bach/gould/bad piano?
Heron Stone
works for years
+ but something has been annoying me enormously
+ maybe someone here can tell me what's going on
+ i first noticed it on the CBS cd version of the tocattas,
actually in the inventions which follow the tocattas
+ it sounds very much like some of the hammers are double-
striking the strings
+ it's not at all a subtle thing... it's quite annoying
+ for some time i thought it must have been an artifact
introduced in the reproduction of the cds
+ knowing of gould's "perfectionism" led me to think that
he would never record on a piano so badly in need
of regulation
+ but now i've noticed a much more subtle double-striking
in the cd recording of the partitas
+ it's not nearly as noticeable, but it's there
- has anyone else noticed this
- have i just got a bad recording or was gould actually
playing a grossly out-of-regulation piano
thanks
heron
--
_______________________________________________________________________
ecstatic wonder heron stone
is our natural state mailto:her...@earthlink.net
don't settle for anything less http://home.earthlink.net/~herons/
Nicolas Hodges
us.dialup.earthlink.net>, Heron Stone <her...@earthlink.net> writes
>+ i've enjoyed the glenn gould recordings of bach keyboard
> works for years
>+ but something has been annoying me enormously
>+ maybe someone here can tell me what's going on
>
>+ i first noticed it on the CBS cd version of the tocattas,
> actually in the inventions which follow the tocattas
>+ it sounds very much like some of the hammers are double-
> striking the strings
>+ it's not at all a subtle thing... it's quite annoying
>+ for some time i thought it must have been an artifact
> introduced in the reproduction of the cds
>+ knowing of gould's "perfectionism" led me to think that
> he would never record on a piano so badly in need
> of regulation
>
>+ but now i've noticed a much more subtle double-striking
> in the cd recording of the partitas
>+ it's not nearly as noticeable, but it's there
>- has anyone else noticed this
>- have i just got a bad recording or was gould actually
> playing a grossly out-of-regulation piano
The double striking was a result of the strange regulation that Gould
demanded. He did know it was a problem, but they never managed to give
him what he wanted without the double strike as well.
--
Nic
Nicolas Hodges
Ioannis Galidakis
>
> + i've enjoyed the glenn gould recordings of bach keyboard
> works for years
> + but something has been annoying me enormously
> + maybe someone here can tell me what's going on
>
> + i first noticed it on the CBS cd version of the tocattas,
> actually in the inventions which follow the tocattas
> + it sounds very much like some of the hammers are double-
> striking the strings
> + it's not at all a subtle thing... it's quite annoying
> + for some time i thought it must have been an artifact
> introduced in the reproduction of the cds
> + knowing of gould's "perfectionism" led me to think that
> he would never record on a piano so badly in need
> of regulation
>
> + but now i've noticed a much more subtle double-striking
> in the cd recording of the partitas
> + it's not nearly as noticeable, but it's there
> - has anyone else noticed this
> - have i just got a bad recording or was gould actually
> playing a grossly out-of-regulation piano
>
>
> heron
> --
Gould had his piano regulated in a very special way. From what I
remember, he had "scratched" (for lack of better word) some of the wool
off the hammers, to the point of the sound being altered significantly
towards the fortepiano sound.
The same affect is offered by modern piano manufacturers as an option to
expensive pianos when the pianist demands a specific "depth" of sound.
Gould scratched off the wool to the maximum allowed. Note that as you go
deeper in the hammer, the wool becomes more dense (as it is more
compressed) thus the sound is harsher.
Note also that increased variation on the above effect can be attained
by pressing the pedal that makes the sound softer.
The pedal coupled with the scratched hammers give off a very noticable
semi-metalic effect that gives the impression that the chords are
doubled. This also comes partly from the fact that the target the hammer
hits becomes more focused, as a result the hammer does not hit the
double and triple chords all with the same intensity on a single key.
Gould also had made other modifications that pertained to the clavier
pressure.
--
Ioannis Galidakis jg...@ath.forthnet.gr
<http://www.crosswinds.net/athens/~jgal/main.html>
______________________________________
$3FC7E0FE1F87E30C
$060C30C330CC330C
$060700FC3FCC03FC
$0600E0C330CC030C
$060C30C330CC330C
$1EC7ECFE30C7E30C
Nicolas Hodges
<jg...@ath.forthnet.gr> writes
The impression that strings are struck twice is not a trick of the ears
due to the hammers being reshaped, or the uc pedal being used. It is
simply what happens when the hammers do not go into check properly, but
bounce off the checks onto the strings. They actually do hit the strings
twice.
What you say about the effect of the uc pedal (making the piano sound
more metallic) is only true under some circumstances, with some set-ups.
It doesn't contribute the double-striking except by making more audibly
because the sound in general is more metallic.
The uc pedal should make the sound _less_ metallic not more.
--
Nic
John Harkness
Grant Wood wrote:
> Heron Stone wrote:
>
> The piano(s) used in these recordings is no where near as bad as the one
> used in the Inventions recording. Yikes! I've never really had a
> problem with the piano tone in the recordings you mention.
>
> Grant
>
> >
The piano used in the Inventions recording was recovering from surgery after
being dropped off the back of a truck. Gould also confessed a certain
fondness for what he called the "hiccup" effect of the hammers bouncing back
on that recording.
John
> > + i've enjoyed the glenn gould recordings of bach keyboard
> > works for years
> > + but something has been annoying me enormously
> > + maybe someone here can tell me what's going on
> >
> > + i first noticed it on the CBS cd version of the tocattas,
> > actually in the inventions which follow the tocattas
> > + it sounds very much like some of the hammers are double-
> > striking the strings
> > + it's not at all a subtle thing... it's quite annoying
> > + for some time i thought it must have been an artifact
> > introduced in the reproduction of the cds
> > + knowing of gould's "perfectionism" led me to think that
> > he would never record on a piano so badly in need
> > of regulation
> >
> > + but now i've noticed a much more subtle double-striking
> > in the cd recording of the partitas
> > + it's not nearly as noticeable, but it's there
> > - has anyone else noticed this
> > - have i just got a bad recording or was gould actually
> > playing a grossly out-of-regulation piano
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > heron
> > --
M-T
<<The piano used in the Inventions recording was recovering from surgery
after being dropped off the back of a truck. Gould also confessed a
certain fondness for what he called the "hiccup" effect of the hammers
bouncing back on that recording.>>
If I remember correctly, Kazdin mentions this in his book.
Regards,
mt
Ioannis Galidakis
[snip]
> The impression that strings are struck twice is not a trick of the ears
> due to the hammers being reshaped, or the uc pedal being used. It is
> simply what happens when the hammers do not go into check properly, but
> bounce off the checks onto the strings. They actually do hit the strings
> twice.
I was not talking about actual double strike, rather with regard to the
"effect" that is produced by the re-shaping or shaving of the hammers.
We are talking about two different things.
I have never heard in any of my Gould recordings any actual double
strikes. I guess what I am talking about is akin to sort of a "clicking"
sound, more than a double strike. I should have clarified that earlier.
I was misled into thinking that by "double strike" the poster meant
this. In reality they are totally different effects.
> What you say about the effect of the uc pedal (making the piano sound
> more metallic) is only true under some circumstances, with some set-ups.
> It doesn't contribute the double-striking except by making more audibly
> because the sound in general is more metallic.
>
> The uc pedal should make the sound _less_ metallic not more.
The effect that I am talking about is akin to Ahlgrimm's pedal
harpsichord, when she engages one of the mute registers. Unfortunatelly
I am not a harpsichord expert, so I have no idea how it is done. I have
tried to emulate this effect on my piano, and it can be done with copper
tacks on top of the hammers, PLUS uc pedal.
> --
> Nic
Nicolas Hodges
writes
>
>
>Grant Wood wrote:
>
>> Heron Stone wrote:
>>
>> The piano(s) used in these recordings is no where near as bad as the one
>> used in the Inventions recording. Yikes! I've never really had a
>> problem with the piano tone in the recordings you mention.
