feeling that this is a performance I will return to soon, and, indeed, I
rarely have a craving to go back though I would always look for an opportunity
to sample a new Richter performance. My feelings are clearest when I listen to
Richter's Schubert. The scale of much of his Schubert is monumental and I move
through his performance of the D.860 as one ascending a mountain. The
experience is incredibly powerful. However, it is in conflict with my sense of
who Schubert was, and I return to performances by Imogen Cooper (or even Lupu)
feeling that here is the poet of nature that I understand Schubert to be. The
brook is always bubbling along as birds and insects swoop by.
Understanding the nature of beauty is hard enough when we approach a painting
or work of literature. This problem of mediating between composer and
performer and understanding the role of each is immensely complicated as the
previous posts have made clear. My underlying principle is to return to the
surface, quiet my intellect a bit to feel what the music is telling me.
ESH Tooter
Variations for example, embrace life in all its variousness? (Rhetorical
question, before anyone produces a list!)>>
ROTFL
ESH Tooter
But yes, there are some pieces, especially miniatures, which don't have
too profound a content and still, because of their delightful,
"exterior" perfection, could be called at least authentic gems, if not
masterpieces.
Regards,
Samir Golescu >>
ANOTHER EXAMPLE: I would count Scarlatti among the masters, but his works
rarely, perhaps never, strive for the profound. The chef who concocts a
magnificent pastry or confection to end a hearty meal may be a great artist.
Might we on this basis go to one performer when we want our Beethoven profound
and to another when we feel the need of wit? Can one performance grab it all?
Oh, such problems we run into when all recordings can be revisited and when
each must stand up to this test!
samir ghiocel golescu
On 6 Dec 1998, ESH Tooter wrote:
> ANOTHER EXAMPLE: I would count Scarlatti among the masters, but his works
> rarely, perhaps never, strive for the profound. The chef who concocts a
> magnificent pastry or confection to end a hearty meal may be a great artist.
That reminds me having read (what follows is not an exact quotation)
that Anton Rubinstein was once told about the outstanding initiative of
Hans von Bulow: to play in one recital Beethoven's last five sonatas.
Rubinstein's replied that it was indeed a remarkable accomplishment but it
reminded him a dinner where meat is served five times.
Since then, Bulow's kind of program seem to have generally won. Of course,
Rubinstein's statement could seem vulgar but I'm still wondering if he
wasn't right. After all, (how great must be an artist and) how prepared a
public in order to *really* "diggest", for instance, the whole Art of
the Fugue in one evening?...
Regards,
Samir Golescu
Simon Roberts
: I asked for thoughts awhile back on Gould vs. Richter, not to open a second
: front, but because I find both of these pianists to have markedly original
: approaches to most of what they play. In discussions with friends in a small
: listening circle we have cultivated, I have gone so far as to suggest that both
: might even be termed "perverse" in some of their performances. My use of this
: term is not intended to derogate either performer. Rather, it is a term of
: respect for their artistic risk-taking, a willingness to challenge our opinions
: of the music with new ideas.
[interesting comments snipped]
"Perverse" seems an excellent choice of word in many ways, and for the
reasons you give. I'm reminded of an excellent review by Richard Taruskin
a few years ago in Opus comparing two different HIP recordings of Bach
chamber works, one by MAK, the other by a conservative British group
(London Baroque, perhaps); while he found much to admire in both, he
preferred the risk taking etc. of MAK. The words he used to refer to the
two types of interpretation were "straight" and "crooked", which also make
sense....
Simon
Andrys D Basten
ESH Tooter <esht...@aol.com> wrote:
>the violent reactions (pro & con) to some performers. Stokowski & Celibidache
>come quickly to mind as examples. Beyond this, I'm interested in knowing if
>there are some patterns to our tastes which might enable us to better
>understand our differences.
Different inner clocks, responses to the world, love of steadiness or love
of spontaneity. Love of risk, love of structure. Of course with some you
then have a sort of hatred of whatever opposite, which is too bad, but true
to some extent for most of us.
>This seems preferable to me to issuing decrees
>upon the nature of Beauty. Of course, the result might be broader definitions
>of some aesthetic principles to try to pin down thoughts on that elusive B
>word.
Or the other B word - the Beholder.
>I asked for thoughts awhile back on Gould vs. Richter, not to open a second
I enjoyed everything you said in this post and just have nothing to add
except to say what a joy it is to come across your posts.
>Understanding the nature of beauty is hard enough when we approach a painting
>or work of literature. This problem of mediating between composer and
>performer and understanding the role of each is immensely complicated as the
>previous posts have made clear. My underlying principle is to return to the
>surface, quiet my intellect a bit to feel what the music is telling me.
