Horowitz's attitude torwards Gould
Farhan Malik
Eugene Shapiro <esha...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> I recently heard that Horowitz disliked Gould. However, that is
> the extent of the complexity with which I understand their relationship.
> Could anybody expound on why Horowitz disliked Gould. Was it purely
> professinal? Was it personal?
Horowitz did not think much of Gould's playing. There were very
few pianists who's playing Horowitz admired so that really doesn't mean
much. As for a personal dislike of Gould there is nothing on record to
indicate it.
On the other hand, Gould's dislike of Horowitz is well documented.
Horowitz was the most famous pianist on the planet. He outsold, outdrew,
and outgrossed everyone else. No other pianist could command the hype and
hysteria associated with Horowitz. Gould was insanely jealous. Gould
recorded the Scriabin 3rd and Prokofiev 7th sonatas in an attempt to show
up Horowitz. A comparsion on the two's recordings shows how abysmally
Gould failed. Gould also had a pet project in mind where he would make a
record that was in effect a total mockery of Horowitz's "Historic Carnegie
Hall Return" record. This project was never allowed by Columbia.
Horowitz was their star. It would have been crazy for Columbia to allow
one of their lesser pianists to make fun of their star.
It is very unlikely that Horowitz cared enough about Gould to have
a dislike. Gould was and is pretty insignificant compared to Horowitz.
Here is a quote from Horowitz on Gould's playing:
I heard a recording of the Wagner _Siegfried Idyll_ played by Glenn
Gould. It was his arrangement. He played like a stupid ass.
Farhan
--------
For information about this Usenet posting service, send mail to
rema...@soda.berkeley.edu, with Subject: remailer-info.
Please, don't throw knives.
Chris Brewster
...
Horowitz was their star. It would have been crazy for Columbia to allow
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gould was and is pretty insignificant compared to Horowitz. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Let's just say we disagree.
--
Chris Brewster Cray Research, Inc.
Steven Correll
Farhan Malik <fma...@selene.cstp.umkc.edu> wrote:
>...Gould
>recorded the Scriabin 3rd and Prokofiev 7th sonatas in an attempt to show
>up Horowitz. A comparsion on the two's recordings shows how abysmally
>Gould failed. Gould also had a pet project in mind where he would make a
>record that was in effect a total mockery of Horowitz's "Historic Carnegie
>Hall Return" record. This project was never allowed by Columbia.
>Horowitz was their star. It would have been crazy for Columbia to allow
>one of their lesser pianists to make fun of their star.
If your source on the Scriabin and Prokofiev is the biography of Gould
by Friedrich, read carefully: the author presents this as his own opinion
about Gould's motives, not as fact. And Gould's "Hysterical Return" satire
was in fact issued by Columbia on Gould's Silver Jubilee LP (not available, to
my knowledge, on CD); I have a copy, and Kazdin's book on Gould talks about
it. Friedrich also reports that Horowitz sent flowers and condolences upon
Gould's death.
--
Steven Correll == PO Box 66625, Scotts Valley, CA 95067 == s...@netcom.com
Dan Koren
>Farhan Malik writes these fighting words:
>...
> Horowitz was their star. It would have been crazy for Columbia to allow
> one of their lesser pianists [Glenn Gould] to make fun of their star. ...
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Gould was and is pretty insignificant compared to Horowitz. ...
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Let's just say we disagree.
Yes, but that's not necessarily a point in your favor.
Let's just say that, in professional pianistic circles, no one would
even dream of ranking Gould among the truly great ones. Interesting?
Yes. Great? Nnaaahhh....
dk
W0TAN
(Chris Brewster) writes:
Sign me up on the disagree list, too. Is this another of those ludicrous
"Who's best" arguments? Even if it is, I had to make my position known.
Ken Iisaka
|> Gould
|> recorded the Scriabin 3rd and Prokofiev 7th sonatas in an attempt to show
|> up Horowitz. A comparsion on the two's recordings shows how abysmally
|> Gould failed.
I disagree. Horowitz's performances are always highly inaccurate,
modified (mangled,) and poorly analysed. How should one explain extra
measures inserted in Skryabin 3rd Sonata, 2nd and 4th movements? In
contrast, Gould's recordings, albeit unique in interpretation,
reasonably faithful to the notes written, well analysed, well presented.
However, Gould's Skryabin 5th sonata is, indeed, horrible.
--
| ### ### | ### ### ### | ### ### | ### ### ### |
| ### ### | ### ### ### | ### ### | ### ### ### |
| ### ### | ### ### ### | ### ### | ### ### ### |
| ### ### | ### ### ### | ### ### | ### ### ### |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Ken Iisaka | (kii...@morgan.com) | Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc |
| 1 Pierrepont Plz, Brooklyn, NY 11201 | All disclaimers apply. |
|____|____|____|____|____|____|____|____|____|____|____|____|____|____|___
Stephan Hamann
Uh, is there any objective evidence of this consensus among professional
pianists?
--stephan
ste...@psych.toronto.edu
NE...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
considered a great musical thinker. He played by instinct, cared little
about authenticity or absolute accuracy, and arranged other's music
whenever he felt like it. Someone said about Liszt that he gave perfect
performances of any piece of music the FIRST time he played it, but by the
second time he was already experimenting ..... this infuriated Chopin, for
one. Gould had nothing like Horowitz's natural flair, but he was a thinking
musician, for better or worse, and as far as I know did not change the notes
as such. "In my Father's house there are many mansions...."
Jacob Feldman
Dan Koren has used this type of argument before in this group--- the
appeal to (unnamed) professional musicians in support of his own
preferences. It's a complete red herring, and it makes no difference
whether there is any objective evidence of Dan's supposed consensus.
My enjoyment of Gould's recordings is not subject to validation or
repudiation by the preferences of Dan's friends.
To return to the subject of this thread, Gould apparently specifically
resented the public perception---fed by PR hype, including that by his
own company, CBS---that Horowitz's *technique* was the best around. He
set out, perhaps peevishly, to record the Prokofiev, Scriabin, etc,
specifically to show off, and show Horowitz up.
For what it's worth, Gould's almost supernatural ability to just plain
play the notes fast was, in fact, enormously greater than the
wrong-note-plauged Horowitz. (And not just because of all the
retakes.) That doesn't make you have to like his recordings, of
course.
-jacob
Dan Koren
>.... Gould had nothing like Horowitz's natural flair, but he was a thinking
>musician, for better or worse, and as far as I know did not change the notes
>as such.
Perhaps, but he changed them in ways infinitely more infuriating and
offensive when playing them... There is a(n implied and agreed context)
to every piece of music. Playing twice as fast or twice as slow, or
playing staccato instead of legato, or shifting accents around can
disfigure a piece a lot more than changing a couple of notes here
and there.
dk
dk
Dan Koren
>ste...@psych.toronto.edu (Stephan Hamann) writes:
>
>>In article <dkCx8r...@netcom.com>, Dan Koren <d...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>Let's just say that, in professional pianistic circles, no one would
>>>even dream of ranking Gould among the truly great ones. Interesting?
>>>Yes. Great? Nnaaahhh....
>>>
>>>dk
>
>>Uh, is there any objective evidence of this consensus among professional
>>pianists?
>
>Dan Koren has used this type of argument before in this group--- the
>appeal to (unnamed) professional musicians in support of his own
>preferences. It's a complete red herring, and it makes no difference
>whether there is any objective evidence of Dan's supposed consensus.
You have completely misunderstood and misconstrued what I said. There
is social and aesthetic context in every profession, a lot of which is
not public knowledge, and quite a bit of which is very different from
the opinions held by the public at large. That's true of every walk of
life, and it is probably true of your profeesion as well, whatever it
is. And if bothered to spend any amount of time talking to professional
pianists, you'd find out that by and large their opinion of Gould is
not quite as good as that of the general public. This is exactly,
precisely, what I said.
>My enjoyment of Gould's recordings is not subject to validation or
>repudiation by the preferences of Dan's friends.
I have no intention of proselytizing my taste ('cause if you did not
come to the right conclusions by yourself, you're beyond salvation
anyway! ;-)) ). The original discussion was about ranking, not about
subjective enjoyment.
>To return to the subject of this thread, Gould apparently specifically
>resented the public perception---fed by PR hype, including that by his
>own company, CBS---that Horowitz's *technique* was the best around. He
And so did many other pianists. You have to be careful however, and
recognize the influence of timing. During the '30s and '40s, when
Horowitz built his American career, his technique was arguably the
best in the US, with Godowsky, Rosenthal, Hofmann and Rachmaninov
retired or nearing retirement. Also, Horowitz' technique was a lot
better during those days than the '60s or '70s - remember that it
blew away Rachmaninov, who knew a thing or two about piano playing.
>set out, perhaps peevishly, to record the Prokofiev, Scriabin, etc,
>specifically to show off, and show Horowitz up.
Perhaps, but the little Scriabin and Prokofiev that Gould recorded
is very limited evidence that his technique was first class. After
all, Gould was his own victim in this respect. There'd be a clearer
picture of his technique if he'd played any of the repertoire that
requires big technique - like Liszt, Rachmaninov, Tchaikovsky.
>For what it's worth, Gould's almost supernatural ability to just plain
>play the notes fast was, in fact, enormously greater than the
>wrong-note-plauged Horowitz. (And not just because of all the
Yeah, but that's only finger technique. Where are the octaves?
Where are the twelfths?
>retakes.) That doesn't make you have to like his recordings, of
>course.
Of course not.
dk
Mario Taboada
something to boast of - a well-rounded musicianship is. Horowitz
was plagued all his life by the suspicion that he was not as deep
a musician as others (he was crushed with jealousy on hearing Serkin
in the thirties: Volodya was smart and he immediately understood that
Serkin had something that he lacked: a discerning taste, an internal
fire, and a committment to the composer - and to the best music!).
He slowly tried to get rid of the salon pieces and play more solid
stuff. In the case of Schumann, he succeeded admirably in learning
and conveying that composer's very fragmented and tortuous pieces.
As for the octaves in the Tchaikovsky - they mean little when compared
to a slow movement in a Beethoven late sonata, or to a Schubert or
Mozart sonata.
Best,
Mario Taboada
Los Angeles
Mario Taboada
<<Perhaps, but the little Scriabin and Prokofiev that Gould recorded
is very limited evidence that his technique was first class. After
all, Gould was his own victim in this respect. There'd be a clearer
picture of his technique if he'd played any of the repertoire that
requires big technique - like Liszt, Rachmaninov, Tchaikovsky.>>
There IS a clear picture of his technique from the many
recordings he left. Liszt, Rachmaninov, and Tchaikovsky are
irrelevant here - unless one understands playing the piano as
a martial art instead of just using an instrument to play the
music. Probably Gould didn't play these composers because he
didn't like them (I am not completely sure that he didn't play
Liszt).
His technique in Bach is astounding. But why talk about
technique when he conveys this music so well? In a competition of
brains (not fingers), I am afraid that Glenn Gould has Horowitz
completely outclassed. On the other hand, I don't see any reason
to compare them at all.
They had something in common: they didn't like to practice!!
best regards,
Mario Taboada
Los Angeles
Dan Koren
>
>As for the octaves in the Tchaikovsky - they mean little when compared
>to a slow movement in a Beethoven late sonata, or to a Schubert or
>Mozart sonata.
Oh, but I disagree. The Tchaikovsky B-flat minor piano concerto is
certainly one of the great masterpieces of music. As to Boring van
Beethoven's slow movements, that's all they are.
dk
Dan Koren
>Dan Koren says:
>
><<Perhaps, but the little Scriabin and Prokofiev that Gould recorded
>is very limited evidence that his technique was first class. After
>all, Gould was his own victim in this respect. There'd be a clearer
>picture of his technique if he'd played any of the repertoire that
>requires big technique - like Liszt, Rachmaninov, Tchaikovsky.>>
>
> There IS a clear picture of his technique from the many
>recordings he left. Liszt, Rachmaninov, and Tchaikovsky are
>irrelevant here -
They are very relevant. How could one have a picture of a
pianist's technique who avoided playing the bulk of the
standard repertoire ?!?
> - unless one understands playing the piano as
>a martial art instead of just using an instrument to play the
>music.
I'm not sure I follow that. Are you saying that playing Liszt,
Rachmaninov, or Tchaikovsky is martial arts?
> Probably Gould didn't play these composers because he
>didn't like them (I am not completely sure that he didn't play
>Liszt).
>
> His technique in Bach is astounding.
There are more aspects to piano technique than playing many
notes as fast as one can. Legato playing for instance, which
Gould didn't know the first thing about.
> But why talk about
>technique when he conveys this music so well?
He does? I did not notice that. In fact, I think that of all
the music he butchered, he butchered Bach more than anything
else. He got away with it just because most people have much
less of a notion of how Bach's music should be played, than,
say, Chopin's.
> In a competition of
>brains (not fingers), I am afraid that Glenn Gould has Horowitz
>completely outclassed.
That's not obvious to me at all. Gould's bad performances are
every bit as lousy, in fact they are a lot more so, than any
of Horowitz' bad performances. Also, be aware of the fact
that one cannot play the piano with brains alone.
> On the other hand, I don't see any reason
>to compare them at all.
Of course not.
dk
Bruce Sternfield
>He does? I did not notice that. In fact, I think that of all
>the music he butchered, he butchered Bach more than anything
>else. He got away with it just because most people have much
>less of a notion of how Bach's music should be played, than,
>say, Chopin's.
And just how *should* Bach's music be played?
John E. Harrington
>Dan Koren says:
><<Perhaps, but the little Scriabin and Prokofiev that Gould recorded
>is very limited evidence that his technique was first class. After
>all, Gould was his own victim in this respect. There'd be a clearer
>picture of his technique if he'd played any of the repertoire that
>requires big technique - like Liszt, Rachmaninov, Tchaikovsky.>>
>
> There IS a clear picture of his technique from the many
>recordings he left. Liszt, Rachmaninov, and Tchaikovsky are
>irrelevant here - unless one understands playing the piano as
>a martial art instead of just using an instrument to play the
>music. Probably Gould didn't play these composers because he
>didn't like them (I am not completely sure that he didn't play
>Liszt).