>>
>> Grant
>>
>> >
>
>being dropped off the back of a truck. Gould also confessed a certain
>fondness for what he called the "hiccup" effect of the hammers bouncing back
>on that recording.
Are you sure about that?
I believe CD318 being dropped off the back of a truck (with terminal
damage) was the reason that Gould switched to Yamaha in his last
recordings. CD318 was restored (i.e. rebuilt completely) after GG's
death and is now in the Canadian National Library (or whatever it's
called...) where his papers are.
Incidentally, Gould wrote about CD318 and its alterations for the liner
notes of the Inventions. There's a quote from it in Payzant (can't find
my copy of the disc).
--
Nic
Heron Stone
gran...@NOSPAMnr.infi.net wrote:
>The piano(s) used in these recordings is no where near as bad as the one
>used in the Inventions recording. Yikes! I've never really had a
>problem with the piano tone in the recordings you mention.
>
>Grant
+ i'm not talking about "tone"
+ i'm talking about actual double-strikes... the hammer
is striking the strings twice
+ thanks everyone for your responses
+ it's fascinating
+ it just amazes me that gould would find this
acceptable
John Harkness
Nicolas Hodges wrote:
> In article <36E40085...@netcom.ca>, John Harkness <j...@netcom.ca>
> writes
> >
> >
> >Grant Wood wrote:
> >
> >> Heron Stone wrote:
> >>
> >> The piano(s) used in these recordings is no where near as bad as the one
> >> used in the Inventions recording. Yikes! I've never really had a
> >> problem with the piano tone in the recordings you mention.
> >>
> >> Grant
> >>
> >> >
> >
> >The piano used in the Inventions recording was recovering from surgery after
> >being dropped off the back of a truck. Gould also confessed a certain
> >fondness for what he called the "hiccup" effect of the hammers bouncing back
> >on that recording.
>
> Are you sure about that?
>
> I believe CD318 being dropped off the back of a truck (with terminal
> damage) was the reason that Gould switched to Yamaha in his last
> recordings. CD318 was restored (i.e. rebuilt completely) after GG's
> death and is now in the Canadian National Library (or whatever it's
> called...) where his papers are.
>
> Incidentally, Gould wrote about CD318 and its alterations for the liner
> notes of the Inventions. There's a quote from it in Payzant (can't find
> my copy of the disc).
> --
> Nic
I was actually conflating two different events -- the piano was dropped in
1971, and while it was being repaired, he did his one harpsichord recording and
his one organ recording. He continued to used the repaired CD318 for several
years, finally switching to the Yamaha for his last recordings of Brahms, Bach
and Strauss.
John
He did, in the original liner notes for the Inventions, express a fondness for
the hiccup.
skipf...@my-dejanews.com
"The piano used in the Inventions recording was recovering from surgery after
being dropped off the back of a truck. Gould also confessed a certain
fondness for what he called the 'hiccup' effect of the hammers bouncing back
on that recording."
Nicolas Hodges:
"Incidentally, Gould wrote about CD318 and its alterations for the liner
notes of the Inventions. There's a quote from it in Payzant (can't find
my copy of the disc)."
My first exposure to Glenn Gould, which occured around 1979 or so, consisted
of listening to an LP of the Inventions and Sinfonias that I had checked out
of my local library. If I remember correctly, the liner notes to that album
(which I believe had a drawing of Gould on the back (not a photograph)), in
addition to saying that Gould became fond of the hiccup, also said that due
to this fondness, *he specifically decided to leave the 'problem'
uncorrected*. I don't think anyone has touched on this latter point yet.
Perhaps that is because I am wrong about it. Can anyone confirm or deny my
recollections of those liner notes?
In any case, after I read those notes, I had no idea what to make of such a
character who would release a recording played on a piano in that condition.
-Skip
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Andrej Kluge
gould/bad piano?:
> Incidentally, Gould wrote about CD318 and its alterations for the
> liner notes of the Inventions. There's a quote from it in Payzant
In the liner notes of the Sony reissue of the Inventions/Sinfonias this
topic of the hiccuped piano is being elaborately dealt with.
Unfortunately I gave my copy away (and kept the CBS original), otherwise
I'd cite it here. What is Payzant, btw?
Ciao
A.
Heron Stone
>strikes.
+ listen to the CBS Masterworks double CD of the toccatas
and inventions
+ play disk 2, track 3, the 2-part invention in c maj
+ this is the track on which i first noticed it, but it's
noticable throughout the inventions
+ it drives me crazy
Heron Stone
>demanded. He did know it was a problem, but they never managed to give
>him what he wanted without the double strike as well.
- you can't be saying that gould was unaware of
the double-striking, are you
+ apparently he found it acceptable
Nicolas Hodges
<jg...@ath.forthnet.gr> writes
>Nicolas Hodges wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> The impression that strings are struck twice is not a trick of the ears
>> due to the hammers being reshaped, or the uc pedal being used. It is
>> simply what happens when the hammers do not go into check properly, but
>> bounce off the checks onto the strings. They actually do hit the strings
>> twice.
>
>I was not talking about actual double strike, rather with regard to the
>"effect" that is produced by the re-shaping or shaving of the hammers.
>We are talking about two different things.
>
>sound, more than a double strike. I should have clarified that earlier.
>I was misled into thinking that by "double strike" the poster meant
>this. In reality they are totally different effects.
The inventions recording is littered with double strikes. He mentions
them in the note, describing them as 'hiccups'. He ends with "Stay tuned
in: we're fixing it".
The changes he describes, to the hammer-string distance and the after-
touch are just the kind of things that mess up the checking of the
hammers.
--
Nic
John Harkness
Gould didn't have the same ideas about piano sound that most pianists do.
He obviously didn't believe that the oddity in the piano's striking mechanism was
worth worrying about. Heck, see if you can find the original recordings of the
Sibelius Sonatinas, which he miked from four different postitions and would use
the mix to shift sonic perspective in mid-piece.
John
skipf...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> John Harkness:
>
> "The piano used in the Inventions recording was recovering from surgery after
> being dropped off the back of a truck. Gould also confessed a certain
> fondness for what he called the 'hiccup' effect of the hammers bouncing back
> on that recording."
>
> Nicolas Hodges:
> "Incidentally, Gould wrote about CD318 and its alterations for the liner
Nicolas Hodges
<wi...@TMB.in-berlin.de> writes
>> liner notes of the Inventions. There's a quote from it in Payzant
>
>topic of the hiccuped piano is being elaborately dealt with.
>Unfortunately I gave my copy away (and kept the CBS original), otherwise
>I'd cite it here. What is Payzant, btw?
Glenn Gould - Music and Mind by Geoffrey Payzant.
A book on Gould's work and thought based on his writings and private
communications, and authorised (and reviewed!) by Gould himself.
--
Nic
David Rutman
Columbia House, I wrote them about the "defective" set. The simply sent
me a second set without asking for the first one to be returned. Too
bad the second set still had the "defects."
Heron Stone wrote:
>
> >I have never heard in any of my Gould recordings any actual double
> >strikes.
>
> + listen to the CBS Masterworks double CD of the toccatas
> and inventions
> + play disk 2, track 3, the 2-part invention in c maj
> + this is the track on which i first noticed it, but it's
> noticable throughout the inventions
> + it drives me crazy
>
Heron Stone
>my copy of the disc).
- would someone out there be so kind as to post gould's writings
concerning this issue (or "paraphase it" if there's a copy-
right problem)
+ you'd sure make me happy by doing it
Schmeder
> it.
>
> Don
>
Naturally - not only did it indicate that his instrument was well-regulated, but
more importantly, that his touch was well-calibrated and consistent. It takes a
precise and delicate touch to elicit the double-strike, even on an instrument
such as Gould's.