Yes, and I think that if more here realized that what is ugly to them
can be beautiful (and vice versa), for decent reasons, to someone
else with a different mindset, maybe there'd be less notes of disdain
toward those mindsets, the discussions would be substantial, but
there's something to be said for color! :)
I do know that the rages we often see here due to differing
viewpoints has discouraged others from spending time in forums like
this. Is it my imagination, or have things improved in the last
year?
samir ghiocel golescu
On 8 Dec 1998, ESH Tooter wrote:
> "spontaneity." It's hard for me to believe that a sense of spontanaity should
> not be a universal quest in music. Opposites of spontaneous are "studied"
> "self-conscious" even "labored." These are not usually words applied as
> praise. When I go to theater, I want to be convinced that the words the actors
> speak have emerged in their brains at the moment that they speak them, that the
> actors are in a true dialogue, not reading lines set down for them. Shouldn't
> a musical performer do the same? Whether one arrives at this by turning the
> original instruments the composer used or by reinterpreting on instruments the
> composer never dreamed of, the goal should still be to breathe the life of the
> moment into the work. I'm not interested in musicians whose sole goal is to
> produce the historical average or, on the other hand, to simply to go against
> tradition.
Nice said!
Samir Golescu
ESH Tooter
spontaneity. Love of risk, love of structure. Of course with some you then
have a sort of hatred of whatever opposite, which is too bad, but true to some
extent for most of us.>>
Nicely said! The word that grabs me most in your comments, however, is
As a listener, I don't much care how one arrives at the effect of spontaneity.
For some performers the live performance is what brings them to the edge of the
burning flame. Others can sit over an editing deck and assemble an edge of the
seat performance. I don't much care how the performer creates what may only be
an illusion of spontaneity so long as he/she takes me along.
Alain DAGHER
: <<Different inner clocks, responses to the world, love of steadiness or love of
: spontaneity. Love of risk, love of structure. Of course with some you then
: have a sort of hatred of whatever opposite, which is too bad, but true to some
: extent for most of us.>>
"Different strokes for different folks" doesn't even begin to explaint
the spite of certain anti-Gouldians.
: Nicely said! The word that grabs me most in your comments, however, is
: "spontaneity." It's hard for me to believe that a sense of spontanaity should
: not be a universal quest in music. Opposites of spontaneous are "studied"
: "self-conscious" even "labored." These are not usually words applied as
: praise. When I go to theater, I want to be convinced that the words the actors
: speak have emerged in their brains at the moment that they speak them, that the
: actors are in a true dialogue, not reading lines set down for them. Shouldn't
: a musical performer do the same? Whether one arrives at this by turning the
: original instruments the composer used or by reinterpreting on instruments the
: composer never dreamed of, the goal should still be to breathe the life of the
: moment into the work. I'm not interested in musicians whose sole goal is to
: produce the historical average or, on the other hand, to simply to go against
: tradition.
So how do you feel about Greek tragedy, Byzantine art, Italian
Mannerism, and countless other artistic traditions that elevate formal
(i.e. artificial) beauty above all else? Paradoxically, some of the
most "non-spontaneous-feeling" art can be the most touching.
Parmigianino's Madonna with the long neck comes to mind.
--
regards,
alain
ESH Tooter
Mannerism, and countless other artistic traditions that elevate formal
(i.e. artificial) beauty above all else? Paradoxically, some of the
most "non-spontaneous-feeling" art can be the most touching.
Parmigianino's Madonna with the long neck comes to mind.>>
Thanks for asking the challenging question. I'm not sure we can say much about
Greek tragedy. At least I wouldn't claim to know what "authentic" Greek
tragedy was like, nor am I expert enough to know if anything is written about
the qualities that exalted one Greek tragedian above another. In the area of
Shakespeare where I feel more at home, the fact that I know what will happen to
Lear or Macbeth does not keep me from being caught up in the moment. Although
I watched James Earl Jones play Lear more than 30 times through years of
teaching the play, it didn't keep me from being freshly surprised at many of
his deliveries and exchanges. Certainly the the fact that the audience knew the
story of Orestes before the drama began is irrelevent to the spontaneity of any
given perofrmance of Aeschylus' trilogy.
Having done some geometric painting some years back, I can testify that there
was considerable spontaneity involved even when I had to use making tape to
outline forms to be painted. What is it in Byzantine art that you would say is
not spontaneous?
Parmigianino's long-necked madonna only became endeared to me last summer when
I saw the actual painting. It was then that I appreciated light and
brush-work, but this is clearly not the key element of the work (or other
Mannerist works of the period. I guess I'm still not at all convinced that the
requirements of classical formalism need to be at odds with spontaneity. The
master with true facility manipulates the formal elements with ease and
virtuosity. In works like Guilio Romano's Palazzo del Te or some of the
paintings I have seen by Bronzino, we are engaged along with the artist &
architect (there with them at the moment) in their little games, playing
against classical tradition.