The Liszt transcriptions of the Beethoven symphonies are the only
Liszt in his repetoire that I'm aware of.
--
*******************************************************************************
* DISCLAIMER: Unless indicated otherwise, everything in this note is *
* personal opinion, not an official statement of Biosym Technologies, Inc. *
*******************************************************************************
Carl Tait
>
>And if [you] bothered to spend any amount of time talking to professional
>pianists, you'd find out that by and large their opinion of Gould is
>not quite as good as that of the general public. This is exactly,
>precisely, what I said.
I must agree with Dan on this one. Among pianists and hard-core
pianophiles, Gould's name rarely comes up. Why? Practically
everyone agrees that he had great finger control, and most will
grant that he had a fine understanding of polyphony. But what else?
Grey tone, unremarkable (some would say nonexistent) legato, and --
perhaps most importantly as far as pianists are concerned -- an
almost complete lack of affinity with the standard repertoire.
So even pianists who admire Gould's Bach are not likely to rank
him very high in the pantheon of pianists. And for those who
*don't* like his Bach, Gould will probably fall somewhere between
Richard Clayderman and Yanni.
Carl Tait
Jacob Feldman
>In <dkCxF8...@netcom.com>, d...@netcom.com (Dan Koren) writes:
>>
>>And if [you] bothered to spend any amount of time talking to professional
>>pianists, you'd find out that by and large their opinion of Gould is
>>not quite as good as that of the general public. This is exactly,
>>precisely, what I said.
>I must agree with Dan on this one. Among pianists and hard-core
>pianophiles, Gould's name rarely comes up. Why? Practically
>everyone agrees that he had great finger control, and most will
>grant that he had a fine understanding of polyphony. But what else?
>Grey tone, unremarkable (some would say nonexistent) legato, and --
>perhaps most importantly as far as pianists are concerned -- an
>almost complete lack of affinity with the standard repertoire.
Let's assume Dan is right, factually, on this point: "hard-core
pianophiles," who generally speaking emphasize the mainstream romantic
repertoire, don't hold Gould in high regard. This is obviously
circular, since Gould evidently detested this repertoire and didn't
generally record it. The question is, should we---as Dan keeps
implying---find this fact persuasive in forming our own tastes? Of
course not.
Really, taking Gould's agressivly staccato passages as evidence that
he "couldn't do a legato", is no different from taking 4'33" as
evidence that Cage "couldn't write a good melody". Maybe so, but the
observation completely misses the point. Perhaps a better analogy is
Lucy van Patten's keen observation that Beethoven "couldn't have been
that great" because, after all, "He didn't get to be King!".
-jacob
James C Liu
>Let's assume Dan is right, factually, on this point: "hard-core
>pianophiles," who generally speaking emphasize the mainstream romantic
>repertoire, don't hold Gould in high regard. This is obviously
>circular, since Gould evidently detested this repertoire and didn't
>generally record it. The question is, should we---as Dan keeps
>implying---find this fact persuasive in forming our own tastes? Of
>course not.
Well, Gould's greatness is a decidedly unconventional, eccentric greatness;
it seems to me that he elicits the same sort of love/hate responses that
other unconventional geniuses such as Willem Mengelberg elicited, albeit
in his own unique way. Whether you like Gould or not seems to tell us
more about you than about Gould. Right, dk? ;-)
>Really, taking Gould's agressivly staccato passages as evidence that
>he "couldn't do a legato", is no different from taking 4'33" as
>evidence that Cage "couldn't write a good melody". Maybe so, but the
>observation completely misses the point. Perhaps a better analogy is
>Lucy van Patten's keen observation that Beethoven "couldn't have been
>that great" because, after all, "He didn't get to be King!".
Lucy van Pelt. Please. Get the facts straight! =8^).
--
/James C.S. Liu, MD "Walls impede my progress."
jl...@world.std.com "I've lost all the feeling in my shirt."
Department of Medicine
New England Med Ctr, Boston MA -- from the Hidden Brain Damage Scale
Dan Koren
>In article <dkCx8r...@netcom.com>, Dan Koren <d...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <CB.94Oc...@willow021.cray.com> c...@willow021.cray.com (Chris Brewster) writes:
>>>Farhan Malik writes these fighting words:
>>>...
>>> Horowitz was their star. It would have been crazy for Columbia to allow
>>> one of their lesser pianists [Glenn Gould] to make fun of their star. ...
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> Gould was and is pretty insignificant compared to Horowitz. ...
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>Let's just say we disagree.
>>
>>Yes, but that's not necessarily a point in your favor.
>>
>>Let's just say that, in professional pianistic circles, no one would
>>even dream of ranking Gould among the truly great ones. Interesting?
>>Yes. Great? Nnaaahhh....
>
>pianists?
No, unless you can convince Gallup or Reuter to take some polls. ;-)
Indirectly, how many have you heard following GG's blueprints versus
Horowitz' ?!?
dk
Jacob Feldman
>>Lucy van Patten's keen observation that Beethoven "couldn't have been
>>that great" because, after all, "He didn't get to be King!".
> Lucy van Pelt. Please. Get the facts straight! =8^).
Just trying to see if anyone was paying attention.... :-)
-jacob
Carl Tait
ja...@ruccs.rutgers.edu (Jacob Feldman) writes:
>
>Let's assume Dan is right, factually, on this point: "hard-core
>pianophiles," who generally speaking emphasize the mainstream romantic
>repertoire, don't hold Gould in high regard. This is obviously
>circular, since Gould evidently detested this repertoire and didn't
>generally record it.
Two points:
(1) Although hard-core pianophiles usually have a soft spot for
the romantic literature, most of us admire a wide range of music.
But Dan (and others) despise Gould even in Bach. And while I
enjoy many of Gould's Bach performances, his approach is badly
suited to almost *any* non-polyphonic music, not just romantic
pieces.
(2) Gould's lack of celebration is even more noticeable among
professional pianists than piano lovers.
>The question is, should we---as Dan keeps
>implying---find this fact persuasive in forming our own tastes? Of
>course not.
I agree completely, and I think Dan has said the same thing.
All we're saying is that among people who know the piano and
its performers inside out, Gould is not usually ranked with
the demigods. This is simply a statement of experience, not
a dogmatic insistence on a "right" answer.
>Really, taking Gould's agressivly staccato passages as evidence that
>he "couldn't do a legato", is no different from taking 4'33" as
>evidence that Cage "couldn't write a good melody".
But Gould's staccato is a hallmark of his style, not an isolated
technique he uses once in a while. If he had played a single
piece using an unexpected staccato, I'd agree with you. But his
non-legato articulation -- even where comically inappropriate --
is a pervasive characteristic of his performances.
>Perhaps a better analogy is
>Lucy van Patten's keen observation that Beethoven "couldn't have been
>that great" because, after all, "He didn't get to be King!".
In the contest for King of Bach, Dan would probably rank Gould
around the Two of Clubs. I'd put Gould at least among the top
honors, but his side suits are too weak to move him into slam
contention.
Carl Tait
Jacob Feldman
>In <37c6uu$6...@ruccs.rutgers.edu>,
>ja...@ruccs.rutgers.edu (Jacob Feldman) writes:
>professional pianists than piano lovers.
>>The question is, should we---as Dan keeps
>>implying---find this fact persuasive in forming our own tastes? Of
>>course not.
>I agree completely, and I think Dan has said the same thing.
Well, I don't want to continue arguing about this point, since we all
claim to believe that we should form our own tastes; I maintain,
though, that Dan's continual references to Gould's (and others')
standing in the eyes of anonymous others constitute a smug appeal to
their supposed authority--- if not, then why keep making them?
>But Gould's staccato is a hallmark of his style, not an isolated
>technique he uses once in a while. If he had played a single
>piece using an unexpected staccato, I'd agree with you. But his
>non-legato articulation -- even where comically inappropriate --
>is a pervasive characteristic of his performances.
Certainly some of Gould's stylistic choices are mystifying. (Why the
stacatto in the E-major fugue of WTC book 2? I have never figured that
one out.) But the odd mannerisms in, say, his Mozart are not so
mysterious: they are obviously intimately related to his deep
ambivalence or even disrespect for the music. If you really love the
Mozart sonatas through and through, you are not likely to like Gould's
version--- indeed, you are likely to loathe it, as many posters in
this group can attest. If you cannot conceive of what Gould might
have been getting at when he found fault with Mozart's sonatas, then
you are not going to be amused when Gould points them up, or when he
grossly downplays those aspects (eg melodic coherence) which he finds
weak.
That is why I never recommend Gould's Mozart to those who are looking
for a version of the sonatas, even though I love the recordings
myself. You have to be prepared to take Gould as a musical thinker on
the level of the composer himself-- incidently, something I myself
would not do for *any* other pianist. When Gould argues with Mozart,
believe it or not, Mozart does not always come out ahead. The same
reasoning, though, is why even I can't stomach listening to a lot of
his Beethoven.
-jacob
Clifford Ando
><<Perhaps, but the little Scriabin and Prokofiev that Gould recorded
>is very limited evidence that his technique was first class. After
>all, Gould was his own victim in this respect. There'd be a clearer
>picture of his technique if he'd played any of the repertoire that
>requires big technique - like Liszt, Rachmaninov, Tchaikovsky.>>
It is hardly necessary to quote more by Mr. Koren from this strand, or
the self-referential strand to which he has so frequently contributed.
At first I was going to argue about his methods for establishing the
greatness of a pianist, but there is no place to start. I invited the
newsgroup a while ago to make a collective effort to define some terms of
the debate, since piano playing is so often debated here. But little was
achieved; and I have no other way to describe him than to say he is mad.
Crazed. Completely bonkers. (Perhaps deaf?)
Dan Koren
Oh, that's easy to illustrate. Listen to Harold Samuel, Dinu Lipatti,
Edwin Fischer, Sviatoslav Richter, Martha Argerich, Samuel Feinberg,
Emil Naoumoff, Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli, Arthur Schnabel.
dk
SJ Symphony
question. Horowitz (as a pianist) had simply mind-blowing technique (which
paranthetically makes his opinion of Art Tatum worth noting).
Gould had good technique. But his major contribution was in thoughts about
music, and the reproduction of written compositions.
I'd categorize Gould in the same general group as John Cage. I can't say
that Cage was a great composer, but he had great IDEAS about composition.
In the same way, Gould was not necessarily a great pianist, but he had great
IDEAS about performance.
His Bach is killer, though.
Chris Alexander
SJ_Sy...@livewire.com
***************************************************************************
** Transmitted via LiveWire, a Virtual Valley/Metro Newspapers service **
** San Jose, Calif. USA voice: 408.298.8174 e-mail: onl...@livewire.com **
** modem: 408.298.8646 (FirstClass, VT-100, TTY) fax: 408.271-3520 **
***************************************************************************
Nhat-Viet Phi
:> As for the octaves in the Tchaikovsky - they mean little when compared
:> to a slow movement in a Beethoven late sonata, or to a Schubert or
:> Mozart sonata.
: Oh, but I disagree. The Tchaikovsky B-flat minor piano concerto is
: certainly one of the great masterpieces of music. As to Boring van
: Beethoven's slow movements, that's all they are.
You are being facetious, right? Shall I follow up by saying "pompous,
bombastic Russian crap"? Ha ha ha
Anyway, getting back to Gould, who does NOT count me among his fans: one
thing you cannot deny is that he has a VERY distinctive sound. When I
hear one of his Bach recordings on CBC radio, I am quite usually correct in
identifying his playing style. And I am not great at that kind of
"Who's-That-Player?" listening. Of course, when he plays Mozart, I usually
rush to the toilet to throw up!
In the end, isn't it that kind of immortality that counts?? ;-)
Nhat-Viet Phi
nhat...@nucleus.com
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Ken Iisaka
|> Oh, but I disagree. The Tchaikovsky B-flat minor piano concerto is
|> certainly one of the great masterpieces of music.
Bleeelchchchchchchh, choke, umph, bam,......
I'll take Schoenberg Op.11 No.1 any day.
John E. Harrington
>ta...@watson.ibm.com (Carl Tait) writes:
>
>>In <dkCxF8...@netcom.com>, d...@netcom.com (Dan Koren) writes:
>>>
>>>And if [you] bothered to spend any amount of time talking to professional
>>>pianists, you'd find out that by and large their opinion of Gould is
>>>not quite as good as that of the general public. This is exactly,
>>>precisely, what I said.
>
>>I must agree with Dan on this one. Among pianists and hard-core
>>pianophiles, Gould's name rarely comes up. Why? Practically
>>everyone agrees that he had great finger control, and most will
>>grant that he had a fine understanding of polyphony. But what else?
>>Grey tone, unremarkable (some would say nonexistent) legato, and --
>>perhaps most importantly as far as pianists are concerned -- an
>>almost complete lack of affinity with the standard repertoire.
>
>Let's assume Dan is right, factually, on this point: "hard-core
>pianophiles," who generally speaking emphasize the mainstream romantic
>repertoire, don't hold Gould in high regard. This is obviously
>circular, since Gould evidently detested this repertoire and didn't
>generally record it. The question is, should we---as Dan keeps
>implying---find this fact persuasive in forming our own tastes? Of
>course not.
And the suggestion that we should somehow pause, turn off our Gould
CDs, listen to the consensus of these conservatory drones (who turn
out performance after performance of Chopin etudes, Rachmaninov
preludes, etc. ad infinitum) and allow that to influence our enjoyment
of a great pianist is unparalelled arrogance. It is just the kind
of nonsense that gives classical music criticism and classical music
itself a bad name.
Mario Taboada
>dk
How about Joao Carlos Martins and Horszowski? Martins' crazy
exhuberance is quite remarkable. Old Horszowski was a past master of
Bach - possibly the best on piano after Fischer, Schnabel, and Gould.
Harold Samuel was
from the old school of pianism: very good but quite far from our
current understanding of Bach.