>
> Heron Stone wrote:
>
> > In article <36E425FE...@NOSPAMnr.infi.net>,
> > gran...@NOSPAMnr.infi.net wrote:
> >
> > >The piano(s) used in these recordings is no where near as bad as the one
> > >used in the Inventions recording. Yikes! I've never really had a
> > >problem with the piano tone in the recordings you mention.
> > >
> > >Grant
> >
> > + i'm not talking about "tone"
> > + i'm talking about actual double-strikes... the hammer
> > is striking the strings twice
> >
> > + thanks everyone for your responses
> > + it's fascinating
> > + it just amazes me that gould would find this
> > acceptable
> >
> > heron
Donald Rice
sign that the mechanism had been regulated exactly to his specifications.
Therefore these extra notes were to be looked on as 'friends'". He goes on to
mention that because of the frequency and prominence of some of the hiccups
that some were looked on as "foes" and attempts were made to edit some out.
The disclaimer on the recording written by Gould includes the following " I
must confess that having grown somewhat accustomed to it I now find this
charming idiosyncrasy entirely worthy of the instrument that produced
it....We would hope to preserve the present sound while reducing the hiccup
effect so ...Stay tuned..."etc.
It appears that he not only tolerated the hiccup effect but actually enjoyed
it.
Don
Heron Stone wrote:
John Harkness
interview, 1956
"I don't happen to like the piano as an instrument. I prefer the
harpsichord. Of course, I'm fascinated by what you can do with the piano,
and I can sit for hours and play it, but I love to force it out of its
inhibitions. My sense of tactilia is that of the harpsichordist, so I'm at
home as a Baroque musicion...
Interview with Alfred Bester, 1964
Here's the liner note from the Inventions recording, which is probably at
the outer limits of fair use:
"we have not made any special demands upon this instrument, but prior to
each of the Bach sessions of the past few years, CD318 has undergone major
surgery. The alignment of such essential mechanical matters as the distance
of the hammer from the strings, the "after-touch" mechanism, etc. has been
earnestly reconsidered with my sober conviction that no piano feel
duty-bound to sound like a piano...
In my opinion, the preent disc brings us within reach of this objective. T..
Consequently, our enthusiasm for the rather extraordinary sound it now
possessed allowed us to minimize the one minor after-effect which it had
sustained, a slight nervous tic in the middle register which in slower
passage can be heard emitting a sort of hiccup -- and to carry on with
sessions without stopping to remedy this defect. I must confess that, having
grown somewhat accustomed to it, I now find this charming idiosyncracy
entirely worthy of the remarkable instrument which produced it. I might even
rationalise the matter by comparing it with the claichord's propensity for
an intr-tonal vibrato. However, in our best of all possible worlds we would
hope to preserve the present sound while reduing the hiccup effect; so, as
the television card says on those occasions when sound and video portions go
their separate ways -- "STAY TUNED IN: WE'RE FIXING IT"
Original liner notes, recording of 2 and 3-part Inventions, 1963
Of course, what he did in that recording was to use a piano that had been
modified to sound as unlike a piano as possible -- no wonder Steinway & Sons
assigned CD 318 for Gould's exclusive use -- god knows what it would have
taken to turn it back into a normal Steinway.
John
In my
Heron Stone wrote:
> >Incidentally, Gould wrote about CD318 and its alterations for the liner
> >notes of the Inventions. There's a quote from it in Payzant (can't find
> >my copy of the disc).
>
> - would someone out there be so kind as to post gould's writings
> concerning this issue (or "paraphase it" if there's a copy-
> right problem)
> + you'd sure make me happy by doing it
Mr. Mike
<n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The inventions recording is littered with double strikes. He mentions
>them in the note, describing them as 'hiccups'. He ends with "Stay tuned
>in: we're fixing it".
Interestingly, a few years ago when the Penguin Guide was ignoring most Gould
recordings, this was one of the few that they not only mentioned, but slobbered
over!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Let's post it on the internet!" ... "No, we have to put it somewhere
where people's opinions matter." -- from The Simpsons
Mr. Mike
>Heck, see if you can find the original recordings of the
>Sibelius Sonatinas, which he miked from four different postitions and would use
>the mix to shift sonic perspective in mid-piece.
I read somewhere that a Canadian company has issued this recording on CD ROM
with all the original versions of this piece, so you can re-mix it to your
heart's content...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is America, where any kid can grow up to be Dracula."
-- Stan Freberg, Grey Flannel Hat Full of Teenage Werewolves
Mr. Mike
[regarding Gould's recording of the Bach inventions]
>+ it drives me crazy
This is one of the few Gould recordings I own that I can't bear to listen to
either (aside from the Mozart piano sonatas, which are just plain idiotic for
the most part ";-).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the Hawaii Five-O Home Page -- http://www.mjq.net/fiveo
Neil
>>The inventions recording is littered with double strikes. He mentions
>>them in the note, describing them as 'hiccups'. He ends with "Stay tuned
>>in: we're fixing it".
>
>Interestingly, a few years ago when the Penguin Guide was ignoring most Gould
>recordings, this was one of the few that they not only mentioned, but slobbered
>over!!
The inventions took ages to record (over a year). Gould's CD308 (?) was dropped
by the movers and the action was badly damaged. It took ages to get it back to
some shadow of its original state hence the problems (some of them).
Neil
<n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I believe CD318 being dropped off the back of a truck (with terminal
>damage) was the reason that Gould switched to Yamaha in his last
>recordings. CD318 was restored (i.e. rebuilt completely) after GG's
>death and is now in the Canadian National Library (or whatever it's
>called...) where his papers are.
The damage was not terminal. He did use it again but it was never quite the
same. The Yahama was bought in the late seventies.
Neil
Nicolas Hodges
writes
>> It appears that he not only tolerated the hiccup effect but actually enjoyed
>> it.
>>
>> Don
>>
>
>more importantly, that his touch was well-calibrated and consistent. It takes a
>precise and delicate touch to elicit the double-strike, even on an instrument
>such as Gould's.
Wrong I'm afraid.
It does not mean the piano is well-regulated.
It does not necessarily tell you anything about Gould's touch
--
Nic
John Harkness
Sony, it seems unlikely. Haven't heard of it.
John
John Harkness
Neil wrote:
See my post below -- the movers dropped the piano in 1971, several years after
this recording.
The Inventions were actually recorded, then he went back and rerecorded them
several months later. That was NOT an unusual modus operandi for Gould. It's like
saying Michelangelo took 14 years to build the New Sacristy at San Lorenzo -- it did
take 14 years, but he was working on other things at the same time.
John
skipf...@my-dejanews.com
John Harkness <j...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> One, he liked the sound. Two, he did say that they were fixing it.
>
> Gould didn't have the same ideas about piano sound that most pianists do.
Right. He once wrote or said something to the effect that he liked a
"burnished tone". I'm not sure, however, if he liked the piano tone to be the
same for all of the music he played. But as far as Bach, a case could
certainly be made that the piano tone he adopted makes as much sense as a
more 'normal' piano tone since the tone he used is closer to the sound of a
harpsichord. This is not to say that I would necessarily make such an
argument. I believe such considerations are beside the point, and I don't
believe muscians have to justify or explain their choices, either in tone or
in other areas.
As far piano tone in recordings of Bach, I sometimes find the tone of
unaltered, modern pianos to be quite annoying. Playing Bach on a nine-foot
concert grand with the ensuing big, bold, robust sound is often quite...quite
annoying.
I play Bach on my upright piano and I have rarely been able to play a grand
piano or even a baby grand. Even so, I have the feeling that if I were good
enough to make recordings, my ideal Bach piano would be a small, baby grand.
With that, it seems you would have the advantage of a grand piano action, but
with a sound that isn't so overpowering.
Does anyone know what types of pianos various artists use(d) when recording
Bach?
Mr. Mike
>That would be a VERY Gouldian thing to do, though with the rights being held by
>Sony, it seems unlikely. Haven't heard of it.
