[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: _A_question_for_all_you_Gouldians



No, he wasn't a god.
 
But there really isn't a rational explanation for what he was.
 
No matter how hard we try, human beings can't create or design or educate someone like Gould. The best the best of us can do is nurture and encourage a child whom we recognize has that kind of talent and gift.
 
If there is a God, and a God who cares about communicating with us through the gifts of beauty, then Gould was one of those once-in-a-lifetime people whom God "touched" with very special, extra-human gifts.
 
I suppose you can be just as comfortable explaining such people as entirely mathematical random mutations -- a crap shoot, the equivalent of a car accident.
 
I find that enormously unsatisfying, intellectually and emotionally. How many car accidents end up improving your health, improving your car, improving your finances, and introducing you to the true love of your life?
 
The "point" of Shaffer's "Amadeus" was just this point of view -- that God, for reasons forever kept a mystery to us, "touches" the rare artist and elevates his/her gifts far beyond what mere practice, study, ambition and dedication can ever hope to produce. (Poor Solieri, it drove him insane.)
 
I can't begin to explain anything about this phenomenon, but I do find it very satisfying. I can't explain 16-year-old Billie Holiday's magical, deeply moving, almost entirely untutored, untrained gifts any other way. (Her brutal father, whom she loathed, was a very talented jazz guitarist.) I can't explain GG any other way. God wants to tell us that life is not all horror and meaninglessness and ugliness and fear; he has special gifts for us, gifts of extraordinary, magical beauty that come to us through a very special few of our relatives and neighbors.
 
Bob / Elmer
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave L <mauve_mojo@YAHOO.COM>
To: F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU <F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:29 AM
Subject: Re: _A_question_for_all_you_Gouldians

>--- "l.caprotti@libero.it" <l.caprotti@LIBERO.IT>
>wrote:
>> Hello Michael,
>> I would like just to give you a suggestion about
>> your "...he is
>> practically a god to me..." and other.
>> You have to be very very careful.
>> Glenn Gould was a very great pianist, I think the
>> greatest of the
>> history (maybe with V.Horowitz and Arthur
>> Rubinstein). But I'm sure not
>> the "greatest man...".
>> I'm a piano master (from Milano Conservatory) and I
>> can tell you that
>> Gould was truly a phenomenon of the piano, a very
>> sensitive pianist
>> (and man).
>> But I can tell you more! Have you (or somebody else)
>> a recording of
>> something really difficult played by Gould? I mean,
>> the Emperor
>> Concerto is difficult enough, Bach is always very
>> difficult for the
>> control of multiple voices. But have you played Bach
>> and also the
>> Wanderer Fantasy for exemple? Or the Chopin's
>> Studies? I have a friend
>> (he's piano master he too, in the Cremona
>> Conservatory) and he tell me
>> that Gould had not demonstrated his capacity to play
>> the piano. And
>> he's not completely wrong.
>> However I played his cadenza on 1st Beethoven piano
>> concerto. Very good
>> music. And quite complicated. But it shows that
>> Gould was a greatest
>> pianist. But very careful: not a god or greatest
>> man!
>>
>> Ciao
>> Lorenzo
>
>Hi Lorenzo,
>
>Yes, I think GG himself would certainly have
>difficulty accepting himself as a god, or even
>god-like!
>
>I'm sure this has been talked about before in this
>group, but I see distinct differences between the
>"young Gould" and the "old Gould".
>
>The young Gould of the 50's and 60's is a pianist with
>phenomenal technique, but I often struggle to hear any
>depth to the music. Take for example the D Major
>prelude from the WTK Book I; this piece is played in a
>horribly aggressive and entirely inappropriate manner
>- I cannot stand to listen to it. I think his
>recording of the WTK as a whole is a rather bitter
>pill to swallow; and to a lesser degree, the same goes
>for the '55 GV. There is always something to be said
>for controversial interpretations - but thankfully, it
>doesn't mean we have to listen to them. As such, in
>his youth, I think his greatest achievement was not in
>his recordings or his particular approach to music,
>but rather the part he played in keeping alive a
>rather neglected repertoire.
>
>The old Gould (within a few years of his death) is a
>pianist with the same phenomenal technique, but he
>imparts a depth to the music that far surpasses
>anything the young Gould did; the re-recording of
>"Goldberg Variations" and his piano performances of
>"The Art of Fugue" spring to mind. The latter in
>particular - here is a man who appears to be playing
>as if nothing else matters, literally.
>
>In terms of defining GG's greatness as a musician; I
>think it is undeniable. Musically, the young Gould was
>brilliant, impetuous and a little immature - but he
>made a lot of people sit up and take notice. The old
>Gould was a unique pianist and, in Bach, of the very
>highest calibre.
>
>Regards,
>
>David Lodge