Fischer was such a complete musician that I suspect he coud do justice
to anything and everything he played. Ditto Schnabel.
I'm not such a great fan of Richter's Bach, although he displays
awesome pianistic ability. I hear the interpreter more than I like to.
The other day I heard a couple of Bach English suites by Maria Tipo on
the radio. Not bad at all.
Michelangeli and Argerich have not recorded enough Bach for me to have
a clear opinion of their ability with this composer.
I have a problem with your assertion that listening to this
variegated group of pianists shows how Bach should be played. How
can that be if they are all quite different from each other? Maybe a
more technical explanation is in order, since you argue that Gould
DIDN'T know how. What particular technical aspects of Gould's playing
of Bach do you object to? Do all of the pianists in your list supply
what Gould misses?
Best regards,
Mario Taboada
Los Angeles
Stephan Hamann
>>>even dream of ranking Gould among the truly great ones. Interesting?
>>>Yes. Great? Nnaaahhh....
>>
>>Uh, is there any objective evidence of this consensus among professional
>>pianists?
>
>No, unless you can convince Gallup or Reuter to take some polls. ;-)
>Indirectly, how many have you heard following GG's blueprints versus
>Horowitz' ?!?
>
>
>dk
My point was, how would you know what professional pianists think
about Gould? Your statement seemed like a projection of your own
view and an appeal to the "silent majority" of pianists to support
your point.
Every description of Gould's technique lauds it as "astonishing",
"phenomenal", etc.. But we don't have to rely on the judgment of
others in this regard, because it's clear from the video recordings
of his performances that they are true. Look at his performances of
the Berg sonata, his transcription of Ravel's "La Valse", the Webern
Variations.
I suppose more pianists follow Horowitz's example than GG because
Gould's style is so elusive to pin down, although it exists and is
highly recognizable.
--stephan hamann
ste...@psych.toronto.edu
Carl Tait
j...@iris77.biosym.com (John E. Harrington) writes:
>
>And the suggestion that we should somehow pause, turn off our Gould
>CDs, listen to the consensus of these conservatory drones (who turn
>out performance after performance of Chopin etudes, Rachmaninov
>preludes, etc. ad infinitum) and allow that to influence our enjoyment
>of a great pianist is unparalelled arrogance.
I continue to wonder why anyone thinks Dan and I are on a crusade
to dictate people's tastes to them.
For example, suppose I said, "Liberace is more highly regarded by
the general public than by professional pianists." Or maybe,
"Professors of English don't usually hold Edgar Guest's poetry
in high esteem." Or, on the positive side, "Art experts invariably
place Vermeer among the greatest of all artists."
Now if you like to listen to Liberace while drawing mustaches
on Vermeer reproductions and reading "It takes a heap of livin' in
a house to make it home," that's fine with me. Your tastes are
your own, and I'm not out to change them. But you might find it
*interesting* to know what experts in the field think about your
objects of veneration. You may or may not agree with them;
that again is entirely your choice.
BTW, "conservatory drones" (whose opinions I don't particularly
value, either) usually prefer the (deceptively) straightforward
pianism of Rubinstein -- or the technical perfection of Pollini --
to the highly personal performances of either Gould or Horowitz.
Carl Tait
John E. Harrington
Look Bruce, you just haven't got it through your head. You and I and
the thousands of people who continue to make Gould's Bach one of Sony's
number 1 sellers are philistines who don't know the first thing about
how Bach *should* be played.
You see, there is a special way that Bach is played that only the
culturally superior like dk understand. The fact that we *like* the
way Gould plays Bach compared with the way other pianists interpret
him is *NEITHER HERE NOR THERE*. There is a correct way that is
different from the way Gould played Bach. Period.
Make sense?
Hey dk, why don't you tell me which flavor of ice cream is the "correct"
one. Like the thick philistine I am, I've always favored chocolate.
What's the "correct" flavor, praline cream?
--JH
Ed Price
>>>>even dream of ranking Gould among the truly great ones. Interesting?
>>>>Yes. Great? Nnaaahhh....
>>>
>>>Uh, is there any objective evidence of this consensus among professional
>>>pianists?
Here's some evidence to the contrary, from an article about 24 year old
French classical pianist Helene Grimaud, New York Times, Sunday May 29,
1994, section 2 (Arts and Leisure), p36:
Like so many pianists of her generation, she adduces Glenn Gould as her
idol, although she concedes that her playing little resembles his. She
admires his structural rigor and rhythmic incisiveness, insisting that she
uses no pedal except in actual performance. (Her real practicing, she
adds, comes away from the piano, reading a score, with an occasional foray
to the keyboard to check out an idea.)
She considers Gould a soul mate in part because of the way his recordings
eerily certify things she has already done on her own, she said. She
discovered to her delight that Gould corrected the same "wrong" note in
Brahms's Opus 118 that she did. And like him, she often breaks chords by
playing one hand slightly before the other -- unusually, the right hand
first.
As an aside, here is a comment by Arnold Schultz, quoted in Payzant's
"Glenn Gould: Music and Mind":
The artists who are as consistently sensitive to the endings of their
tones as to their beginnings, who in passage work are as intent upon the
evenness of the fall of the dampers as they are on the evenness of the
hammer attack form for me a somewhat limited aristocracy of pianism.
Horowitz, Schnabel, Kapell, Hess, Gieseking, and Glenn Gould are some of
the names that come to mind.
-Ed
John E. Harrington
In other words, all of dk's favorite pianists play Bach the way Bach
*should* be played. You see, there is a right way and a wrong way
to play Bach. We phillistines just haven't gotten that through
our thick skulls yet.
In our simple, childlike way, we haven't realized what the "correct"
way to interpret JSB's music is.
And dk is here to tell us.
You still haven't answered my question, dk. What's the correct
flavor of ice cream? The correct art to like? The correct literature
to read? Tell us your theory about how the Tchaikovsky 1st piano
concerto is better than anything that poor simpleton Beethoven ever
wrote...
I just love these self-appointed ministers of culture.
Dan Koren
>>>>>Let's just say that, in professional pianistic circles, no one would
>>>>>even dream of ranking Gould among the truly great ones. Interesting?
>>>>>Yes. Great? Nnaaahhh....
>>>>
>>>>Uh, is there any objective evidence of this consensus among professional
>>>>pianists?
>
>Here's some evidence to the contrary, from an article about 24 year old
>French classical pianist Helene Grimaud, New York Times, Sunday May 29,
>1994, section 2 (Arts and Leisure), p36:
How is this evidence to the contrary? This is just one opinion.
> Like so many pianists of her generation, she adduces Glenn Gould as her
How many pianists are there in her generation ?!?
> idol, although she concedes that her playing little resembles his. She
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If that is so, who cares what she says? Artists express admiration in one
and only one way: by following another artist's example. Incidentally, I
heard Helene Grimaud and all of her recordings, and there's nothing in
them that ressembles Gould's style however slightly.
> admires his structural rigor and rhythmic incisiveness, insisting that she
> uses no pedal except in actual performance. (Her real practicing, she
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Of course one cannot believe such a story, can one?
> adds, comes away from the piano, reading a score, with an occasional foray
> to the keyboard to check out an idea.)
> She considers Gould a soul mate in part because of the way his recordings
> eerily certify things she has already done on her own, she said. She
> discovered to her delight that Gould corrected the same "wrong" note in
Which of course isn't "wrong", but just what Brahms intended.
> Brahms's Opus 118 that she did. And like him, she often breaks chords by
> playing one hand slightly before the other -- unusually, the right hand
> first.
>
>As an aside, here is a comment by Arnold Schultz, quoted in Payzant's
>"Glenn Gould: Music and Mind":
Are you quoting a book written *about* Gould as evidence that he is well
liked among pianists? Gosh!
> The artists who are as consistently sensitive to the endings of their
> tones as to their beginnings, who in passage work are as intent upon the
> evenness of the fall of the dampers as they are on the evenness of the
> hammer attack form for me a somewhat limited aristocracy of pianism.
For anyone even remotely aware of how a piano action works, this is
complete non-sense.
> Horowitz, Schnabel, Kapell, Hess, Gieseking, and Glenn Gould are some of
> the names that come to mind.
It sounds pretty clear from the phrasing of the above sentence, that
this is just what its author *thinks*, rather than the opinion of the
above mentioned pianists.
dk
Neil Tingley
j...@iris77.biosym.com "John E. Harrington" writes:
> Look Bruce, you just haven't got it through your head. You and I and
> the thousands of people who continue to make Gould's Bach one of Sony's
> number 1 sellers are philistines who don't know the first thing about
> how Bach *should* be played.
>
> You see, there is a special way that Bach is played that only the
> culturally superior like dk understand. The fact that we *like* the
> way Gould plays Bach compared with the way other pianists interpret
> him is *NEITHER HERE NOR THERE*. There is a correct way that is
> different from the way Gould played Bach. Period.
What is actually incorrect about the way Gould played Bach?
1. There's the old chestnut that Bach didn't care which instrument or combination
of instruments that he used. Gould has always stuck to this notion. Who knows
how the Art of the Fugue should be played ?
2. Gould tried to emulate the sound of a harpsichord on the piano. Yes and
you can't alter the dynamics of individual parts independently on a harsichord.
Gould could on his piano (and with great facility - which is why his Bach is
very special).
3. His ornamentation is not historically correct. Yes, but musicologists had not
discovered all that much about baroque ornamentation in the fifties and besides
it was considered important to get this right. Ornaments are a means of express-
ion anyway, not just technical hurdles.
4. His tempi are odd. Yes, but so were other great Bach performers'(such as
Dr Klemperer for instance). And again the study of authentic tempi is a more
recent phenominon and its effect on performing is relatively recent.
5. He plays with enormous passion and drive. He was a great musician who thought
very carefully about how he wanted to interpret a piece.
6. If anyone want's to hear Gould at his most uncontroversial try Sony's recent
release of a live two LIVE Bach compilations - a 1959 Goldberg from Saltzburg
and the three-part symphonias from Moscow in 1957. I would think that few
people would quibble about the quality of the playing on this disc, and they
won't find too many eccentricities to moan about.
Neil Tingley
Bruce Sternfield
>Look Bruce, you just haven't got it through your head. You and I and
>the thousands of people who continue to make Gould's Bach one of Sony's
>number 1 sellers are philistines who don't know the first thing about
>how Bach *should* be played.
Well, I would never argue that we should have judgment of artistic
merit by consensus. Anyone who's ever played or studied Bach,
however, quickly realizes how much of the performer's personality
his music requires.
>one. Like the thick philistine I am, I've always favored chocolate.
>What's the "correct" flavor, praline cream?
No, chocolate. Any other flavor is a crime against nature <g>
Stephan Hamann
SJ Symphony <SJ_Sy...@livewire.com> wrote:
>There was mention of Gould recording some more standard repertoire as a
>response to Horowitz, to show that "Gould could play that stuff too."
>
>The slight hitch with using these recordings is Gould's documented fanaticism
>with recording technology.
>
>The argument is, that listening to Gould's Romantic-repertoire recordings
>shows his technical mastery of the instrument, while Horowitz is shown to be
>sloppy, hits lots of clinkers, etc.
>
>The thing is, Gould would _purposely redo his recordings_, and meticulously
>remove any clinkers, because of his fascination with the technology. So his
>recordings _might not be true indicators_ of his piano technique.
>
>Horowitz, on the other hand, was notoriously lazy. There's probably no way
>he would stand to do more than one or two takes on any piece of music. Any
>more, and he'd get just plain bored.
>
>So, Horowitz's recordings might document a truly technically gifted pianist,
>while Gould's recordings show a highly developed musical thinker, who might
>not even be in the same league in terms of pianistic ability.
>
>Then again, who really knows?
Andrew Kazdin was producer on most of Gould's records, and he claims that
although Gould was fascinated by technology, he often didn't do much
splicing at all, and had "damn near as many one-takers as anybody". The
idea one gets is that Gould exaggerated the role of tinkering with his
records as part of his meticulously crafted public persona. In any case,
there are lots of videorecordings of him playing tremendously difficult
works where it is obvious that no splices are occuring.
SJ Symphony
response to Horowitz, to show that "Gould could play that stuff too."
The slight hitch with using these recordings is Gould's documented fanaticism
with recording technology.
The argument is, that listening to Gould's Romantic-repertoire recordings
shows his technical mastery of the instrument, while Horowitz is shown to be
sloppy, hits lots of clinkers, etc.
The thing is, Gould would _purposely redo his recordings_, and meticulously
remove any clinkers, because of his fascination with the technology. So his
recordings _might not be true indicators_ of his piano technique.
Horowitz, on the other hand, was notoriously lazy. There's probably no way
he would stand to do more than one or two takes on any piece of music. Any
more, and he'd get just plain bored.
So, Horowitz's recordings might document a truly technically gifted pianist,
while Gould's recordings show a highly developed musical thinker, who might
not even be in the same league in terms of pianistic ability.
Then again, who really knows?
Chris Alexander
Neil Tingley
SJ_Sy...@livewire.com "SJ Symphony" writes:
> The slight hitch with using these recordings is Gould's documented fanaticism
> with recording technology.
>
> The argument is, that listening to Gould's Romantic-repertoire recordings
> shows his technical mastery of the instrument, while Horowitz is shown to be
> sloppy, hits lots of clinkers, etc.
>
> The thing is, Gould would _purposely redo his recordings_, and meticulously
> remove any clinkers, because of his fascination with the technology. So his
> recordings _might not be true indicators_ of his piano technique.
>
Ah, but perhaps no one has heard a BBC documentary on GG written by Jeremy
Siepman. He asked this very question: was the editing process used to cover
up a poor technique. Not a bit of it said Andrew Kazdin, his long time CBS
producer. "His take ones, were usually better than most pianist's finished
records. The endless takes were to perfect his interpretation."
I also had a chat with Bruno Monsaignon about this. He said, perhaps with a
little predjudice that Horowitz had a poor technique compared to Gould. I
tend to respect his opinion on these matters because he has worked with
most of the leading musicians of the last quarter century.