>
>> I read somewhere that a Canadian company has issued this recording on CD ROM
>> with all the original versions of this piece, so you can re-mix it to your
>> heart's content...
This is mentioned in the Winter 1999 edition of the International Piano
Quarterly:
Canadian multimedia company, DNA Media (see http://www.dnamedia.com) have
released an interactive CD-ROM which, for the real Gould aficionado, provides
the ultimate Glenn Gould experience; the CD-ROM has also won a prestigious
EMMA (European MultiMedia Award). Produced in association with DNA Media Inc.,
CBC, The Glenn Gould Estate and Sony Classical, 'The New Listener' contains an
impressive and visually stunning collection of multilayered, interactive
graphics: the programme commences with a frozen landscape upon which images of
Gould's childhood home, a church and Toronto apartment flash before you; on each
click of the mouse you find yourself plunging ever deeper into another area of
Gould's world; you can explore his cottage and apartment, listen to his
gramophone, absorb the sounds of nature to which he was exposed on the shores of
Lake Simcoe, even clamber into his car to explore his urban environment, hear
him play the organ and view photographs and memorabilia connected with his
childhood.
[Y]ou can mix a version of Sibelius's Sonatine in F minor to suit or reassemble
edits of Bach's A minor Fugue from the Well-Tempered Clavier (Book 1) or
deconstruct and re-compose the three introductory voices from Gould's
"contrapuntal" radio documentary, the Idea of North.
krazys...@spammeanddiedds.nl
> One, he liked the sound. Two, he did say that they were fixing it.
>
> Gould didn't have the same ideas about piano sound that most pianists do.
>
> Sibelius Sonatinas, which he miked from four different postitions and would use
> the mix to shift sonic perspective in mid-piece.
>
>
>
Why "original"? The Sony release has this crazy mix too. It sounds
absolutely awful, by the way.
---
Frank
MW
samir ghiocel golescu
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, MW wrote:
> But man could that guy play or what?MW
>
Ya man he coulda play, he was the Cool one!
John Harkness
skipf...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <36E45089...@netcom.ca>,
> John Harkness <j...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> > One, he liked the sound. Two, he did say that they were fixing it.
> >
> > Gould didn't have the same ideas about piano sound that most pianists do.
>
> Right. He once wrote or said something to the effect that he liked a
> "burnished tone".
That's actually backward -- he said he WASN'T interested in a burnished tone,
which would be what Claudio Arrau had.
John
John Harkness
krazys...@spammeanddiedds.nl wrote:
> In article <36E45089...@netcom.ca>, j...@netcom.ca says...
> > One, he liked the sound. Two, he did say that they were fixing it.
> >
> > Gould didn't have the same ideas about piano sound that most pianists do.
> >
> > He obviously didn't believe that the oddity in the piano's striking mechanism was
> > worth worrying about. Heck, see if you can find the original recordings of the
> > Sibelius Sonatinas, which he miked from four different postitions and would use
> > the mix to shift sonic perspective in mid-piece.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> Why "original"? The Sony release has this crazy mix too. It sounds
> absolutely awful, by the way.
>
> ---
> Frank
Because I have the original on tape -- given the way Sony cleaned up the piano sound
on the reissues in the Glenn Gould -- taking off equalization, that sort of thing,
making Gould's piano sound more "normal" -- I wondered if they'd leave the original mix
on the Sibelius reissue.
And it does sound awful.
John
!
------------------------
"BATTLES OVER A PIANO"
"I am by no means a fastworker in the studio", Gould confessed to the
"Columbia" Manager, Ronald Wilford, in 1973. "A good session will consist
of 2 to 3 minutes per recording hour and, consequently, assuming an average
record to include 50 minutes of recorded material, the best figure I can
arrive at would be approximately 18 recording hours per album." His
producers had to get used to the fact that the conditions for a "good
session" hardly ever existed and that accordingly the minimum of 18 hours
was seldom achieved, just as they had to get used to the fact that Gould
spread these production hours over several sessions, which might be months
or even years apart. The rec- ording of Bach's Two- and Three-Part
Inventions and Sinfonias broke all records in this respect: "Columbia's"
"Artist Contract Cards" for the six months from September 18, 1963 to March
19, 1964 indicate no fewer than ten record- ing days (spread over eight
different occasions), quite apart from two further "canc[elled] sess[ions]"
on October 14 and 15, 1963, which Gould had called off at short notice.
It can hardly have been the fault of the programme that this recording
developed into such a nightmare tor the producer Paul Myers and the
technical crew; as far as the Three-Part Sinfonias were concerned, Gould
had since 1953 played a selection (or even the complete set) often enough
in his recitals - including his legendary debut in the USA in 1955 and his
tour of the USSR in May 1957 (the live re- cording of this concert is to be
published in the Glenn Gould Edition as SMK 52685) - for them to be ready
for recording on the master-tape at any time; and the Two-Part Inventions
(which he seems never to have played either before or since) hardly make
such demands on virtuosity that they could have presented any problems to a
pianist such as Gould.
The solution to the mystery is to be found in a few lines appearing as
"remarks" on the "Artist Contract Card" relating to the production: "If
another piano is requested and select- ed tor the sess. such rental, tuning
and transportation costs will constitute an adv. ag. roy.", the point being
that the piano which Gould had brought specially from Toronto to the CBS
Studio in New York suffered from such a pronounced "hiccup" that even the
most ex- perienced Steinway technicians gave up the struggle and no one -
other than Gould, of course - seriously believed that a recording which was
at all acceptable could be produced on this instrument.
The piano in question was a "Steinway" built in New York in 1938 or 1939,
bearing the number CD 318, which had been acquired in 1945 by "Eaton's", a
store in Toronto, for the concert-hall housed in their building and which
since then had travelled the length and breadth of Canada whenever a
pianist had entered into a performing contract with Steinway. In late 1960
or early 1961, when the piano was once again back home in Toronto, Gould
(who had played on it on previous occasions) began to take it seriously. It
was "love at second sight", but all the deeper and longer-lasting: "At one
time, I found it important to have a different sort of piano for every kind
of music that one played. I no longer do. I use it for everything now: it's
my Richard Strauss piano, it's my Bach piano, it's my piano for playing
William Byrd. [...] It's a chest of whistles, it's a set of virginals, it's
just about anything that you want to make of it. It's an extraordinary
piano."
When Gould played the first bars of the scheduled Bach recording on it on
September 18, Paul Myers and the technicians from CBS must also have found
CD 318 "extraordinary" - extraordinarily disastrous! Gould himself had
eventually to admit that it would not do and, although Steinway's mechanics
did their best both to achieve the sound that Gould had in mind and to get
rid of the piano's disturbing background noises, no progress was made (and
not a single take recorded) in the fol- lowing six sessions. On January 2,
1964 the whole affair was therefore adjourned without further ado until the
middle of March. Gould made use of the time to tinker with the instrument
himself, until eventually he got so near to his ideal sound that on March
18 and 19, - a mere two days - he recorded all thirty pieces "en bloc",
without making use of any of the previous takes. Myers and "Columbia",
however, found it difficult to share Gould's enthusiasm for the result:
only after he had undertaken to provide an explanatory, not to say
exculpatory note to accompany the disc, did they agree, with extremely
mixed feelings, to its issue.
In Gould's words it went something like this: "CD 318 has undergone major
surgery (in effect, to try to design an instrument for baroque repertoire
which can add to the undeniable resource of the modern piano something of
the clarity and tactile facility of the harpsichord). The alignment of such
essential mechanical matters as the distance of the hammer from the
strings, the 'after-touch' mechanism, etc. has been earnestly recon-
sidered in accordance with my sober conviction that no piano need feel
duty-bound to always sound like a piano. Old 318, if released from its
natural tendency in that direction, could prob- ably be prevailed upon to
give us a sound of such immediacy and clarity that those qualities of
non-legato so essential to Bach would be gleefully realized.
