|
No no, I
didn't mean to skip over his mother's hereditary and musically nurturing
contribution. And of course the other example I cited, Mozart, was the son of a
very well-known and accomplished professional musician, and brother of another
very talented musician. So I certainly didn't mean to suggest these things are
totally random.
But the astonishing explosions of
talent -- the rare individuals in whom all the hereditary fertilizing comes
together and electrifies the world -- these just aren't the work of humans, I
sincerely think we get them as gifts from God for reasons we'll never be allowed
to know.
Bob
I'm not sure how
random Glenn's talent really was - mother was a music teacher, distant
relative to Greig, etc. Some of the best pianists I know - although,
mind you, this is not always the rule - had a musical parent. Just a
thought..........
Elmer Elevator wrote:
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
>--- "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
|