But aren't we getting lost in an endless and irresolvable dispute ?
Horowitz played marvellous Chopin and Rachmaninov. His technique was afterall
honed towards exposition of the romantics. Gould did not like playing Chopin
because it did not suite his technique or so he said is as many words.
Romantic music does not demand the same level of presdigitation as say Bach.
Correct me if I'm wrong but playing the Preludium to the 5th partita is a
different kettle of fish to Rachmaninov 3. My knowledge of technique
is not up to a more detailed explanation but I hope the point is clear.
Anyway this business of Gould's technique was all stirred up by that idiot
music critic from the NY Times, Schoenberg, after the slow performance of
Brahms 1st pc with Bernstein (1962). Gould was very rude to him once when
Schoenberger was extolling the virtues of Hummel. I think GG burst into
hysterics suggested S. was mad. The fewd began.
--
Neil Tingley
Enjoying the WTC book I as I write.
Toshiro K. Ohsumi
all of the right notes the first time around. I specifically recommend
considering his live recording of the 2nd pno. conc. by Beethoven. He misses
one or two notes, but not too much more than that.
- Toshiro K. Ohsumi
Ted Grusec
>There was mention of Gould recording some more standard repertoire as a
>response to Horowitz, to show that "Gould could play that stuff too."
>
>The thing is, Gould would _purposely redo his recordings_, and meticulously
>remove any clinkers, because of his fascination with the technology. So his
>recordings _might not be true indicators_ of his piano technique.
>
>Horowitz, on the other hand, was notoriously lazy. There's probably no way
>he would stand to do more than one or two takes on any piece of music. Any
>more, and he'd get just plain bored.
What does this say about a season's concert tour by Horowitz, where he
might play the same repertoire 50 or 100 times? Was every concert
appearance a boring one for him? How about learning and rehearsing
something, which might take many hundreds of visitations? From what
is said above, this pianist must have been totally bored most of his
adult life!
Thomas Petersen
> There was mention of Gould recording some more standard repertoire as a
> response to Horowitz, to show that "Gould could play that stuff too."
> The slight hitch with using these recordings is Gould's documented fanaticism
> with recording technology.
How exactly is a pianist supposed to fake a legato or octave chasing
with recording technology? Sounds tricky to me.
> The argument is, that listening to Gould's Romantic-repertoire recordings
> shows his technical mastery of the instrument, while Horowitz is shown to be
> sloppy, hits lots of clinkers, etc.
> The thing is, Gould would _purposely redo his recordings_, and meticulously
> remove any clinkers, because of his fascination with the technology. So his
> recordings _might not be true indicators_ of his piano technique.
> Horowitz, on the other hand, was notoriously lazy. There's probably no way
> he would stand to do more than one or two takes on any piece of music. Any
> more, and he'd get just plain bored.
You correct clinkers by splicing, not by redoing the whole thing,
so the number the number of clinkers in a given piece shows very
little about the laziness of a performer.
> So, Horowitz's recordings might document a truly technically gifted pianist,
> while Gould's recordings show a highly developed musical thinker, who might
> not even be in the same league in terms of pianistic ability.
> Then again, who really knows?
If you are interested I can dig up a quote to substantiate that Gould
did remarkably few retakes and splices. I wonder why anyone would
choose to equate the ability to hit the right notes with pianistic
ability though. I'd much rather say that pianistic ability would
be the facility for self-expression with a piano. But that's just
my opinion of course.
Thomas
John E. Harrington
|> Oh, but I disagree. The Tchaikovsky B-flat minor piano concerto is
|> certainly one of the great masterpieces of music.
Dan has misspelled Muzak.
"You keepa usin' that word. I do not think it means what you think
it means." (Inigo Montoya)
Ed Price
[edp:]
>> Like so many pianists of her generation, she adduces Glenn Gould as her
>> idol, although she concedes that her playing little resembles his. She
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>If that is so, who cares what she says? Artists express admiration in one
>and only one way: by following another artist's example. Incidentally, I
>heard Helene Grimaud and all of her recordings, and there's nothing in
>them that ressembles Gould's style however slightly.
Artists sometimes express admiration in other ways, believe it or not.
Perhaps some are inspired by others, but create their own art, not
necessarily by imitation. Gould admired Schnabel, Richter, and others, yet
as I'm sure you'd agree :) he did not simply "follow their example"...
(On this general issue, I've been reading Harold Bloom's "The Anxiety of
Influence" recently and although it is about poetry I've naturally been
thinking about how it applies to music. One of his main concerns is about
how poets "misread" their predecessors. Gould can quite clearly be seen as
a example of a musician who did this.)
>>As an aside, here is a comment by Arnold Schultz, quoted in Payzant's
>>"Glenn Gould: Music and Mind":
>
>Are you quoting a book written *about* Gould as evidence that he is well
>liked among pianists? Gosh!
Actually, no, I meant that as an aside, not directly related to the issue
of how professional pianists think of Gould. I thought it was vaguely
relevant and interesting because it placed him among some of the other
alleged "greats".
>It sounds pretty clear from the phrasing of the above sentence, that
>this is just what its author *thinks*, rather than the opinion of the
>above mentioned pianists.
Right. I didn't meean to imply otherwise.
Concerning the subject of Horowitz's opinion of Gould: Today I was looking
at a book about Horowitz. The only mention of Gould was in the beginning
when it was talking in general of how critical Horowitz was of other
pianists. There was a quote from him about hearing some of Gould's Wagner
transcriptions, said Gould played them like a "stupid ass", that the tempi
were all wrong, and I think the last part of the quote was "He is not
normal."
Ciao,
-Ed
Carol McAlpine
<<He did agonize over *many* takes,
but that's simply one of the many things that made him a great artist.>>
Gould may or may not have been a great pianist, but the fact that he
agonized over many takes is neither here nor there. I've seen bar bands from
hell do it, too. A tendency to agonize over many takes and the state of being
a good (or a bad) artist are independent of each other.
Carol McAlpine
Steven Correll
>remove any clinkers, because of his fascination with the technology. So his
>recordings _might not be true indicators_ of his piano technique.
First, there exist a number of note-perfect live recordings of Gould
from the 50s and early 60s, though generally not in Horowitz-style
repertoire. Second, Gould's CBS record producer Andrew Kazdin wrote a
book called "Creative Lying" in which he recounts many unflattering
tales about Gould, but nevertheless says that Gould did not use
recording technology as a crutch to correct mistakes; I don't have the
book at hand, but I believe his statement is, "Gould had as many
perfect first-takes as anybody." Because numerous pianists (including
Horowitz) recorded for CBS, Kazdin is in a position to know, and
because he demonstrates no desire to minimize Gould's other faults, he
is convincing. We may argue about Gould's ability to produce
Horowitz-like effects in concert, but "clinkers" are not an issue.
--
Steven Correll == PO Box 66625, Scotts Valley, CA 95067 == s...@netcom.com
John E. Harrington
>In <1994Oct12.1...@biosym.com>,
>j...@iris77.biosym.com (John E. Harrington) writes:
>>
>>And the suggestion that we should somehow pause, turn off our Gould
>>CDs, listen to the consensus of these conservatory drones (who turn
>>out performance after performance of Chopin etudes, Rachmaninov
>>preludes, etc. ad infinitum) and allow that to influence our enjoyment
>>of a great pianist is unparalelled arrogance.
>
>I continue to wonder why anyone thinks Dan and I are on a crusade
>to dictate people's tastes to them.
I don't think that you and dk are on a crusade to dictate people's
tastes to them. Did I say that? No.
It's just that dk seems to think there is a "correct" way to play
Bach and that Lupatti and Richter and all the other "musically
correct" stand-bys play Bach the "correct" way.
>
>For example, suppose I said, "Liberace is more highly regarded by
>the general public than by professional pianists." Or maybe,
>"Professors of English don't usually hold Edgar Guest's poetry
>in high esteem." Or, on the positive side, "Art experts invariably
>place Vermeer among the greatest of all artists."
This is REALLY insulting and so snobbish I don't even know where to
start.
Carl, if you can find *one* musical luminary who would refer to Liberace
as the "greatest pianist of our era", the "greatest pianist since Busoni"
or as a genius as have, variously, such people as Aaron Copland, Igor
Stravinsky, Leonard Bernstein and Yehudi Menuin, then I will think about
granting the comparison.
As it is, your argument is pathetic.
--John
John E. Harrington
>>>>>Let's just say that, in professional pianistic circles, no one would
>>>>>even dream of ranking Gould among the truly great ones. Interesting?
>>>>>Yes. Great? Nnaaahhh....
>>>>
>>>>Uh, is there any objective evidence of this consensus among professional
>>>>pianists?
>
>Here's some evidence to the contrary, from an article about 24 year old
>French classical pianist Helene Grimaud, New York Times, Sunday May 29,
>1994, section 2 (Arts and Leisure), p36:
>
> Like so many pianists of her generation, she adduces Glenn Gould as her
> idol, although she concedes that her playing little resembles his. She
> admires his structural rigor and rhythmic incisiveness, insisting that she
> uses no pedal except in actual performance. (Her real practicing, she
> adds, comes away from the piano, reading a score, with an occasional foray
> to the keyboard to check out an idea.)
> She considers Gould a soul mate in part because of the way his recordings
> eerily certify things she has already done on her own, she said. She
> discovered to her delight that Gould corrected the same "wrong" note in
> Brahms's Opus 118 that she did. And like him, she often breaks chords by
> playing one hand slightly before the other -- unusually, the right hand
> first.
Someone should get ahold of this young philistine and explain to her that
the sultans of received ideas frown and take umbrage.
"We consider this a serious breach of mainstream thinking, young'n." Bailif
take her away!
(My favorite phrase: "Like so many pianists of her generation...". Whoopeee!)
regards,
John H.
John E. Harrington
>There was mention of Gould recording some more standard repertoire as a
>response to Horowitz, to show that "Gould could play that stuff too."
>
>The slight hitch with using these recordings is Gould's documented fanaticism
>with recording technology.
>
>The argument is, that listening to Gould's Romantic-repertoire recordings
>shows his technical mastery of the instrument, while Horowitz is shown to be
>sloppy, hits lots of clinkers, etc.
>
>The thing is, Gould would _purposely redo his recordings_, and meticulously
>remove any clinkers, because of his fascination with the technology. So his
>recordings _might not be true indicators_ of his piano technique.
>
>Horowitz, on the other hand, was notoriously lazy. There's probably no way
>he would stand to do more than one or two takes on any piece of music. Any
>more, and he'd get just plain bored.
>
>So, Horowitz's recordings might document a truly technically gifted pianist,
>while Gould's recordings show a highly developed musical thinker, who might
>not even be in the same league in terms of pianistic ability.
>
>Then again, who really knows?
This is a good theory, but just not correct. It is a fact that Gould had
far fewer "wrong notes" in his recordings than most pianists, for the simple
fact that, say what you will of Gould, he had an excellent memory and demon-
like finger control. It is a common misconception that he spliced recordings
to make them merely technically perfect. He did agonize over *many* takes,
but that's simply one of the many things that made him a great artist.
Proof of Gould's ability to sustain a performance comes from many of his
television appearances, which were generally done in one take and contain
no cuts.
Mario Taboada
<<Anyway this business of Gould's technique was all stirred up by that idiot
music critic from the NY Times, Schonberg, after the slow performance of
Brahms 1st pc with Bernstein (1962). Gould was very rude to him once when
Schonberg was extolling the virtues of Hummel. I think GG burst into
hysterics suggested S. was mad. The feud began. >>
Ah, old Harold. How he slobbers over the "Romantic tradition"!!
His book on Horowitz (good as it is) is chock full of his particular
brand of ideological propaganda. The same can be said of "The great
pianists" - a valuable source nevertheless.
I'll take Virgil Thomson's directly poisonous attacks over Harold's
roundabout put-downs any day. At least Virgil never pretended to be
objective - and he knew far more about music. His review of a Horowitz
concert in the forties tells more about Volodya than an entire book.
Regards,
Mario Taboada
Los Angeles
Steven Correll
>...Artists express admiration in one
>and only one way: by following another artist's example.
Oh, nonsense. Many composers have venerated Bach but devoted little effort
to writing fugues or setting Lutheran texts. A contemporary painter
whose work isn't even representational may still admire Renoir. If
anything, imitating another artist is a formula for making yourself
look silly: consider Woody Allen trying to be Bergman.
JOSE FEGHALI
One has only to listen to one of the several videos of Gould to see that,
notwithstanding one's opinions of his musicianship, his technique was
definitely amazing.
JF
Stephan Hamann
Neil Tingley <Ne...@music.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Anyway this business of Gould's technique was all stirred up by that idiot
>music critic from the NY Times, Schoenberg, after the slow performance of
>Brahms 1st pc with Bernstein (1962). Gould was very rude to him once when
>Schoenberger was extolling the virtues of Hummel. I think GG burst into
>hysterics suggested S. was mad. The fewd began.
>--
>Neil Tingley
>Enjoying the WTC book I as I write.
Yeah, I recall that Schoenberg wrote his review in the form of an
imaginary conversation with some fellow named "Ossip". "Just between
you and me, Ossip, maybe this Gould plays the Brahms so slowly because
his technique is not so good." No wonder GG didn't care much for
the critics.
--Stephan Hamann
>enjoying the 1959 saltzburg recital
John E. Harrington
Well, I don't want to press the point too much, because I think it is a minor
facet of Gould's genius, but, in general, I think that to the extent that
self-questioning and "agonizing" goes on in the creation of art, to that
extent it is a serious endeavor.
If you have two situations, one where an artist rips through a piece, takes
one or two takes and leaves it up to his engineer to decide which one to
use, and another where a pianist records several takes and then goes to quite
a lot of trouble to either select one or, in some cases, splice together
two or three takes in order to get as close to what he imagines is the "ideal"
performance of a piece, I would prefer the latter method.
regards,
JH
Dan Koren
>From: cmca...@delphi.com (Carol McAlpine)
>>John H. wrote of Glenn Gould -
>>
>> <<He did agonize over *many* takes,
>>but that's simply one of the many things that made him a great artist.>>
>>
>>Gould may or may not have been a great pianist, but the fact that he
>>agonized over many takes is neither here nor there. I've seen bar bands from
>>hell do it, too. A tendency to agonize over many takes and the state of being
>>a good (or a bad) artist are independent of each other.