In my opinion, the present disc brings us within reach of this objective.
The operation, performed just before the sessions which produced the
Inventions, was so successful that we plunged joyfully into the recording
without number CD 318, which had been acquired in 1945 by "Eaton's", a
store in Toronto, for the concert-hall housed in their building and which
since then had travelled the length and breadth of Canada whenever a
pianist had entered into a performing contract with Steinway. In late 1960
or early 1961, when the piano was once again back home in Toronto, Gould
(who had played on it on previous occasions) began to take it seriously. It
was "love at second sight", but all the deeper and longer-lasting: "At one
time, I found it important to have a different sort of piano for every kind
of music that one played. I no longer do. I use it for everything now: it's
my Richard Strauss piano, it's my Bach piano, it's my piano for playing
William Byrd. [...] It's a chest of whistles, it's a set of virginals, it's
just about anything that you want to make of it. It's an extraordinary
piano."
When Gould played the first bars of the scheduled Bach recording on it on
September 18, Paul Myers and the technicians from CBS must also have found
CD 318 "extraordinary" - extraordinarily disastrous! Gould himself had
eventually to admit that it would not do and, although Steinway's mechanics
did their best both to achieve the sound that Gould had in mind and to get
rid of the piano's disturbing background noises, no progress was made (and
not a single take recorded) in the fol- lowing six sessions. On January 2,
1964 the whole affair was therefore adjourned without further ado until the
middle of March. Gould made use of the time to tinker with the
instrument himself, until eventually he got so near to his ideal sound that
on March 18 and 19, - a mere two days - he recorded all thirty pieces "en
bloc", without making use of any of the previous takes. Myers and
"Columbia", however, found it difficult to share Gould's enthusiasm for the
result: only after he had undertaken to provide an explanatory, not to say
exculpatory note to accompany the disc, did they agree, with extremely
mixed feelings, to its issue.
In Gould's words it went something like this: "CD 318 has undergone major
surgery (in effect, to try to design an instrument for baroque repertoire
which can add to the undeniable resource of the modern piano something of
the clarity and tactile facility of the harpsichord). The alignment of such
essential mechanical matters as the distance of the hammer from the
strings, the 'after-touch' mechanism, etc. has been earnestly recon-
sidered in accordance with my sober conviction that no piano need feel
duty-bound to always sound like a piano. Old 318, if released from its
natural tendency in that direction, could prob- ably be prevailed upon to
give us a sound of such immediacy and clarity that those qualities of
non-legato so essential to Bach would be gleefully realized.
In my opinion, the present disc brings us within reach of this objective.
The operation, performed just before the sessions which pro- duced the
Inventions, was so successful that we plunged joyfully into the recording
without allowing CD 318 its [...] post-operative recupera- tion.
Consequently, our enthusiasm for the rather extraordinary sound it now
possessed allowed us to minimize the one minor after- effect which it had
sustained - a slight nervous tic in the middle register which in the slower
passages can be heard emitting a sort of hiccup - and to carry on with the
sessions without stopping to remedy this defect. I must confess that,
having grown somewhat accustomed to it, I now find this charming
idiosyncrasy entirely worthy of the remarkable instrument which produced
it. [...] However, in our best of all worlds, we would hope to preserve the
present sound while reducing the hiccup effect; so, as the television card
says on those occasions when sound and video portions go their separate
ways - 'STAY TUNED IN: WE'RE FIXING IT'."
Nevertheless another two-and-a-half years (mainly taken up with endless
improvements to the master-tape) elapsed after the completion of recording
on March 19, 1964, until the Inventions and Sinfonias were issued on Octo-
ber 17, 1966 in the precise order which Gould had decided upon and which is
retained in the present edition. This is not from numbers 1 to 15, rising
by semitone and whole-tone steps, as Bach had arranged the collection, but
in an order in which the succeeding numbers - with the exception of the
major/minor combinations which Gould retained (although in three out of the
six cases he reversed the order) - stand in the relationship either of a
third or of a fourth/fifth.
Michael Stegemann (Translation: (c) 1993 Gery Bramall)
Saoto Muraki
deliberately regulated the piano with double escape for two reasons:
- The depth of the key going down is shorter than normal, ideal for
producing sound from the piano only with fingers. (Remember the incredibly
flat position of Glenn Gould playing and his custom to cross the legs.)
- Remember that the harpsichord (the original instrument Bach pieces are
written for) has a kind of double scape, one louder when the plectrum are
launched by the key to the strings, and other softer when it falls down,
touching again the strings. Possibly Glenn Gould intended to imitate not
only the harpsichord playerć„€ touch, phrasings and ornaments but also the
sound including that characteristic.
skipf...@my-dejanews.com
Cool, yes, but brimming with an intelligent, passionate and *fiery*
musicianship.
-Skip
Nicolas Hodges
<saot...@telcel.net.ve> writes
Interesting idea.
But please note: double escapement (assuming that's what you mean by
'double scape') has nothing at all to do with double striking.
--
Nic
Leonard Fisk
skipf...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7c6he4$7vd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.99030...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> samir ghiocel golescu <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, MW wrote:
>>
>> > But man could that guy play or what?MW
>> >
>>
>> Ya man he coulda play, he was the Cool one!
>>
>
>Cool, yes, but brimming with an intelligent, passionate and *fiery*
>musicianship.
>
>-Skip
>
Len
Heron Stone
>Len
+ maybe... maybe not
+ besides, there are plenty of pianists around who
will follow whatever they assert/imagine the
composer's intentions to be
+ i think music is big enough to handle eccentric
interpretations once in a while
+ i think the two approaches to performance complement
each other nicely
heron
Sunsage
it as "metallic" and "clicking". This brings to mind the timbre of a
harpsichord (somewhat - the piano won't ever sound like a harpsichord of
course). Does anyone know why Gould used the piano for bach instead of
harpsichord? Do you think it's possible that with this "clicking"
modification to the paino, he was going for a sort of hybrid
piano-harpsichord sound?
~sunsage
Schmeder
> It does not mean the piano is well-regulated.
From Gould's perspective it does. Have you been reading the thread?
> It does not necessarily tell you anything about Gould's touch.
He used it to measure his touch.
>
> --
> Nic
Nicolas Hodges
writes
>Nicolas Hodges wrote:
>
>> It does not mean the piano is well-regulated.
>
>From Gould's perspective it does.
which behaves, which does only what it is told to do. Gould may have
achieved much of what he wanted sound and feel-wise in the Inventions
recording, and in that respect (and that respect alone) the work they
did on the piano was successful; but Gould admits in the note that he
did not think the regulation was the last word. As such it is only a
qualified success as regulation - why else would he have made the 'STAY
TUNED: WE'RE FIXING IT' disclaimer?? Obviously, the ideal would have
been to have had the tactile feel and sound he had achieved, but with
the piano behaving.
>> It does not necessarily tell you anything about Gould's touch.
>He used it to measure his touch.
A badly setup piano can produce double strikes regardless of who or what
is playing it, and in what way. Of course, Gould may have been playing
in such a way as to exacerbate it - but not necessarily, and it's not
easy to tell.
--
Nic
skipf...@my-dejanews.com
"Leonard Fisk" <le...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>
> skipf...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> >Cool, yes, but brimming with an intelligent, passionate and *fiery*
> >musicianship.
> >
> >-Skip
> >
> Len
To determine if your statement is true, you would first have to determine the
composer's intentions and then decide if Gould deviated from them. There are a
couple of obstacles in the way. The first is that the modern system of musical
notation is so inexact that it is impossible for a composer to completely
specify his intentions. The second is that your statement presupposes that
composers have exact intentions when they compose a piece of music. While some
certainly do, I contend that others do not. Since it is difficult to ever know
if a composer had exact intentions, and since even if we know he did, it would
be difficult to determine what they were, then it follows that it is also
difficult to know if a performer has deviated from anything. But ultimately, I
believe that such questions are beside the point. I see no reason to get upset
or to dislike a performance because it deviates from what you think the
composer intended, or even if it deviates from what you *know* the composer
intended. What is important is if a performance speaks to you musically. Since
Gould's intelligent, passionate and fiery performances appeal to me, I don't
really care what the composer thinks (or would have thought) about them.
