|
? > I'd
like to ask some questions about Gould "behind the scenes" ... Many of the
answers to these questions are addressed in Andy Kazdin's book "Glenn
Gould At Work: Creative Lying" (New York: Dutton,
1989; out of print).? Kazdin was GG's
producer on more than 40 albums, so his insight on Gould's recording process is
not to be ignored.? However, those who
wish to read the book be forewarned: Kazdin's recollections, while offering an
intimate view of GG's working methods, are tinged with a great deal of
resentment, and his observations can range from the glowingly laudatory (Glenn
Gould "possessed the most prodigious intellect with which I had ever come
into contact.") to the sophomorically tabloid ("Glenn never saw any
reason to celebrate the holiday season, and the most I ever received from him
at this time of year was a Christmas card.")? The Kazdin book is indispensable for a
first-hand view of GG in the studio, but most of his anecdotes must be taken
with a grain of salt.? The ultimate
question is: How badly do we really want to meet our heroes? > How
many attempts did it usually take for GG to make a recording of a piece? Was > he as skillful and stable as to play once and approve the
recording right away? As Kazdin notes,
"His recording sessions became publicized as kind of laboratory
experiments wherein Frankenstein monsters were assembled from scraps of
carnage; they weren't."? The
"recording process was so simple as to be boring to the outside observer: 1. Record a
complete take of the movement (or, in the case of longer works, a large section
of the piece.) 2. Listen to
it and carefully note any finger slips and musical balances that were not
perfect. 3. Go back
to the piano and record small inserts that would fix the errors." Just what
would constitute a perfect take was up to debate.? As little as one performance or dozens were
needed, depending on the situation. The least likely reason to disqualify a
take was a "finger slip", or mistake.?
These could, and were, easily corrected.?
A more likely reason to disqualify a take would be for purely
interpretive reasons, i.e. articulation, phrasing, dynamics, intonation, tempo,
mood, et cetera.? Kazdin says that
"generally speaking, with Bach works, the basic take would be recorded
very quickly, for it seemed that Gould had a more stable notion of exactly how
a Bach piece was going to go before he even started to play.? Mozart sonatas and Beethoven slow movements
apparently possessed an elusive quality (as far as the interpretation Gould
desired was concerned) that sometimes led to copious run-throughs surmounted by
the ever-present threat that none of them would qualify at all."? Kazdin also says, in his experience, that of
the remainder of Gould's repertoire "there did not seem to be any basic
interpretive problem."? Anne Smith
wrote that Gould liked to experiment with microphone placement but, with the
exception of his Sibelius recordings, Kazdin says that microphone placement
was, especially during his ? As to the
approval of a certain piece, this was a much more prolonged process, and was
ultimately the genius of Gould's creative recorded legacy. Gould often would
record divergent interpretations of pieces that would only take shape during
editing.? Gould liked to make final
interpretive decisions weeks, if not months, after the recording session.? Kazdin says (p. 63) "when it came to
tape splicing, he undoubtedly understood it as well as a professional
editor."? One good example of GG's
creative splicing was his article "The Prospects of Recording"
whereby the A minor fugue from WTC:1 was recorded with
two divergent interpretations but, when spliced together, created a wholly new
interpretation not envisioned during the recording session.? This is not to suggest that any particular
performance was flawed, nor that he couldn't record a
piece "straight through."? On
the contrary, as Samuel Carter, producer of the '81 Goldberg's states, "He
had as many one-takers as anybody, and damn near any take he made would have
stood on its own."? Gould's quest to
achieve an artistically honest performance was guided by many factors, but
ultimately whether or not he played the piece from beginning to end had little
bearing on its final outcome. > Did he
use score while recording? GG always
played a piece without the printed score (Kazdin, p. 7).? While he did play from memory, that does not
mean that a score was not available for reference, just that GG did not look at
the page while recording. > Did he
use score while performing in concerts? As far as
can be ascertained, Gould always played from memory. See John P.L. Roberts
recollections in "Glenn Gould: Variations" (Ed. McGreevy: Toronto:
Doubleday, 1983) for GG's remarkable ability to play any piece of music at
tempo upon request. > Did he
record all parts in a partita or all goldberg variations
"at one gulp" or > are
they glued together from various recordings? (the
latter is true about WTCs, > as far
as I know) This depends
on your definition of "various recordings".? As for the smaller scale works such as the
Partitas or the suites, each one was recorded in a fairly short period of time,
with Kazdin confirming that most were usually over the course of two days.? The original Goldberg's were recorded between
June and July 1955, but the number of recording sessions is not stated. As for
the Well Tempered Clavier, each book was released, if I remember correctly, on
three albums, so it would stand to reason that at three recording sessions (at
least six days) were necessary to complete each book of the WTC. > Are
there any not intended mistakes in his recordings? (I heard he sometimes > changed
notes in the score on purpose but I'm interested about his simply > wrong notes: due to lack of attention, slipping fingers etc;
I'm not a pianist > and
can't hear the mistakes if they exist) Well,
Juozas, can you ask a more difficult question??
Gould diverged MANY times from the original score, but whether these
were intentional or not, we just don't know.?
I tend to believe that Gould knew the notes, but often chose to
ameliorate the score to fit his own interpretive decisions.? Kazdin states that only once, to his
knowledge, did Gould record a piece "intentionally distorted", namely
the first movement of Mozart Sonata K. 331. But overall, GG believed in his
divergent interpretations.? As for the
studio recordings, I cannot hear any substantial differences that cannot be
sensibly attributed to artistic license.?
Interestingly enough, Kazdin relates a lapse of understanding with
regard to Italian terminology (a fermata combined with the Italian term
"lunga"), but Gould was NOT perfect. > Did he
make any mistakes during concert performances? Again, Gould
was not perfect, and occasionally he flubbed notes (this is based on my
observations of his recorded concert performances.)? These mistakes are few and far between, and
for the most part, one remarks upon his "flawless
technique". > How
many hours was he said to be playing daily? ("practicing") Jeez,
Juozas, tough questions!? Gould always
stated (bragged?) that he played best with NO practicing, preferring to work
out his interpretations in his head.?
Younger acquaintances of Gould said he practiced a lot, but in his later
years GG tended to claim that he went weeks without playing, and upon returning
to the keyboard, found that he actually played better.? As a pianist who must constantly keep up my
"chops" I find this hard to believe, but Gould was so different, so
iconoclastic, that his claims are not beyond the realm of belief.? Glenn was a busy man, and how in the world
would he have found time to do all he did if he had been slave to his
instrument? We shall never know. |