>>
>>Carol McAlpine
>
>Well, I don't want to press the point too much, because I think it is a minor
>facet of Gould's genius, but, in general, I think that to the extent that
>self-questioning and "agonizing" goes on in the creation of art, to that
>extent it is a serious endeavor.
>
>If you have two situations, one where an artist rips through a piece, takes
>one or two takes and leaves it up to his engineer to decide which one to
>use, and another where a pianist records several takes and then goes to quite
>a lot of trouble to either select one or, in some cases, splice together
>two or three takes in order to get as close to what he imagines is the "ideal"
>performance of a piece, I would prefer the latter method.
There is however another method to accomplish the same goal with
artistic integrity. As illustrated, for instance, by Sviatoslav
Richter. In 1963, when his celebrated performance of the Wanderer
Fantasy was recorded at Salle Wagram in Paris, Richter recorded
no fewer than eight (8) complete uninterrupted takes, of which
he chose one for release.
Gould was of course too cheap to have thought of doing something
like that.
dk
Mario Taboada
>dk
I fully agree with Dan's statement (except the comment on
Gould's cheapness, about which I know nothing). Sometimes when I
listen to a recording, I really wonder WHAT I'm hearing. That is one
reason I love 78s recordings so much: at least we can be sure that
there was no splicing. And some artists like Cortot (to a fault)
just played the piece through and didn't care about wrong notes -
but the inspiration often more than compensates for the errors.
Many modern recordings are so "sanitized" that you wonder whether
the instruments are being played by humans or by a machine. Music
wasn't meant to be played in bits and pieces.
Now, to broach a related topic: does anyone else share my feeling
of uneasiness on hearing the recent Gershwin piano rolls reissue? This
doesn't sound at all like the recordings Gershwin himself made
(and which are being reissued by Pearl, in case anyone is interested).
There is something spooky in hearing Gershwin via rolls-via digitalization-
via Yamaha player. It sounds impersonal. It also doesn't swing.
Dan Koren
>Now, to broach a related topic: does anyone else share my feeling
>of uneasiness on hearing the recent Gershwin piano rolls reissue? This
>doesn't sound at all like the recordings Gershwin himself made
>(and which are being reissued by Pearl, in case anyone is interested).
>There is something spooky in hearing Gershwin via rolls-via digitalization-
>via Yamaha player. It sounds impersonal. It also doesn't swing.
There was an interesting article/interview in a recent issue of one of
the stereo rags (either the Stereophile or Stereo Review) about how the
Gershwin recordings were restored - or rather recreated.
dk
John E. Harrington
Tell me, dk, do film directors have this grand quality called "artistic
integrity" or do you only ever go to movies that are shot sequentially
without a single splice?
>
>Gould was of course too cheap to have thought of doing something
>like that.
dk, your ignorance of a subject you apparently feel qualified to pontificate
grandly about continues to be painfully obvious. *Most* of Gould's recordings
were done using the same method you describe Richter using in recording the
Wanderer fantasy.
Reread my quoted post above and you will find that that is *EXACTLY WHAT I
WAS SAYING*!
John E. Harrington
>d...@netcom.com (Dan Koren) writes:
>>There is however another method to accomplish the same goal with
>>artistic integrity. As illustrated, for instance, by Sviatoslav
>>Richter. In 1963, when his celebrated performance of the Wanderer
>>Fantasy was recorded at Salle Wagram in Paris, Richter recorded
>>no fewer than eight (8) complete uninterrupted takes, of which
>>he chose one for release.
>
>>Gould was of course too cheap to have thought of doing something
>>like that.
>
>
>>dk
>
> I fully agree with Dan's statement (except the comment on
>Gould's cheapness, about which I know nothing).
Why shoudn't artists avail themselves of whatever technology is at
hand, and use that technology to create a better performance than
would be possible without it?
I guess my basic question is "what the hell has 'integrity' have to
do with anything?"
> Sometimes when I
>listen to a recording, I really wonder WHAT I'm hearing. That is one
>reason I love 78s recordings so much: at least we can be sure that
>there was no splicing.
Doesn't the necessity of having to turn over or replace a disc every
15 minutes (or whatever) disrupt artistic integrity?
> And some artists like Cortot (to a fault)
>just played the piece through and didn't care about wrong notes -
>but the inspiration often more than compensates for the errors.
The point of splicing is not to get rid of wrong notes. Indeed, Gould
spliced very little in his recording sessions, certainly (as many
people who worked with him have remarked) no more than any other
recording artist does. The difference was he didn't try to hide it
and he never felt guilty about it.
>Many modern recordings are so "sanitized" that you wonder whether
>the instruments are being played by humans or by a machine. Music
>wasn't meant to be played in bits and pieces.
Yes but does this really have to do with splicing? I don't think even
Gould's detractors would claim that his recordings sound "sanitized".
The whole issue should be the following and *only* the following, IMNSHO:
1) Can you hear the splices? (Gould showed quite handily that even professionals
have great trouble hearing splices, as long as they are done well).
2) Can you demonstrate that they detract from the musicality of an interpretation?
3) Does "artistic integrity" have any aesthetic effect?
Mario Taboada
I wouldn't talk about artistic integrity is (I don't know how one
can say that a major artist like Gould didn't have integrity). My comment
and my agreement with Dan referred to: a) The cautiousness of performers
when they are recording, which can make performances sound sterile.
b) The method of recording in small segments, which completely stops the
flow of a piece.
I looked at Kazdin's book on Gould, and he says that Gould was more or
less average in terms of takes and splices. His performances do not
sound sanitized to me (actually, he can sound very spontaneous). But quite
a few recordings sound artificial and inhuman because there has been
an excessive amount of cleanup of the sort described above.
So, my comment was general and not really specific about Gould.
Although he DID like to fiddle with the sound (according to Kazdin).
Mike Quigley
>1) Can you hear the splices? (Gould showed quite handily that even professionals
> have great trouble hearing splices, as long as they are done well).
Well, there are a few which are pretty obvious!! :-)
In some of Gould's Bach recordings, you can actually hear the piano
change pitch slightly due to the fact that the music jumps to a different
take!
Alain DAGHER
Here's my theory: there are a few splices in some Gould recordings
that are incredibly blatant. One particular example is in the
Beethoven sonata No. 13 (aside: Gould's Beethoven was great IMHO,
especially the early sonatas, and the Emperor with Stokowsky, but I
digress).
Anyway, I think Gould included a few obvious splices to bother people
who think splicing is cheating. Let's face it, Gould just liked to
annoy people and he's even doing it posthumously.
--
Best wishes,
Alain Dagher
E-Mail: al...@pet.mni.mcgill.ca
Allan Burns
In article <1994Oct26....@biosym.com>, j...@iris77.biosym.com (John E.
Harrington) says:
>
>I guess my basic question is "what the hell has 'integrity' have to
>do with anything?"
Funny you should ask this . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Allan Burns
Dan Koren
>In article <38emdl$l...@mtha.usc.edu>,
>Mario Taboada <tab...@mtha.usc.edu> wrote:
>>Many modern recordings are so "sanitized" that you wonder whether
>>the instruments are being played by humans or by a machine. Music
>>wasn't meant to be played in bits and pieces.
>
>test is to choose a boring, cautious, sanitized performance and go listen to
>the same artist in concert. If you discover (as I do) that the artist is
>often equally boring in the flesh, then splices aren't the problem.
>
>I'll offer an alternate hypothesis. For some listeners (and I am _not_
>using "some listeners" to mean "you") music is a competitive event:
>even if splicing generates a better performance, they're opposed to it
>because it's "cheating" and makes the performer seem better than he
>otherwise would have. This attitude toward music existed long before
Ah, but I don't think this is at all what Mario was saying. The problem
is precisely the fact that splicing and electronic editing do not give
you a (better) performance. It has nothing to do with "competitive" or
with "cheating".
dk
Steven Correll
>the instruments are being played by humans or by a machine. Music
>wasn't meant to be played in bits and pieces.
I sympathise with your complaint, but not with your diagnosis. An apt
test is to choose a boring, cautious, sanitized performance and go listen to
the same artist in concert. If you discover (as I do) that the artist is
often equally boring in the flesh, then splices aren't the problem.
I'll offer an alternate hypothesis. For some listeners (and I am _not_
using "some listeners" to mean "you") music is a competitive event:
even if splicing generates a better performance, they're opposed to it
because it's "cheating" and makes the performer seem better than he
otherwise would have. This attitude toward music existed long before
recordings--consider historic rivalries between singers, leading to
performances where half the audience was hoping the singer would hit
the high notes and the other half was hoping the singer would miss
them--but the easy availability of recordings has certainly exacerbated
the phenomenon. Nowadays anybody with a little cash can sit down with
a stack of disks, rank them, and then write a magazine review or an
Internet posting saying that performer X kicks performer Y's butt. The
result is the same as it is in Olympic figure skating: the top
performers come to resemble one another, because you risk getting bad
marks from the judges if you deviate too far from the norm.
Ed Price
>Anyway, I think Gould included a few obvious splices to bother people
>who think splicing is cheating. Let's face it, Gould just liked to
>annoy people and he's even doing it posthumously.
Hmm. This theory could also account for the "hiccups" in the Inventions...
Glenn Gould quotes about splicing from Payzant, _GG: Music and Mind_:
"... splicing doesn't damange lines; good splices build good lines, and it
shouldn't much matter if one uses a splice every two seconds or none for an
hour so long as the result *appears* to be a coherent whole."
"I can honestly say that I use splicing very little. I record many whole
movements straight through. But I can also say that I have no scruples
about splicing. I see nothing wrong in making a performance out of two
hundred splices, as long as the desired result is there. I resent the
feeling that it is fraudulent to put together an ideal performance
mechanically. If the ideal performance can be achieved by the greatest
amount of illusion and fakery, then more power to those who do it."
"Let us assume that ... some artits really do underestimate their own
editorial potential, really do believe that art must always be the result
of some inexorable forward thrust, some sustained animus, some ecstatic
high, and cannot conceive that the function of the artist could also entail
the ability to summon, on command, the emotional tenor of any moment, in
any score, at any time -- that one should be free to "shoot" a Beethoven
sonata or a Bach fugue in or out of sequence, intercut almost without
restriction, apply postproduction techniques as required, and that the
composer, the performer and, above all, the listener will be better served
thereby."
There's also his description of the A minor fugue from WTC1 (long enough
that I will not type it), where apparently they alternated between two
takes which were the same tempo but articulated differently. This is a
kick-ass performance of a terrific fugue and I would never have guessed
that there was splicing involved if I hadn't been told.
-Ed
Steven Correll
>...The problem
>is precisely the fact that splicing and electronic editing do not give
>you a (better) performance. It has nothing to do with "competitive" or
>with "cheating".
>
>
>dk
You're welcome to exclude yourself from the set of "some people" who
object to splicing because they perceive it as "cheating", but the set
is non-empty, judging from various postings to this newsgroup. Your
statement that "splicing and electronic editing do not give you a
(better) performance" is a falsifiable assertion. The only relevant
experiment I know of is Gould's: he discovered that people couldn't
reliably identify which recordings had splices. That doesn't quite
disprove your assertion, but it comes close: if splices made bad
performances, you'd think that people would be able to infer their
presence on that basis alone. In any case, our experiences
differ: some of my favorite performances are spliced, and others
aren't. Your mileage may vary--but are you really confident that, given
a spliced and an unspliced performance by an unidentified artist in a
double blind experiment, you would prefer the unspliced one?
This superstition about great performances originating with some
mystic momentum reminds me of the notion that a great novelist can
only write when suitably drunk. At least some of these folks (musicians
and novelists both) are professionals: they know exactly the effect
they want at a certain point in the work they're creating, and they
are perfectly capable of generating it by cutting and pasting, not
by discarding what they've done and going back for a second "running
start" fueled by adrenaline, endorphins, or ethanol.
Dan Koren
>In article <dkCyD4...@netcom.com>, Dan Koren <d...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>...The problem
>>is precisely the fact that splicing and electronic editing do not give
>>you a (better) performance. It has nothing to do with "competitive" or
>>with "cheating".
>>
>>dk
>
>
>You're welcome to exclude yourself from the set of "some people" who
>object to splicing because they perceive it as "cheating", but the
>set is non-empty, judging from various postings to this newsgroup.
Their problem. :-)
>Your statement that "splicing and electronic editing do not give you a
>(better) performance" is a falsifiable assertion.
What do you mean? To my simple minded way of looking at things, if I
do not sit at the piano and play a piece from the beginning to the
end, it is not a performance. What is there to verify or falsify?
> The only relevant
>experiment I know of is Gould's: he discovered that people couldn't
>reliably identify which recordings had splices. That doesn't quite
>disprove your assertion, but it comes close: if splices made bad
>performances, you'd think that people would be able to infer their
>presence on that basis alone.
I'm afraid that has nothing to do with my statement, as I was not
speculating about the audibility of splices.
> In any case, our experiences
>differ: some of my favorite performances are spliced, and others
>aren't. Your mileage may vary--but are you really confident that, given
>a spliced and an unspliced performance by an unidentified artist in a
>double blind experiment, you would prefer the unspliced one?
I don't think this is the issue at all. A non-performance does not
become a performance just because some/many/most/all people cannot
tell the difference.
Suppose I programmed my computer to drive an electro-mechanical
piano to perform a piece (which given time and money isn't too
technically difficult these days). Does that constitute a
performance? And is it a performance of a similar kind to
Richter playing the same piece on stage?
>This superstition about great performances originating with some
>mystic momentum reminds me of the notion that a great novelist can
Obviously Richter and Sofronitzky were possessed by superstition.