Kip & Cathy
composer's intentions are sacrosanct. Then I read a post like Skip Freeman's
here, and I feel like whatever a performer can do, he should go for it.
On a related topic, when we read Bach's words out loud, should we try for an
authentic German accent for his exact time and place? How much sense does
that make, if we're reading an English translation? Oh well, just babbling.
No comparison.
--Kip Williams
Gaspard314
writes:
>To determine if your statement is true, you would first have to determine the
>composer's intentions and then decide if Gould deviated from them. There are
>a
>couple of obstacles in the way. The first is that the modern system of
>musical
>notation is so inexact that it is impossible for a composer to completely
>specify his intentions. The second is that your statement presupposes that
>composers have exact intentions when they compose a piece of music. While
>some
>certainly do, I contend that others do not. Since it is difficult to ever
>know
>if a composer had exact intentions, and since even if we know he did, it
>would
>be difficult to determine what they were, then it follows that it is also
>difficult to know if a performer has deviated from anything. But ultimately,
>I
>believe that such questions are beside the point. I see no reason to get
>upset
>or to dislike a performance because it deviates from what you think the
>composer intended, or even if it deviates from what you *know* the composer
>intended. What is important is if a performance speaks to you musically.
>Since
>Gould's intelligent, passionate and fiery performances appeal to me, I don't
>really care what the composer thinks (or would have thought) about them.
I have never entirely understood why performers who seemingly stray too far
from the accepted interpretive standard of a given work get so much flak. The
entire reason why classical music lives on from one generation to the next is
because of the ongoing need for fresh interpetive insight. Certainly much
sturdier and more sacred texts, such as The Bible, or the United States
Constitution are not above interpretation. If it were simply a matter of
playing exactly what the composer wrote down, than all we would need would be
one competent, faithful performance of every piece of music, and voila(!),
problem solved. Everyone else could go home.
I think Leonard Bernstein said it very well in one of his Omnibus shows from
the 50's. Almost word for word, he said, "It isn't about what I want, nor is it
about what the composer wanted. It is about what I perceive the composer to
have wanted when he wrote the music down". To me, that explains perfectly the
essence of performing classical music...the essence of interpretation. Even the
composers themselves, when performing their own works, interpreted, and not
always with pleasing results. No two people interpret a score the same way.
Some interpret a score with priestly devotion, while others restlessly explore
and experiment and rethink the music from the ground up. I believe that both
approaches are valid, unavoidable (given human nature), enjoyable, and
necessary, but for me, the truth (like most things in life) lies somewhere in
the middle, between blind devotion to the score and reckless,
over-interpretation. However, I can find pleasure in both extremes, but only if
done with intelligence and skill (Gould and Richter are good examples of each).
My only complaint is when it appears that no imaginative thought at all was put
forth by the performer and the score was left to fend for itself. Anyone who
has nothing to say should keep it to themselves.
Paul
John Harkness
> I haven't heard the Gould recordings in question, but people are describing
> it as "metallic" and "clicking". This brings to mind the timbre of a
> harpsichord (somewhat - the piano won't ever sound like a harpsichord of
> course). Does anyone know why Gould used the piano for bach instead of
> harpsichord?
Pardon me for sounding flippant, but he used the piano because he was a
pianist, not a harpsichordist. (He only made one harpsichord recording, when
his Steinway was in the piano hospital after being dropped off a truck in 1971.
Made his one organ recording at the same time.)
John
> Do you think it's possible that with this "clicking"
> modification to the paino, he was going for a sort of hybrid
> piano-harpsichord sound?
>
> ~sunsage
>
Gaspard314
Given the fact that Gould liked the action on his piano to be regulated to
tolerances that teetered dangeroulsy close to malfunction, and given the fact
(surprisingly, no one has mentioned this) that he was notorious for insisting
that the heat be turned up full blast in the studio, undoubtedly dropping the
humidity to very low levels, it's no wonder at all that his piano's action had
a few odd ticks, like bobbling (double-striking) hammers. You don't need
anything as momentous as dropping a piano off the back of a truck to cause
that. Just turn up the heat, and send the piano technician home for the day.
Paul
Simon Roberts
: I have never entirely understood why performers who seemingly stray too far
: from the accepted interpretive standard of a given work get so much flak.
An interesting feature of this is that not all who do get chastized for
doing so, and that "the accepted interpretative standard" of many works
often has little to do with concrete manifestations of intentions/wishes
(or whatever we want to call them). Few mind that most interpreters of
Beethoven ignore his tempo indications most of the time, but add some
unmarked expression, use a bit of rubato, ignore a repeat, and, depending
on how schoolmarmish the critic is, all hell lets loose.
The
: entire reason why classical music lives on from one generation to the next is
: because of the ongoing need for fresh interpetive insight. Certainly much
: sturdier and more sacred texts, such as The Bible, or the United States
: Constitution are not above interpretation. If it were simply a matter of
: playing exactly what the composer wrote down, than all we would need would be
: one competent, faithful performance of every piece of music, and voila(!),
: problem solved. Everyone else could go home.
Right. And of course, in (almost?) all music merely playing what the
composer wrote down won't result in a "faithful" performance because, even
if we assume composers have fixed wishes concerning how there music should
go, it's not possible to translate all of those into written instructions.
To cite an obvious example, what on earth do you do with all those Bach
movements which have no tempo indication?
: I think Leonard Bernstein said it very well in one of his Omnibus shows from
: the 50's. Almost word for word, he said, "It isn't about what I want, nor is it
: about what the composer wanted. It is about what I perceive the composer to
: have wanted when he wrote the music down". To me, that explains perfectly the
: essence of performing classical music...the essence of interpretation.
But one can go further and treat what a composer wrote down as a
springboard for a rather different sort of valid musical experience. I
love Gould's "bad" Mozart sonata recordings -- but Gould would never have
claimed to be trying to be faithful to Mozart's wishes -- enjoy Stokowski
Bach transcriptions, etc., etc. Of course, almost all musicians pay some
sort of lip-service to perceived intentions, but they should just give it
up. Take Ugorsky's Beethoven op. 111, for instance. I've no idea if he
plays this obedience to the composer game, but if he does, and if one
thought it mattered, one would merely have to say that he gets it wrong
and move on, thereby missing what some of us thing is a magnificent
musical achievement. Does it make the slightest difference to
appreciating his musicianship, and would it have made the slightest
difference to his interpreting the piece, whether he so interpreted it
because that's what he thought Beethoven wanted?
Even the
: composers themselves, when performing their own works, interpreted, and not
: always with pleasing results. No two people interpret a score the same way.
: Some interpret a score with priestly devotion, while others restlessly explore
: and experiment and rethink the music from the ground up. I believe that both
: approaches are valid, unavoidable (given human nature), enjoyable, and
: necessary, but for me, the truth (like most things in life) lies somewhere in
: the middle, between blind devotion to the score and reckless,
: over-interpretation. However, I can find pleasure in both extremes, but only if
: done with intelligence and skill (Gould and Richter are good examples of each).
: My only complaint is when it appears that no imaginative thought at all was put
: forth by the performer and the score was left to fend for itself. Anyone who
: has nothing to say should keep it to themselves.
Quite
Simon
alain
> Gaspard314 (gaspa...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : I have never entirely understood why performers who seemingly stray too far
> : from the accepted interpretive standard of a given work get so much flak.
>
> An interesting feature of this is that not all who do get chastized for
> doing so, and that "the accepted interpretative standard" of many works
> often has little to do with concrete manifestations of intentions/wishes
> (or whatever we want to call them).
