|
Hi Allan and all,
Allan, please do not think that I am putting words in your
mouth. I found your comments interesting. I have heard this point of
view many times. I am not saying you are wrong.
This is what strikes me as odd:
When I was a child, the grown-ups considered Glenn Gould
an emotional show-off. People who had heard and seen him perform and those
who read the reviews considered his "wild antics" embarrassingly
emotional. When I was a teenager I watched his TV shows whenever I had the
chance. The parents would say things like "There's that wild man
again. Can't he control his feelings?"
Most of today's adult musical listening population never
had the chance to attend a live Glenn Gould performance. We can only
listen. A great many listeners hear what Allan hears -- an intellectual
exercise.
I am not going to deny that in part Glenn Gould's Bach
appeals to me intellectually. This aspect of his playing is something that
I truly admire, BUT, there is more to his
playing than this.
His recording of the D+ harpsichord concerto, BWV 1054 is
one of the most joyous recordings I have ever heard. I hear laughter and a
fun filled spirit when I play his French Suites. The Aria and from the
last Goldberg Variations recording usually makes me want to cry.
For me, music needs to be intellectually stimulating and
emotionally appealing. Glenn Gould's music is both.
I listen to other pianists.
Anne
Allan wrote:
I hope that no one has misunderstood my reference
to Gould's dry
acoustic. I meant to suggest that he chose to play the piano and have it recorded in such a way as to deny its richness, resonance and body. Listening to music is at least partially a sensual experience and Gould did everything to deny that part of the musical experience to us. His appeal was very much to the intellect. This has its place, but no one should ever have only Gould's Mozart or Beethoven in their collection. What do people mean by sentimentality? I did not use the term, althought I referred to feeling. To me sentimentality refers to a wallowing in feeling, where feeling is everything. But to avoid sentimentality is not the same as playing without feeling. Sentimentality would be to wring every last emotional stop out of Hamlet's solioquies; feeling would be to read it as if it meant something. Reading without feeling would be to get all the syllables and stresses right, but to give no emphases so as to make it clear what Hamlet's state of mind was. To me Gould is like that last type--Bach has no message other than the notes and they can be played however your intellectual fancy inclines you. I used to think Bach was all about academic exercises and complex structures until I listened to Harnoncourt's recordings of the cantatas which were an emotional and spiritual epiphany for me. Early Harnoncourt is not known for his sentimentality, but the feeling in his performances blows Gould away. I will treasure the 1982 Goldbergs, the Brahms including the concerto with Bernstein, the Byrd and Gibbons. For the rest I will listen to them as an intellectual experience which is no insignificant achievement. Gould's longevity, I would suggest, lies in the intellectual substructure of his performances which is why he will last, for the more "singing" performances are almost a dime a dozen. Each generation will produce its Perahia's, but Gould's intellect is for the ages. But I cannot live on Gould alone, even for Bach. Allan |