>only write when suitably drunk. At least some of these folks (musicians
>and novelists both) are professionals: they know exactly the effect
>they want at a certain point in the work they're creating, and they
>are perfectly capable of generating it by cutting and pasting, not
>by discarding what they've done and going back for a second "running
>start" fueled by adrenaline, endorphins, or ethanol.
I've heard quite a few pianists go back for a second performance
because they did not like the first, including Richter, Gilels,
Rubinstein, Pollini and and Michelangeli (in live concerts).
There is no doubt that they knew precisely what they wanted,
and they clearly disagreed with you about the way to achieve
it.
:-)
dk
Mike Quigley
>>
>>You're welcome to exclude yourself from the set of "some people" who
>>object to splicing because they perceive it as "cheating", but the
>>set is non-empty, judging from various postings to this newsgroup.
>Their problem. :-)
>>Your statement that "splicing and electronic editing do not give you a
>>(better) performance" is a falsifiable assertion.
>What do you mean? To my simple minded way of looking at things, if I
>do not sit at the piano and play a piece from the beginning to the
>end, it is not a performance. What is there to verify or falsify?
Uh, Dan, I was listening to Richter's Diabelli Variations this evening
over headphones and I heard what sure sounded to me like a very audible
splice very near the end of the piece.
(This is the version on Philips, the allegedly live recording.)
Andrew Welker
Well could you do us curious readers a favour and NAME which cuts on
which recordings you hear this?
Andrew Welker
John E. Harrington
Funny you should fail to answer the question. I understand what relevance
integrity has in a moral sense. What integrity has to do with art is beyond
me. I can't hear, see, feel it, therefore it has bugger all to do with anything.
Obviously.
Steven Correll
>...A non-performance does not
>become a performance just because some/many/most/all people cannot
>tell the difference.
Apparently we have an ancient, familiar philosophical disagreement: as a
scientist and a skeptic, I don't believe a difference exists unless someone,
somewhere, can repeatably identify it.
>Suppose I programmed my computer to drive an electro-mechanical
>piano to perform a piece (which given time and money isn't too
>technically difficult these days). Does that constitute a
>performance?
Yes. With today's technology, it isn't likely to be a very good performance.
But if we're lucky, technology will improve. Today, if an exceptional musical
intelligence happens to reside in a human body that lacks exceptional
neuromuscular abilities, we do not get to benefit from it. For musicianship
to be held hostage to the athleticism of one's fingers is as silly, in the
larger context, as if Stephen Hawking were unable to contribute to theoretical
physics because he can't handle chalk and erasers.
Dan Koren
Quite possibly. If that's the case, then it is not a performance.
So what? That's precisely the reson why he doesn't like recording.
dk
John E. Harrington
Then maybe it's time to explain, in non-ambiguous, non-general terms, what
you mean by "artistic integrity".
You seem to be saying that splicing will always diminish the quality of
a performance, which is an amazing statement and one which needs to be
backed up by more than mere assertion.
Anytime an artist can step back from his work, reconsider it more objectively
(ie, not on the fly as he is doing it), the finished product will be more
considered, more representative of the artist's intention in whatever he
is doing, and therefore aesthetically better.
Alain DAGHER
: In article <1994Nov1.2...@biosym.com> j...@iris77.biosym.com (John E. Harrington) writes:
: >You seem to be saying that splicing will always diminish the quality of
: >a performance, which is an amazing statement and one which needs to be
: >backed up by more than mere assertion.
: No, I wasn't saying that. I was simply saying that something put together
: from splices is *not* a performance. A performance is playing a piece from
: the beginning to the end. In this context, artistic integrity means just
: having the decency not to call non-performances performances.
So let's not use the word performance (a term best reserved for the
act of a seal balancing a coloured ball on its nose anyway). Let us
call them interpretations.
Dan Koren
No, I wasn't saying that. I was simply saying that something put together
from splices is *not* a performance. A performance is playing a piece from
the beginning to the end. In this context, artistic integrity means just
having the decency not to call non-performances performances.
dk
Scott Elder
I think there may be some problem with this argument. The very
fact that a singer has to 'reach' for a high note is one of the things that
gives the higher note certain meaning that a note that is comfortably with
the singer's range doesn't have. Music is very close connected with
human physiology. Some people say that music should be separated from
what they call athleticism - that turning a knob to generate a high note
achieves the same result as exerting oneself to hit the note. Maybe so,
but still, it's because the high note is somehow associated with exertion.
The pleasure of music is not purely intellectual.
-Scott
Carl Tait
enough to forward this post to me for a delayed response.]
John Harrington writes:
>Carl Tait writes:
>>In <1994Oct12.1...@biosym.com>,
>>j...@iris77.biosym.com (John E. Harrington) writes:
>>>
>>>And the suggestion that we should somehow pause, turn off our Gould
>>>CDs, listen to the consensus of these conservatory drones (who turn
>>>out performance after performance of Chopin etudes, Rachmaninov
>>>preludes, etc. ad infinitum) and allow that to influence our enjoyment
>>>of a great pianist is unparalelled arrogance.
>>
>>I continue to wonder why anyone thinks Dan and I are on a crusade
>>to dictate people's tastes to them.
>
>I don't think that you and dk are on a crusade to dictate people's
>tastes to them. Did I say that? No.
"Crusade" may be a bit colorful, but in the above paragraph, you
clearly say that Dan and I want people to "pause, turn off [their]
Gould CDs" and allow their enjoyment to be influenced by people who
disagree with them. If that's not "dictating people's tastes," what is?
>It's just that dk seems to think there is a "correct" way to play
>Bach and that Lupatti and Richter and all the other "musically
>correct" stand-bys play Bach the "correct" way.
I'm not sure that dk would agree with the "correct" categorization,
but he certainly thinks that some pianists play Bach much better than
others -- hardly a controversial opinion. As it happens, Dan doesn't
like Gould's approach. I do, in many cases.
>>For example, suppose I said, "Liberace is more highly regarded by
>>the general public than by professional pianists." Or maybe,
>>"Professors of English don't usually hold Edgar Guest's poetry
>>in high esteem." Or, on the positive side, "Art experts invariably
>>place Vermeer among the greatest of all artists."
>
>This is REALLY insulting and so snobbish I don't even know where to
>start.
Why is this in any way insulting or snobbish? Liberace is probably
the single most famous pianist who ever lived. He is beloved by
millions of people the world over. Surely you aren't suggesting that
Liberace fans should pause, turn off their Liberace records, and allow
their enjoyment to be influenced by the opinions of classical
musicians...?
>Carl, if you can find *one* musical luminary who would refer to Liberace
>as the "greatest pianist of our era", the "greatest pianist since Busoni"
>or as a genius as have, variously, such people as Aaron Copland, Igor
>Stravinsky, Leonard Bernstein and Yehudi Menuin, then I will think about
>granting the comparison.
>
>As it is, your argument is pathetic.
Well, if you mean that "most professional musicians think more highly
of Glenn Gould than of Liberace," I wholeheartedly agree. But this is
exactly the sort of statement you have been vehemently decrying this
entire thread!
My point is simple, and is not restricted to Gould, Liberace, or
music. As I said in my original post (in a paragraph deleted from
your response):
But you might find it
*interesting* to know what experts in the field think about your
objects of veneration. You may or may not agree with them;
that again is entirely your choice.
That's all; *interesting*. One of my first posts to this newsgroup
some years ago was a request for opinions on Ives's Concord Sonata.
I had just discovered the piece, liked it, and wondered what other
people thought of it. I received plenty of interesting responses,
both positive and negative. Did I feel compelled to revise my
opinion of the work? No. Did I learn more about what people liked
and disliked in the piece, giving me more to think about in future
listenings? You bet.
Carl Tait
Deryk Barker
: In article <dkCyD4...@netcom.com>, Dan Koren <d...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >...The problem
: >is precisely the fact that splicing and electronic editing do not give
: >you a (better) performance. It has nothing to do with "competitive" or
: >with "cheating".
: You're welcome to exclude yourself from the set of "some people" who
: object to splicing because they perceive it as "cheating", but the set
: is non-empty, judging from various postings to this newsgroup. Your
: statement that "splicing and electronic editing do not give you a
: (better) performance" is a falsifiable assertion. The only relevant
: experiment I know of is Gould's: he discovered that people couldn't
: reliably identify which recordings had splices.
I have given some thought to this experiment of Gould's, and can think
of a number of possible explanations of the result.
1. The people he used all had tin ears
2. Gould's performances were so uniformly bad that the splices
really made no significant difference anyway.
3. Gould's performances are so meticulously thought and and
realised within his own head that:
a) to most listeners one take will sound pretty much
identical to another.
b) only Gould himself would have been able to tell the
difference between takes.
Frankly I discount options 1 and 2. I would be interested, though, to
see the results of a similar experiment done with performances by a
more - how shall we put it - volatile artist than GG.
--
Deryk.
=================================================================
|Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept. | Without music, life |
|Camosun College, Victoria, BC, Canada | would be a mistake |
|email: dba...@camosun.bc.ca | |
|phone: +1 604 370 4452 | (Friedrich Nietzsche).|
=================================================================
Steven Correll
Deryk Barker <dba...@camosun.bc.ca> wrote:
>I have given some thought to this experiment of Gould's, and can think
>of a number of possible explanations of the result.
> 1. The people he used all had tin ears
> 2. Gould's performances were so uniformly bad that the splices
> really made no significant difference anyway.
> 3. Gould's performances are so meticulously thought and and
> realised within his own head that:
> a) to most listeners one take will sound pretty much
> identical to another.
> b) only Gould himself would have been able to tell the
> difference between takes.
Your conjectures are based on incorrect assumptions. Gould used both
laypersons and musical professionals as subjects, and he did not restrict
the experiment to his own recordings (for example, he used a symphonic work
conducted by Szell.) Details are in "The Glenn Gould Reader" edited by Page.
John E. Harrington
Had dk put it that way, I would have no objections. "Correct", however,
is HIS word. He believes there is a "correct" way to play Bach and has
said so, in so many words.
Correct sounds to my ears like it is applicable to everybody's aesthetic
sensibilities, not just his own. If he wants to clarify this, I welcome
him to.
>
>>>For example, suppose I said, "Liberace is more highly regarded by
>>>the general public than by professional pianists." Or maybe,
>>>"Professors of English don't usually hold Edgar Guest's poetry
>>>in high esteem." Or, on the positive side, "Art experts invariably
>>>place Vermeer among the greatest of all artists."
>>
>>This is REALLY insulting and so snobbish I don't even know where to
>>start.
>
>Why is this in any way insulting or snobbish? Liberace is probably
>the single most famous pianist who ever lived. He is beloved by
>millions of people the world over. Surely you aren't suggesting that
>Liberace fans should pause, turn off their Liberace records, and allow
>their enjoyment to be influenced by the opinions of classical
>musicians...?
Most people love Emerson Lake and Palmer (a band which played classical
music as well) far more that they love Szell or Furwangler or Klemperer.
Does that make Emerson Lake and Palmer better than those conductors?
Liberace was a pop musician who played classical music very badly. Everyone
agrees on this, and, more importantly, it is obvious to my ears as well. He
is not only NOT in the same ballpark as GG; he was not even playing the same game.
If you think Shelley the greatest poet ever and I think Byron the greatest,
we can argue all day about the merits of Shelley vs. Byron (no pun intended),
but it would be illogical, not to mention rude, of me to say: well if you like
Shelley, fine, but then there are some who like limericks...
There is no comparison, and if you consider the following analogy in any
way legitimate:
Gould:Liberace
then we have nothing to discuss.
>
>>Carl, if you can find *one* musical luminary who would refer to Liberace
>>as the "greatest pianist of our era", the "greatest pianist since Busoni"
>>or as a genius as have, variously, such people as Aaron Copland, Igor
>>Stravinsky, Leonard Bernstein and Yehudi Menuin, then I will think about
>>granting the comparison.
>>
>>As it is, your argument is pathetic.
>
>Well, if you mean that "most professional musicians think more highly
>of Glenn Gould than of Liberace," I wholeheartedly agree. But this is
>exactly the sort of statement you have been vehemently decrying this
>entire thread!
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that most people do not even *compare*
Liberace and GG, except, of course, when they are flame baiting or are highly
ignorant of the subject.
I have no problems drawing barriers between art forms (Liberace was a popular artist),
nor do I have a particular problem with evoking critical consensus, as long as it
is not the only consideration in judging musicians (you've misread my previous
posts).
My problem is with claiming that the opinions of most conservatory students
should influence our opinion of GG, especially when so many of prominance held
him in such high esteem, going so far to call him a "genius" and "the greatest
pianist since Busoni".
>
>My point is simple, and is not restricted to Gould, Liberace, or
>music. As I said in my original post (in a paragraph deleted from
>your response):
>
> But you might find it
> *interesting* to know what experts in the field think about your
> objects of veneration. You may or may not agree with them;
> that again is entirely your choice.
Uh huh. "Experts", eh? I'm sure Aaron Copland, Igor Stravinsky,
Leonard Bernstein and Yehudi Menuin would have been surprised to find
that they were not experts. Can you find a group of musicians equally
prominent who would compare Glenn Gould with Liberace? Remember,
the above are only a list of musicians who are on record for calling
Gould a genius. Not that I've been keeping track, mind you (these
are just off the top of my head).
In any case, I thought the point you made in the above paragraph was
obvious and answered quite well in the rest of my argument, which is
why I deleted it.
>That's all; *interesting*. One of my first posts to this newsgroup
>some years ago was a request for opinions on Ives's Concord Sonata.
>I had just discovered the piece,
The fact that you discovered this work only a few years ago, a work
which is perhaps *the* central work of 20th century piano literature
demonstrates to me that you are probably largely ignorant of a subject
in which you feel qualified to render such weighty opinions.
> liked it, and wondered what other
>people thought of it. I received plenty of interesting responses,
>both positive and negative. Did I feel compelled to revise my
>opinion of the work? No. Did I learn more about what people liked
>and disliked in the piece, giving me more to think about in future
>listenings?
Did you claim that Ives' Concord Sonata was "correct" music? God,
I hope not.