That's because these standards were layed down in the nineteenth century. There is a
notion that the romantic style should fit for all music, from Bach to Stravinsky.
This explains the opprobrium directed at Glenn Gould, who thought the 19th century
one huge lapse in taste.
cheers,
alain
Simon Roberts
: Simon Roberts wrote:
I'm sure you're right up to a point, but it's not quite that simple. Teri
Noel Towe produced for Koch a few years ago a two disc set of old Messiah
recordings, stretching back as far as 1899 and including 11 tracks from a
recording made in 1906 (I trust we can, for present purposes, assume that
they were part of the Victorian music world). The tempos are absurdly
slow (to my ears, anyway), the orchestral playing is hilariously bad at
times, and some of the voices sound comical (especially the alto), but the
soloists all display an absence of vibrato, unfailing use of
appoggiaturas, and a range of other devices which even the most ardent
HIPsters could be proud of. So in some ways, the Victorians were still
"getting it right" in ways that many of there successors didn't.
As for tempos in post-baroque music, I'm inclined to blame whatever
happened in the middle of this century; it wasn't until then, was it?,
that the big slow-down in Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms (etc.) took off....
(And it wasn't until the positivistic obsession with the text that
occurred around the same time or a bit earlier that the tradition of using
appoggiaturas etc., evident in those old Messiah recordings, was generally
killed off.) On a related note, I don't know how right he is -- it looks
plausible to me -- but Gunther Schuller does a good job of explaining that
it's wrong to attribute the 20th century fondness for slow tempi and wide
fluctuations within them to Wagner.
So, overall, I'm not so sure that the 19th century was as "bad"
interpretatively as we are often led to believe. Either way, Gould's
antipathy to that century is more related to its music than how it
interpreted the music of other periods, no?
Simon
Gaspard314
(Simon Roberts) writes:
>And of course, in (almost?) all music merely playing what the
>composer wrote down won't result in a "faithful" performance because, even
>if we assume composers have fixed wishes concerning how there music should
>go, it's not possible to translate all of those into written instructions.
>To cite an obvious example, what on earth do you do with all those Bach
>movements which have no tempo indication?
With Bach, more responsibility is given to the performer, simply due to the
absence of tempo indications, as well as most expressive indications as well.
Another interesting point regarding many, but not all, of Bach's keyboard
compositions is the fact that ha seemed to be attempting to write down his
improvisations. This is also true in many of the works (e.g. the Nocturnes) of
Chopin, Schumann (almost everything up to Opus 26 excepting the sonatas) and
Liszt (e.g. the operatic paraphrases and the Hungarian Rhapsodies) and Mozart.
Surely when Bach performed his own works, he added or deleted things as the
mood struck him. This is also known to true of Chopin's playing of his own
music, and we all know how wildly spontaneous Liszt's playing was. In the case
of Brahms for example, who labored over every note and every indication in his
scores, it is entirely proper to try to be as literally faithful to the score
as is humanly possible, out of respect for the composer's detailed wishes.
However, more freddom should be tolerated of a performer who bends and
stretches a score which most likely was an improvisation captured on paper, and
which the composer himself allowed an endless variety of interpretive licence
in his own playing. There is a time and place for priestly devotion. Likewise
for interpretive freedom and flexibility. I can see, for example criticizing
Glenn Gould's Brahms or Beethoven (though I like him in both, eccentricies and
all), but I think it is silly to criticize his highly unorthodox, but very
original and finely wrought Bach playing. Whose to say that Bach wouldn't have
loved Gould's way with his music. My guess is that Gould's playing would have
tickled Bach no end.
Paul
Schmeder
> why else would he have made the 'STAY
> TUNED: WE'RE FIXING IT' disclaimer??
Because although Gould liked the effect, he knew other people wouldn't.
Max
Nicolas Hodges
<gaspa...@aol.com> writes
>In article <7cdr4c$9ho$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, si...@dept.english.upenn.edu
>(Simon Roberts) writes:
>
>>And of course, in (almost?) all music merely playing what the
>>composer wrote down won't result in a "faithful" performance because, even
>>if we assume composers have fixed wishes concerning how there music should
>>go, it's not possible to translate all of those into written instructions.
>>To cite an obvious example, what on earth do you do with all those Bach
>>movements which have no tempo indication?
>
>
>With Bach, more responsibility is given to the performer, simply due to the
>absence of tempo indications, as well as most expressive indications as well.
>Another interesting point regarding many, but not all, of Bach's keyboard
>compositions is the fact that ha seemed to be attempting to write down his
>improvisations. This is also true in many of the works (e.g. the Nocturnes) of
>Chopin, Schumann (almost everything up to Opus 26 excepting the sonatas) and
>Liszt (e.g. the operatic paraphrases and the Hungarian Rhapsodies) and Mozart.
anything about their improvisational or compositional processes.
Everything we think we know is deduction at best, guesswork at worst.
It's clear that there could have been, and most likely was, a
relationship between the two; on the other hand, who's to say how much
improvisation there actually is in the written works? Personally, from
experience of playing them, I believe there's a lot less than might
first appear. The superficial style may sometimes be that of
improvisation, but the formal sophistication and the detail of the
working most certainly are not.
>Surely when Bach performed his own works, he added or deleted things as the
>mood struck him.
Why? How do you know?
>and we all know how wildly spontaneous Liszt's playing was.
Do we? Like we all know how wildly spontaneous Martha Argerich's is? We
also know though that sounding that spontaneous takes a lot of work, and
a lot of planning. If you had said 'we all know how wildly spontaneous
Liszt's playing *sounded*' I'd have agreed with you.
>However, more freddom should be tolerated of a performer who bends and
>stretches a score which most likely was an improvisation captured on paper, and
>which the composer himself allowed an endless variety of interpretive licence
>in his own playing.
You presuppose too much knowledge of the composer's situation to make
such a judgement, I believe.
>My guess is that Gould's playing would have
>tickled Bach no end.
I agree.
--
Nic
Gaspard314
<n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>Surely when Bach performed his own works, he added or deleted things as the
>>mood struck him.
>Why? How do you know?
I don't know, and neither do you. I'm guessing. But given his reputation for
improvisation, I don't think it's an unreasonable guess. Fair enough?
Paul
Gaspard314
<n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>With Bach, more responsibility is given to the performer, simply due to the
>>absence of tempo indications, as well as most expressive indications as
>well.
>>Another interesting point regarding many, but not all, of Bach's keyboard
>>compositions is the fact that ha seemed to be attempting to write down his
>>improvisations. This is also true in many of the works (e.g. the Nocturnes)
>of
>>Chopin, Schumann (almost everything up to Opus 26 excepting the sonatas) and
>>Liszt (e.g. the operatic paraphrases and the Hungarian Rhapsodies) and
>Mozart.
>You're going quite a distance too far there, I think. We don't know
>anything about their improvisational or compositional processes.
>Everything we think we know is deduction at best, guesswork at worst.
>It's clear that there could have been, and most likely was, a
>relationship between the two; on the other hand, who's to say how much
>improvisation there actually is in the written works? Personally, from
>experience of playing them, I believe there's a lot less than might
>first appear. The superficial style may sometimes be that of
>improvisation, but the formal sophistication and the detail of the
>working most certainly are not.
I don't think I am going too far. What's the limit? This isn't a doctoral
thesis. I'm only offering a guess. Frankly I don't think it's as poor a guess
as you're making it seem. Since none of us where around when the composers I
mentioned were alive, we can only go by what has been written by people who
were. Pick up any biography, music encyclopedia, or album jacket/CD booklet
about Chopin and/or Liszt and you can read over and over again about their
skills at improvisation. Frequently, people who heard these improvisations,
such as other guests (other than Chopin) at George Sand's house at Nohant, or
anyone who attended any soiree in which Liszt was a guest told about later
seeing these improvisations reincaranted in print as finished compositions.