> You bet.
John E. Harrington
>In article <dkCyIy...@netcom.com>, Dan Koren <d...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>...A non-performance does not
>>become a performance just because some/many/most/all people cannot
>>tell the difference.
>
>Apparently we have an ancient, familiar philosophical disagreement: as a
>scientist and a skeptic, I don't believe a difference exists unless someone,
>somewhere, can repeatably identify it.
According to a Phillip K. Dick novel, the Japanese call this quality "wu"
(meaning, roughly, according to him, "authenticity"). It is a metaphysical
concept, of course, and here is where I think were getting down to the nitty
gritty difference between the Gould-haters and the Gould-admirers.
For the Gould-haters, it is a matter of principle and extra-musical concerns,
isn't it?
For the Gould-admirers, it is a matter, simply, of music.
>
>>Suppose I programmed my computer to drive an electro-mechanical
>>piano to perform a piece (which given time and money isn't too
>>technically difficult these days). Does that constitute a
>>performance?
>
>Yes. With today's technology, it isn't likely to be a very good performance.
Though it could be a valuable performance, if you were willing to work hard
on it. It certainly is a lot more efficient to just get a virtuoso to play it,
but it is not obvious that the virtuoso's performance would be in any real
sense "better".
Though, then again, there's wu...
>But if we're lucky, technology will improve. Today, if an exceptional musical
>intelligence happens to reside in a human body that lacks exceptional
>neuromuscular abilities, we do not get to benefit from it. For musicianship
>to be held hostage to the athleticism of one's fingers is as silly, in the
>larger context, as if Stephen Hawking were unable to contribute to theoretical
>physics because he can't handle chalk and erasers.
Bravo Steve! Very well said!!!
>--
>Steven Correll == PO Box 66625, Scotts Valley, CA 95067 == s...@netcom.com
--
John E. Harrington
I just saw the movie Frankenstein, and I very much like Robert DeNiro's
performance. Ooops. That movie had splices in it, so I guess I can't call
it a performance.
Dan, your argument is based on pure semantics. If this is the way you
appreciate music, fine. But at least admit that your aesthetic has about
as much to do with music as a square peg has to do with a round hole.
regards,
JH
Carl Tait
becoming tiresome to everyone. I have trimmed down my response as
much as possible. John, if you want to make any *new* points, I'll
be glad to discuss them; otherwise, I'll let you have the last word
in your response (if you wish to post one). Gratuitous insults are
cheerfully encouraged.]
In <1994Nov7.1...@biosym.com>,
j...@iris77.biosym.com (John E. Harrington) writes:
>
>>[I wrote:]
>>I'm not sure that dk would agree with the "correct" categorization,
>>but he certainly thinks that some pianists play Bach much better than
>>others -- hardly a controversial opinion. As it happens, Dan doesn't
>>like Gould's approach. I do, in many cases.
>
>Had dk put it that way, I would have no objections. "Correct", however,
>is HIS word. He believes there is a "correct" way to play Bach and has
>said so, in so many words.
>
>Correct sounds to my ears like it is applicable to everybody's aesthetic
>sensibilities, not just his own. If he wants to clarify this, I welcome
>him to.
If dk used the word "correct" in that way, I disagree with him.
(I don't remember him saying that, but he may have done so while I
was out of town. Shame on you for not forwarding me a copy, Dan!)
This is the posting I was thinking about:
**** Begin quotation
From: d...@netcom.com (Dan Koren)
Subject: Re: Horowitz's attitude torwards Gould
Message-ID: <dkCxHu...@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 05:47:39 GMT
[...]
>And just how *should* Bach's music be played?
Oh, that's easy to illustrate. Listen to Harold Samuel, Dinu Lipatti,
Edwin Fischer, Sviatoslav Richter, Martha Argerich, Samuel Feinberg,
Emil Naoumoff, Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli, Arthur Schnabel.
**** End quotation
Since no two of these artists play Bach the same way, I can only
conclude that Dan enjoys many different styles of Bach playing --
but he sure doesn't like Gould's style.
>Liberace was a pop musician who played classical music very badly.
>Everyone agrees on this,
That is patently untrue. More people *love* Liberace's performances of
classical music than have ever *heard* of Gould or Horowitz. I'm not
in the least happy about this, but it is nonetheless true. Liberace was
a pianist of gargantuan popularity.
>and, more importantly, it is obvious to my ears as well. He
>is not only NOT in the same ballpark as GG; he was not even playing
>the same game.
Have you ever heard any of Liberace's early recordings, when he was
still making some effort to be accepted as a traditional classical
pianist? Some of them are surprisingly good. The first time I
heard his Liebestraum No. 3, I had to be shown the record label
before I believed who was playing.
Nonetheless, I *emphatically* agree that most classical musicians
consider Gould a far better classical pianist than Liberace, and
some even consider Gould a genius. I still don't see why you react
so strongly to a Gould/Liberace comparison: would you object to
comparing Rubinstein's and Liberace's recordings of the Chopin
E-flat Nocturne, or would that be "rude" and "snobbish" as well?
(P.S. -- Rubinstein wins easily, as if you couldn't guess.)
>If you think Shelley the greatest poet ever and I think Byron the greatest,
>we can argue all day about the merits of Shelley vs. Byron (no pun intended),
>but it would be illogical, not to mention rude, of me to say: well if you
>like Shelley, fine, but then there are some who like limericks...
Why is this illogical or rude? Are you arguing that every limerick is
intrinsically worse than every work by Shelley and Byron? Or that
limericks are by their nature incomparable to other forms of poetry?
To make your argument for you, I agree that it would be illogical
(but not rude) to say, "Well, if you like Shelley, fine, but then there
are some who like Beethoven" -- unless we were discussing a subject
such as "Life's Greatest Pleasures," or "People that Experts in
Their Fields Admire."
>There is no comparison, and if you consider the following analogy in any
>way legitimate:
>
>Gould:Liberace
>
>then we have nothing to discuss.
See above -- and below:
>I'm saying that most people do not even *compare*
>Liberace and GG, except, of course, when they are flame baiting or are highly
>ignorant of the subject.
.. or are making an analogy that goes beyond both pianos and music.
I notice you made no objection to my other examples of expert opinion:
**** Begin quotation
From: ta...@watson.ibm.com (Carl Tait)
Subject: Re: Horowitz's attitude torwards Gould
Message-ID: <37i1uf$j...@watnews2.watson.ibm.com>
Date: 13 Oct 1994 01:19:11 GMT
[...]
For example, suppose I said, "Liberace is more highly regarded by
the general public than by professional pianists." Or maybe,
"Professors of English don't usually hold Edgar Guest's poetry
in high esteem." Or, on the positive side, "Art experts invariably
place Vermeer among the greatest of all artists."
**** End quotation
Why did you not flame me for comparing Gould to Edgar Guest or Vermeer?
Or did you actually understand the analogy in those cases, but had a
knee-jerk reaction to the name of Liberace?
But now the sun comes up:
>I have no problems drawing barriers between art forms
>(Liberace was a popular artist),
I agree in principle, but the "barriers" aren't always clear --
and the Libber is a good example why.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>nor do I have a particular problem with evoking critical consensus,
>as long as it is not the only consideration in judging musicians
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow! We agree! And as long as we see eye-to-eye on this, the
rest is almost irrelevant.
>(you've misread my previous posts).
I could almost believe this, until the very next sentence:
>My problem is with claiming that the opinions of most conservatory students
>should influence our opinion of GG, especially when so many of prominance
>held him in such high esteem, going so far to call him a "genius" and
>"the greatest pianist since Busoni".
Talk about misreading previous posts! I have *never* appealed to the
opinions of "conservatory students." In fact, I explicitly corrected
this misconception the last time you made this claim:
**** Begin quotation
From: ta...@watson.ibm.com (Carl Tait)
Subject: Re: Horowitz's attitude torwards Gould
Message-ID: <37i1uf$j...@watnews2.watson.ibm.com>
Date: 13 Oct 1994 01:19:11 GMT
[...]
BTW, "conservatory drones" (whose opinions I don't particularly
value, either) usually prefer the (deceptively) straightforward
pianism of Rubinstein -- or the technical perfection of Pollini --
to the highly personal performances of either Gould or Horowitz.
**** End quotation
And now for some last-minute hilarity:
>>That's all; *interesting*. One of my first posts to this newsgroup
>>some years ago was a request for opinions on Ives's Concord Sonata.
>>I had just discovered the piece,
>
>The fact that you discovered this work only a few years ago, a work
>which is perhaps *the* central work of 20th century piano literature
>demonstrates to me that you are probably largely ignorant of a subject
>in which you feel qualified to render such weighty opinions.
John, I wonder if you can hear all the people laughing at that paragraph.
Ask *anyone* who has regularly read this newsgroup for the past few
years about my knowledge of the piano literature.
As an aside, I would certainly not rank the Concord as *the* central
work of the 20th-century literature. The Barber Sonata and the Prokofiev
Sixth and Eighth are much greater works, in my opinion. Bartok's
"Out of Doors" isn't too shabby, either. Hell, I'd even take the
Ginastera First over the Concord, though most people would disagree.
I'm still "discovering" excellent pieces of music all the time,
and feel truly sorry for you if you aren't.
>Did you claim that Ives' Concord Sonata was "correct" music? God,
>I hope not.
Of course not. That is a preposterous strawman, as you surely realize.
Carl Tait
John E. Harrington
>[Note: This is rapidly becoming a circular argument, and I'm sure it's
>becoming tiresome to everyone. I have trimmed down my response as
>much as possible. John, if you want to make any *new* points, I'll
>be glad to discuss them; otherwise, I'll let you have the last word
>in your response (if you wish to post one). Gratuitous insults are
>cheerfully encouraged.]
Let's be clear: Carl Tait is a virtuoso of tact and reason and I am an
insulting philistine. That said, Carl proceeds to reluctantly toy
with me. I feel so honored.
Here's my last word. Sayonara.
>In <1994Nov7.1...@biosym.com>,
>j...@iris77.biosym.com (John E. Harrington) writes:
>>
>>>[I wrote:]
>>>I'm not sure that dk would agree with the "correct" categorization,
>>>but he certainly thinks that some pianists play Bach much better than
>>>others -- hardly a controversial opinion. As it happens, Dan doesn't
>>>like Gould's approach. I do, in many cases.
>>
>>Had dk put it that way, I would have no objections. "Correct", however,
>>is HIS word. He believes there is a "correct" way to play Bach and has
>>said so, in so many words.
>>
>>Correct sounds to my ears like it is applicable to everybody's aesthetic
>>sensibilities, not just his own. If he wants to clarify this, I welcome
>>him to.
>
>If dk used the word "correct" in that way, I disagree with him.
He did indeed use the word "correct" in exactly that way.
>(I don't remember him saying that, but he may have done so while I
>was out of town. Shame on you for not forwarding me a copy, Dan!)
>This is the posting I was thinking about:
>
>**** Begin quotation
>
>From: d...@netcom.com (Dan Koren)
>Subject: Re: Horowitz's attitude towards Gould
>Message-ID: <dkCxHu...@netcom.com>
>Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 05:47:39 GMT
>
>[...]
>
>>And just how *should* Bach's music be played?
>
>Oh, that's easy to illustrate. Listen to Harold Samuel, Dinu Lipatti,
>Edwin Fischer, Sviatoslav Richter, Martha Argerich, Samuel Feinberg,
>Emil Naoumoff, Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli, Arthur Schnabel.
>
>**** End quotation
This was a response to my original (or second or third) objection to
his preposterous use of the word "correct" to describe interpretations
which he favors.
>
>Since no two of these artists play Bach the same way, I can only
Yes, but they all play Bach the "correct" way.
>conclude that Dan enjoys many different styles of Bach playing --
>but he sure doesn't like Gould's style.
>
>>Liberace was a pop musician who played classical music very badly.
>>Everyone agrees on this,
>
>That is patently untrue. More people *love* Liberace's performances of
Will you admit Carl that those who claim to favor Liberace as a classical
pianist are probably ignorant of classical music in general?
No one I've ever met who listens to classical music seriously considers
Liberace a competent interpreter of the classical piano literature.
>classical music than have ever *heard* of Gould or Horowitz. I'm not
>in the least happy about this, but it is nonetheless true. Liberace was
>a pianist of gargantuan popularity.
>
>>and, more importantly, it is obvious to my ears as well. He
>>is not only NOT in the same ballpark as GG; he was not even playing
>>the same game.
>
>Have you ever heard any of Liberace's early recordings, when he was
>still making some effort to be accepted as a traditional classical
>pianist?
Yes.
> Some of them are surprisingly good.
Not in my opinion. A relative who is dear enough to me not to want
to ridicule her taste in a public forum (and therefore shall remain
nameless) owned every recording Liberace ever did. I remember
listening to them when I was a kid and, knowing nothing of Liberace
or his reputation, thinking them laughably feeble.
I welcome you to continue enjoying them, however.
> The first time I
>heard his Liebestraum No. 3, I had to be shown the record label
>before I believed who was playing.
>
>Nonetheless, I *emphatically* agree that most classical musicians
>consider Gould a far better classical pianist than Liberace, and
>some even consider Gould a genius.
Yep. Musical ignoramuses such as Yehudi Mehuhin, Aaron Copland and
Leonard Bernstein.
> I still don't see why you react
>so strongly to a Gould/Liberace comparison: would you object to
I find it an insultingly laughable comparison, indicative of your extreme biased
hatred of Gould, and I believe your claimed ignorance as to why I should
object to such a comparison to be feigned.
>comparing Rubinstein's and Liberace's recordings of the Chopin
>E-flat Nocturne, or would that be "rude" and "snobbish" as well?
>(P.S. -- Rubinstein wins easily, as if you couldn't guess.)
>
>>If you think Shelley the greatest poet ever and I think Byron the greatest,
>>we can argue all day about the merits of Shelley vs. Byron (no pun intended),
>>but it would be illogical, not to mention rude, of me to say: well if you
>>like Shelley, fine, but then there are some who like limericks...
>
>Why is this illogical or rude? Are you arguing that every limerick is
>intrinsically worse than every work by Shelley and Byron? Or that
>limericks are by their nature incomparable to other forms of poetry?
For those who look for complexity and subtlety in poetry, limericks are
intrinsically worse than most every work by Shelley and Byron*.
Yep.
*(more true of Byron than Shelley, admittedly, as Shelley had a sweet tooth
for doggerel.)
>
>To make your argument for you, I agree that it would be illogical
>(but not rude) to say, "Well, if you like Shelley, fine, but then there
>are some who like Beethoven" -- unless we were discussing a subject
>such as "Life's Greatest Pleasures," or "People that Experts in
>Their Fields Admire."
Thanks for making my argument for me.
>
>>There is no comparison, and if you consider the following analogy in any
>>way legitimate:
>>
>>Gould:Liberace
>>
>>then we have nothing to discuss.
>
>See above -- and below:
Seen. Smirking.
>
>>I'm saying that most people do not even *compare*
>>Liberace and GG, except, of course, when they are flame baiting or are highly
>>ignorant of the subject.
>
>.. or are making an analogy that goes beyond both pianos and music.
Thanks, Carl, but I am not interested, within the context of this "debate", in
analogies that go beyond both pianos and music.
>I notice you made no objection to my other examples of expert opinion:
>
>**** Begin quotation
>
>From: ta...@watson.ibm.com (Carl Tait)
>Subject: Re: Horowitz's attitude towards Gould
>Message-ID: <37i1uf$j...@watnews2.watson.ibm.com>
>Date: 13 Oct 1994 01:19:11 GMT
>
>[...]
>
>For example, suppose I said, "Liberace is more highly regarded by
>the general public than by professional pianists." Or maybe,
>"Professors of English don't usually hold Edgar Guest's poetry
>in high esteem." Or, on the positive side, "Art experts invariably
>place Vermeer among the greatest of all artists."
>
>**** End quotation
>
>Why did you not flame me for comparing Gould to Edgar Guest or Vermeer?
>Or did you actually understand the analogy in those cases, but had a
>knee-jerk reaction to the name of Liberace?
The Liberace analogy seemed outrageously arrogant and snobbish. That's why.
>But now the sun comes up:
>
>>I have no problems drawing barriers between art forms
>>(Liberace was a popular artist),
>
>I agree in principle, but the "barriers" aren't always clear --
>and the Libber is a good example why.
>
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>nor do I have a particular problem with evoking critical consensus,
>>as long as it is not the only consideration in judging musicians
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Wow! We agree! And as long as we see eye-to-eye on this, the
>rest is almost irrelevant.
Wow! Maybe we do! Maybe my objection was to dk's argument by authority
and had nothing to do with you!!! Wow! Groovy!
>
>>(you've misread my previous posts).
>
>I could almost believe this, until the very next sentence:
>
>>My problem is with claiming that the opinions of most conservatory students
>>should influence our opinion of GG, especially when so many of prominance
>>held him in such high esteem, going so far to call him a "genius" and
>>"the greatest pianist since Busoni".
>
>Talk about misreading previous posts! I have *never* appealed to the
>opinions of "conservatory students." In fact, I explicitly corrected
>this misconception the last time you made this claim:
My reference was to dk's evocation of the consensus opinion of conservatory
students.
I do not claim that GG was the greatest pianist who ever lived (and I'm not
saying that you propose I do), but I do claim that he was not an
unmitigated hack as many revisionists on rmc seem to want to paint him.
He was regarded by many, as you admit, to be a genius. He is regarded by many
others to be among the greatest pianists on record.
If you dispute this, then yes we disagree and I guess I await your proof that
GG is rejected by large groups of professional musicians.
A straw poll among professional musicians I know reveals that he is highly
regarded.
>
>**** Begin quotation
>
>From: ta...@watson.ibm.com (Carl Tait)
>Subject: Re: Horowitz's attitude towards Gould
>Message-ID: <37i1uf$j...@watnews2.watson.ibm.com>
>Date: 13 Oct 1994 01:19:11 GMT
>
>[...]
>
>BTW, "conservatory drones" (whose opinions I don't particularly
>value, either) usually prefer the (deceptively) straightforward
>pianism of Rubinstein -- or the technical perfection of Pollini --
>to the highly personal performances of either Gould or Horowitz.
>
>**** End quotation
>
>And now for some last-minute hilarity:
>
>>>That's all; *interesting*. One of my first posts to this newsgroup
>>>some years ago was a request for opinions on Ives's Concord Sonata.
>>>I had just discovered the piece,
>>
>>The fact that you discovered this work only a few years ago, a work
>>which is perhaps *the* central work of 20th century piano literature
>>demonstrates to me that you are probably largely ignorant of a subject
>>in which you feel qualified to render such weighty opinions.
>
>John, I wonder if you can hear all the people laughing at that paragraph.
Yes, Carl, I am sure you are universally regarded on rmc as the master
scholar of the piano literature. Sorry I bruised yr ego.
Ho Hum.
>Ask *anyone* who has regularly read this newsgroup for the past few
>years about my knowledge of the piano literature.
>
>As an aside, I would certainly not rank the Concord as *the* central
>work of the 20th-century literature. The Barber Sonata and the Prokofiev
I said perhaps. I think it more central, for example, in its influence
and musico-historical importance than Barber's Sonata.
>Sixth and Eighth are much greater works, in my opinion. Bartok's
Arguably Proks 6-8 are more central to the 20th c. lit, yes.
>"Out of Doors" isn't too shabby, either. Hell, I'd even take the
>Ginastera First over the Concord, though most people would disagree.
Who cares what you'd take over what?! The point is not which piece you
prefer.
>
>I'm still "discovering" excellent pieces of music all the time,
>and feel truly sorry for you if you aren't.
Oh but I am. That wasn't my point though. I knew the Ives' sonata forward
and back when I was in the 10th grade. As I did Prok's and Bartok's oeuvres.
>>Did you claim that Ives'oncord Sonata was "correct" music? God,
>>I hope not.
>
>Of course not. That is a preposterous strawman, as you surely realize.
No, that's a direct quote from dk. You're right. It *is* preposterous to
say things like that. Maybe we do agree.
>
>Carl Tait
regards,
John H.
Dan Koren
>From: ta...@watson.ibm.com (Carl Tait)
>>[Note: This is rapidly becoming a circular argument, and I'm sure it's
>>becoming tiresome to everyone. I have trimmed down my response as
>>much as possible. John, if you want to make any *new* points, I'll
>>be glad to discuss them; otherwise, I'll let you have the last word
>>in your response (if you wish to post one). Gratuitous insults are
>>cheerfully encouraged.]
>
>Let's be clear: Carl Tait is a virtuoso of tact and reason and I am an
>insulting philistine. That said, Carl proceeds to reluctantly toy
>with me. I feel so honored.
>
>Here's my last word. Sayonara.
>
>>In <1994Nov7.1...@biosym.com>,
>>j...@iris77.biosym.com (John E. Harrington) writes:
>>>
>>>>[I wrote:]
>>>>I'm not sure that dk would agree with the "correct" categorization,
>>>>but he certainly thinks that some pianists play Bach much better than
>>>>others -- hardly a controversial opinion. As it happens, Dan doesn't
>>>>like Gould's approach. I do, in many cases.
>>>
>>>Had dk put it that way, I would have no objections. "Correct", however,
>>>is HIS word. He believes there is a "correct" way to play Bach and has
>>>said so, in so many words.
Could you please provide the evidence to support your claim?
>>>Correct sounds to my ears like it is applicable to everybody's aesthetic
>>>sensibilities, not just his own. If he wants to clarify this, I welcome
>>>him to.
>>
>>If dk used the word "correct" in that way, I disagree with him.
>
>He did indeed use the word "correct" in exactly that way.
>
>>(I don't remember him saying that, but he may have done so while I
>>was out of town. Shame on you for not forwarding me a copy, Dan!)
>>This is the posting I was thinking about:
>>
>>**** Begin quotation
>>
Where did I use the word "correct" in the way you claim?
The entire article to which Carl and I believe you were referring is
quoted below. Could you please point out the word "correct"?
>>From: d...@netcom.com (Dan Koren)
>>Subject: Re: Horowitz's attitude towards Gould
>>Message-ID: <dkCxHu...@netcom.com>
>>Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 05:47:39 GMT
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>And just how *should* Bach's music be played?
>>
>>Oh, that's easy to illustrate. Listen to Harold Samuel, Dinu Lipatti,
>>Edwin Fischer, Sviatoslav Richter, Martha Argerich, Samuel Feinberg,
>>Emil Naoumoff, Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli, Arthur Schnabel.
>>
>>**** End quotation
>
>This was a response to my original (or second or third) objection to
>his preposterous use of the word "correct" to describe interpretations
>which he favors.
thx,
dk
Carl Tait
In <1994Nov21.0...@biosym.com>,
j...@iris77.biosym.com (John E. Harrington) writes:
>
>I find it an insultingly laughable comparison, indicative of
>your extreme biased hatred of Gould,
Sheer fantasy. I think many of Gould's performances are excellent,
and have said so before (to you, in fact):
**** Begin quotation
From: ta...@watson.ibm.com (Carl Tait)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Gould, Horowitz, and Technique...
Date: 10 Oct 1994 20:50:26 GMT
Message-ID: <37c9ei$i...@watnews2.watson.ibm.com>
In <1994Oct10.1...@biosym.com>,
j...@iris77.biosym.com (John E. Harrington) writes:
>
>In Bach's music, there is no one I like better [than Gould] in WTC,
>Goldbergs, the French and English Suites, the tocattas and the cello sonatas
>sonatas with L. Rose.
I don't uniformly admire these performances (particularly the cello sonatas),
but there is much remarkable playing here. I especially like the G minor
English Suite, the 1955 Goldbergs, WTC I.3, and the fugue of WTC I.20.
**** End quotation
Carl Tait
trevor b
> Eugene Shapiro <esha...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> > I recently heard that Horowitz disliked Gould. However, that is
> > the extent of the complexity with which I understand their relationship.
> > Could anybody expound on why Horowitz disliked Gould. Was it purely
> > professinal? Was it personal?
> Horowitz did not think much of Gould's playing. There were very
> few pianists who's playing Horowitz admired so that really doesn't mean
> much. As for a personal dislike of Gould there is nothing on record to
> indicate it.
> On the other hand, Gould's dislike of Horowitz is well documented.
> Horowitz was the most famous pianist on the planet. He outsold, outdrew,
> and outgrossed everyone else. No other pianist could command the hype and
> hysteria associated with Horowitz. Gould was insanely jealous. Gould
> recorded the Scriabin 3rd and Prokofiev 7th sonatas in an attempt to show
> up Horowitz. A comparsion on the two's recordings shows how abysmally
> Gould failed. Gould also had a pet project in mind where he would make a
> record that was in effect a total mockery of Horowitz's "Historic Carnegie
> Hall Return" record. This project was never allowed by Columbia.
> Horowitz was their star. It would have been crazy for Columbia to allow
> one of their lesser pianists to make fun of their star.
> It is very unlikely that Horowitz cared enough about Gould to have
> a dislike. Gould was and is pretty insignificant compared to Horowitz.
> Here is a quote from Horowitz on Gould's playing:
> I heard a recording of the Wagner _Siegfried Idyll_ played by Glenn
> Gould. It was his arrangement. He played like a stupid ass.
> Farhan
> --------
> For information about this Usenet posting service, send mail to
> rema...@soda.berkeley.edu, with Subject: remailer-info.
> Please, don't throw knives.
Please, sir, get your facts straight. I agree with you, wholeheartedly, that Gould was terribly jealous of Horowitz, and, to Gould's shame, said terrible and hurtful things about him. I lost a significant amount of respect for Gould over this -- certainly not as a pianist/technician (particularly where it came to Bach), but as a person. Horowitz, in my opinion, handled this disdain like a true gentleman, never allowing himself to sink to Gould's childish level. Where we disagree is your portrayal of Horowitz as some sort of high-browed egomaniac who held admiration but for a meagre few other pianistic talents. This is either honest error on your part, or a blatant fabrication; either way, it's simply not true. Horowitz held in high esteem the playing of many pianists---Rubinstein, Serkin, Brendel, Richter, Agerich, Schnabel, Periah, Gilels, Pollini, Cortot, Hoffman, Kappel, Rachmaninov, Michelangeli (even certain jazz figures like the legendary Art Tatum whom he acknowledged as his technical superior!), and the list goes on---and considered some of the aforementioned classical stars, rightfully or wrongfully, his superior in certain aspects. True, Horowitz possessed an "unparalleled tension," sonority, and musical sensibility that possibly qualifies him as "the last Romantic." He could certainly, and did, set the piano (the whole damn stage and concert hall, even!) ablaze with controlled, demonic fury. But he was also humble enough of his gifts to desire that a piano competition be never named in his honor. In more than one way, indeed, he was legendary! So please do not portray him as anything but.
You furthermore stated, "He outsold, outdrew, and outgrossed everyone else." Another fabrication. Do not confuse Horowitz's ability to "command the hype and hysteria" that legends are made of, with ticket sales or fame. The fact of the matter is that Rubinstein (post 1940s, anyway), partly due to his vast repertoire and interpretive prowess (accompanied by an astounding technique!), partly due to his unparalleled interpretations of Chopin, and partly due to his ebullient personality the brilliance of which is infused in his recordings, outranked and outclassed everyone in ticket sales, and was, up to the time of his death in 1982, the most famous classical pianist, if not musician, on the planet. His name was a virtual household word at the time. In the years following Rubinstein's death, particularly after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989, Horowitz's name shared the spotlight with no other.
I do not know whether your statements were made out of ignorance or zealousness for Horowitz. Indeed, I, too, am a deep admirer of his gifts and contributions. However, in the event that your statements were less than honest, let me admonish that is not necessary to distort the legacy of Horowitz, or to downplay the greatness, legacies or contributions of others, just to underscore how much of an a*hole Gould was to Horowitz. You do the latter no service in this regard.