Also too, people who were lucky enough to hear these men play their own
compositions wrote about the spontaneous alterations they made to their own
scores, as the mood struck them. Several years ago, an otherwise bad recording
came out featuring Chopin's music as played on a 1840's vintage Broadwood
grand, very similar to the one owned by Chopin in his later years. On this
recording was the op. 9 #2 Nocturne played from a copy owned by one of Chopin's
students, in which the student wrote in all of the changes that Chopin made
when he played the work, AND which he (Chopin) authorized the student to do as
well, as the mood struck him. This is my entire point...that maybe, JUST maybe,
we are inclined to take a composer's score far more literally (which is not to
say more seriously) than he did, and perhaps far more literally than he
intended us to. I'm just saying it's possible. Are you saying it's not
possible?
Paul
Gaspard314
<n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Do we? Like we all know how wildly spontaneous Martha Argerich's is? We
>also know though that sounding that spontaneous takes a lot of work, and
>a lot of planning. If you had said 'we all know how wildly spontaneous
>Liszt's playing *sounded*' I'd have agreed with you.
No, that's not a fair comparison. Martha Argerich is not the composer. It is
her job to make the work she's playing sound as fresh and spontaneous as
possible, and still play what's written. What Liszt did, goes beyond that, at
least when he played his own works. When he played the works of other
composers, he took fewer liberties, but he took liberties never the less,
liberties that would never be acceptable today, such as changing harmonies,
adding ad libitum cadenzas, playing single note passages in octaves, and adding
different endings for greater dramatic effect. Don't take me wrong. I'm not
saying that we should accept that kind of freedom in modern interpretations.
I'm just saying that when a performer get's a bit more free and easy with a
well known score than we are accustomed to hearing, we shouldn't be so quick to
condemn that performer, as if he or she were some godless heathen who just spat
on the bible. Frankly, I think if some (but not all) of these composers could
see how we treat their works like the holy word of God Almighty Himself, they
would laugh at us. Yes we should have respect for what these composers wrote,
and try to do them justice. I certainly do. But when a Glenn Gould, or someone
like him comes along, with a new, different, or even odd way of looking at an
old score that's been played that same way by everyone for generations, I think
we should give that person a break. Who can say for sure that they're wrong?
Who can say the composer wouldn't have liked it? Only the composer could say
for sure, and they're long gone.
Paul
Gaspard314
<n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>My guess is that Gould's playing would have
>>tickled Bach no end.
>I agree.
Well, at least we agree on something.
Paul
Nicolas Hodges
<gaspa...@aol.com> writes
>In article <8RkIJQAR...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk>, Nicolas Hodges
><n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>>mood struck him.
>>Why? How do you know?
>
>I don't know, and neither do you. I'm guessing. But given his reputation for
>improvisation, I don't think it's an unreasonable guess. Fair enough?
Not an unreasonably guess, fair enough.
But that's not what 'Surely...' means to me!
--
Nic
Nicolas Hodges
<gaspa...@aol.com> writes
>It is
>her job to make the work she's playing sound as fresh and spontaneous as
>possible, and still play what's written. What Liszt did, goes beyond that, at
>least when he played his own works.
ground here. How on earth do you know??
Have you read Göllerich's diaries?
>I'm just saying that when a performer get's a bit more free and easy with a
>well known score than we are accustomed to hearing, we shouldn't be so quick to
>condemn that performer, as if he or she were some godless heathen who just spat
>on the bible.
That all depends. Brendel once said that some such devices should be
brought back into usage, but only by the most talented players. The
implication is that most pianists would not be able to handle them
convincingly/tastefully/sensibly.
Pianists 50 or 100 years ago were simply much closer in time to the
composers. Their teacher's may have known (or even been) Liszt, for
example.
Incidentally, what do you think of Sauer's Liszt?
--
Nic
Nicolas Hodges
<gaspa...@aol.com> writes
>In article <8RkIJQAR...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk>, Nicolas Hodges
><n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
No. My problem is with your presentation of your guesses as 'surely' and
'the fact that he seemed to be' and 'we all know' when the situation is
a lot less certain than you make out.
I'm not discounting all your suggestions outright. But by making them
out to be more likely than they necessarily are you open them to
scrutiny they cannot withstand.
--
Nic
Gaspard314
<n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>It is
>>her job to make the work she's playing sound as fresh and spontaneous as
>>possible, and still play what's written. What Liszt did, goes beyond that, at
>>least when he played his own works.
>I'm sorry, but you still sound to me like you are far too sure of your
>ground here. How on earth do you know??
I might ask you the same question. How on earth do you know that what I say
isn't so?? As for my claims, well, I didn't pull them out of thin air, as you
seem to be implying. I've read about Liszt playing, in countless different
places. It's not difficult information to come by. In fact, I thought it was
just common knowledge. Do you want me to quote book titles, authors, page
numbers, and paragraphs? I'm sorry, but I neither have that information at my
fingertips, nor do I have the time or inclination to go dig it up. As I said,
this isn't a doctoral thesis. You'll just have to take my word for it that I
have read these descriptions of Liszt's playing...or, if it pleases you, don't
take my word for it. I really don't care. The bottom line is: I wasn't there,
and neither were you. I got my information from the writings of people who were
there. A letter. A diary entry. A review. It's that good enough? I wasn't aware
that being there was necessary in order to have an informed opinion.
>That all depends. Brendel once said that some such devices should be
>brought back into usage, but only by the most talented players. The
>implication is that most pianists would not be able to handle them
>convincingly/tastefully/sensibly.
Yes, that depends. Who decides who are the most talented players? Brendel?
Don't make me laugh. Brendel may be a great musical scholar, but to my ears,
his playing is duller than unbuttered toast. By the way, who decides what is
convincing? Tasteful? Sensible? Who decides? Tell me. I'd really like to know,
because right now, I can't believe that you actually expected me to take your
above quote seriously.
>Incidentally, what do you think of Sauer's Liszt?
If you mean Emil von Sauer's Liszt playing, I haven't heard it. Sorry. I just
haven't devoted as much time to historical recordings as I'd like to. Maybe you
can point me in the right direction re: Sauer's Liszt. Then again, maybe not.
Perhaps you were looking for recommendation from me, but I think it goes
without saying that I don't seriously believe that. There is nothing you can
learn from me. Now that I believe.
Paul
Gaspard314
<n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>>Surely when Bach performed his own works, he added or deleted things as
>the
>>>>mood struck him.
>>>Why? How do you know?
>>
>>I don't know, and neither do you. I'm guessing. But given his reputation for
>>improvisation, I don't think it's an unreasonable guess. Fair enough?
>
>Not an unreasonably guess, fair enough.
>
>But that's not what 'Surely...' means to me!
All right. I withdraw "Surely" and substitute your choice of : "It's quite
possible that...", "In all likelyhood...", or "It seems reasonable to suppose
that...", or none of the above. Take your pick. Surely, "Surely" was too strong
a word.
Okay? Are we square? Just forget about surely. I'm sorry I used it. It was a
big mistake. Huge!
Paul
"These are my principles, but if you don't like them, I have others."
-Groucho Marx
Gaspard314
<n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> writes:
>No. My problem is with your presentation of your guesses as 'surely' and
>'the fact that he seemed to be' and 'we all know' when the situation is
>a lot less certain than you make out.
>
>I'm not discounting all your suggestions outright. But by making them
>out to be more likely than they necessarily are you open them to
>scrutiny they cannot withstand.
So you mean to say that if I presented my arguments in a less certain way, you
would have less of a problem accepting said arguments? Or in other words, what
you really object to is not so much the arguments themselves, but my choice of
words? I can see a brought a knife to a gunfight. Or to put it better, I walked
into a doctoral thesis thinking it was friendly discussion. Or perhaps the
reverse is true for you. In any case, it's my fault entirely. All right?
Problem solved.
Best of luck to you,
Paul