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

Re: [F_minor] (no subject)

Very well put.

Your observations make a great sense when we consider them in light of his Bach recordings, but they are more troublesome when applied to his Mozart, Beethoven or even Schonberg recordings. In those he seems to be going after something other than perfection (though it's hard to tell with the Schonberg), which leads me to think that perhaps Gould was trying to match Bach's perfection, rather than meet an ideal of perfect performance. Gould's Goldberg may not be perfection, but who would deny that Bach's Goldberg was?


At 04:08 PM 6/5/2007, Chester Singh wrote:
Did he rarely re-record pieces because he felt they could not be improved on, or was it just a way to protect himself from chasing perfection. As an example of this, I will give an example extra-Gould, in that it was not him, but another perfectionist whom I witnessed do the following: there was an essay to write, and it's deadline was the next day. This man sat on his computer, and wrote the first sentence; he thought he could do better, so he re-wrote it. Three hours later, I visited him again, and he still hadn't proceeded past the first sentence. I suggested that he shut off his monitor, so that he couldn't re-read his sentences. After, this, he got along very well, and had the 2000 word essay finished in half an hour. If each of the sentences he wrote could be compared to each recording of Glenn Gould's, this examples applies itself very neatly. It is not a question whether or not he listened to his old recordings; I have no doubt that he did. But by shutting off his mental "monitor" he could create a mental cocoon (to use his own terminology) to protect himself from the chase of perfection. I am certain that his interpretations stemmed from tangible thoughts, yet how tangible were they a few minutes after the recording was finished?
What is tangible, is that Glenn Gould knew how much work he wanted to do, and he knew that his whole life was needed to do it. In order to protect himself from dwelling too long on a task, and thereby reducing the amount of work he could do, he did not re-record too often.
I have no doubt that he was completely satisfied with his recordings, but it cannot be said that he thought them perfect.
I still seem to be at variance with some opinions, but am still enjoying this discussion immensly,
Singh


From: aboikov@nd.edu
To: Chester Singh <k_dawg71@hotmail.com>
CC: pwiener@ms.cc.sunysb.edu, Randy_Walld@cpe.umanitoba.ca,
MMacelletti@msn.com, F_MINOR@email.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: [F_minor] (no subject)
Date: Tue,  5 Jun 2007 14:12:21 -0400

A human?s inability to possess absolute motor control is a given, and I cannot
imagine what 100% control would exactly entail (maybe he/she would sound like a
Disklavier Pro?). Regardless, no one doubts that GG understood this as well,
but how then does one separate musical conception apart from execution?
Surely, Gould?s musical ideas sprang from something tangible. Much like my
conception of Bach on piano has become over the years inextricably tied to
Gould?s recordings, I suppose that Gould?s own conceptions of Bach were
likewise rooted somewhere. However, unlike my personal desire to realize the
Gouldian Bach in my personal playing (influenced by my own ideas as well), it
never appeared that GG was chasing any other ideal apart from his own. His
habit of rarely visiting pieces after recording them can be taken as evidence
that he was generally content with his results?and the rare occasion of his
having to re-record a piece presents us with an instance where his new
performance actually reflects a shift in paradigm (in the case of the
Goldbergs, something not unexpected since the two versions were 26 years
apart). One of Gould?s greatest eccentricities was his remarkable rigidity?his
resistance to change. I speculate that re-recording the Goldbergs must have
been a tormenting decision to make, for it may have been equivalent to a
confession of being wrong. As irrelevant as I believe this hypothetical to be,
I?d like to propose that if Gould were around today, he?d likely have no part in
even touching the 1955 Goldbergs. If he had, it would have served only to
affirm the legitimacy of that recording, a legitimacy that he voided (to
himself, at least) in 1981.
I realize that this last position is rather extreme, but it?s nonetheless
interesting to think about.


Quoting Chester Singh <k_dawg71@hotmail.com>:

> Another very good point, and one that is probably correct. However, in my
> own defense, I present one last point. It is impossible to say what the
> human mind (particularly a mind such as Gould's) can think up. It is also
> known that scientifically, a human CANNOT completely control his muscle
> movements. Some are better than others at it, but 100% can never be achieved
> for the simple reason that our bodies do not work that way. Therefore, I can
> still doubt that ths subtleties and extreme nuances that the human mind can
> concoct could be reproduced by Glenn Gould, although I am sure he came
> close. Also, and more abstractly, in order for his music to have been
> perfect, Glenn Gould would have wanted that the listener felt what he did.
> After all, music IS emotions. Not only because of technological
> shortcomings, but also because of the intellectual short-comings of us, the
> listeners, this side of perfection was never achieved by Glenn Gould,
> although it may very well happen in the future.
> I am enjoying this exchange, let us continue it,
> Singh
>
>
> >From: aboikov@nd.edu
> >To: Chester Singh <k_dawg71@hotmail.com>
> >CC: pwiener@ms.cc.sunysb.edu, Randy_Walld@cpe.umanitoba.ca,
> >MMacelletti@msn.com, F_MINOR@email.rutgers.edu
> >Subject: Re: [F_minor] (no subject)
> >Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:55:23 -0400
> >
> >I'm not sure that I can quite agree with the notion that Gould's playing
> >(to him
> >at the time,
> >at least) was anything short of perfect. We're all familiar with his
> >legendary
> >obsession with having complete control over all aspects of his life--his
> >genius
> >made this somewhat fantastic desire more or less reality. However, when
> >that
> >perfect
> >control could not be achieved--in the realm of composing, for
> >instance--Gould
> >quit. In another example, his inability to exact complete reign over the
> >concert platform led him
> >to retreat to the recording studio where he could in fact attain
> >perfection.
> >However, one can argue that Gould's ability to achieve perfection was
> >limited by
> >technology, not his musical abilities. Notice that for every hour of piano
> >practice, he spent so many more hours writing about and investigating new
> >prospects for recording technology. What's most telling about Glenn
> >Gould's
> >perspectives on a musical ideal may be his dream of allowing the listener
> >the
> >ability to create a particular version of a performance that suited that
> >listener's particular preferences. The closest Gould was able to get to
> >that
> >perfect notion was to realize a work as perfect in his perspective--how he
> >actually did realize that end result is another matter of debate.
> >
> >Quoting Chester Singh <k_dawg71@hotmail.com>:
> >
> > > A good point, and well made. Although perhaps it was not Glenn Gould's
> > > willpower that stopped him from playing a perfect Bach, but the fact
> >that
> > > perfection cannot be created? Perhaps even his technique had limits, and
> >it
> > > is in this way that I see musical notation as well. A very innacurate
> >art.
> > > Singh
> > >
> > > >From: paul wiener <pwiener@ms.cc.sunysb.edu>
> > > >To: aboikov@nd.edu, Randy Walld <Randy_Walld@cpe.umanitoba.ca>
> > > >CC: michael macelletti <MMacelletti@msn.com>,F_MINOR
> > > ><F_MINOR@email.rutgers.edu>
> > > >Subject: Re: [F_minor] (no subject)
> > > >Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:43:06 -0400
> > > >
> > > >That's a very good point you make. The "dry, intimate sound" is how
> >most of
> > > >us got to know Gould on record, and we have tuned our inner ears to it.
> > > >Anyone who can't mentally extract perfect sound from the 1955
> >recording
> > > >(or, for that matter, from a 1936 Szigeti recording) just doesn't know
> >how
> > > >to listen.
> > > >
> > > >Nevertheless, the clean, driving, immediate sound of the Zenph deserves
> >a
> > > >place in the subjective world of sonic perfectability.
> > > >
> > > >It may be that Gould felt that no matter how well he played Bach it
> >could
> > > >never sound the way he heard it in his head - it always came out
> >filtered
> > > >through his willpower - a power he couldn't put aside.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >At 01:44 PM 6/4/2007, aboikov@nd.edu wrote:
> > > >>In my opinion, no, the Zenph re-performance is not 24k Gould--closer
> >to
> > > >>10k
> > > >>perhaps. Yes, the notes are all in place and the unsuspecting would
> >have
> > > >>a
> > > >>hard time believing it's not an actual person at the piano, but the
> > > >>Gouldian
> > > >>sound is nonexistant, and for me, that is half of the equation. I
> >miss
> > > >>the
> > > >>dry, intimate sound of Gould's recordings. That
> >"head-inside-the-piano"
> > > >>intensity I experience with the other recordings is nowhere to be
> >found.
> > > >>Even
> > > >>when compared to the 1981 Goldbergs, it is easy to see how simply
> >having a
> > > >>Yamaha will hardly reproduce the laser-like timbre we're so used to.
> >It
> > > >>seems
> > > >>that having the same tuner, sound engineer (or whatever other
> >authorities
> > > >>helped in making the re-performance) was not enough to acheive that
> >unique
> > > >>sound. But I am relieved to know that GG's physical presence--the
> >most
> > > >>important ingrediant--did indeed seem to be this project's only
> > > >>shortcoming.
> > > >>
> > > >>I believe that the new recording surpasses the 1955, where most
> >elements
> > > >>I've
> > > >>mentioned were lost in the horrible attempts to suppress singing,
> > > >>squeaking,
> > > >>etc. However, the new recording does not live up to the sound
> >standards
> > > >>that
> > > >>are the hallmark of Gould's stereo recordings. I enjoyed listening to
> >it,
> > > >>for
> > > >>it made me better understand and appreciate the 1955 recording.
If
> >for no
> > > >>other reason than that, this CD should be in any Gould fan's music
> > > >>library.
> > > >>
> > > >>Quoting Randy Walld <Randy_Walld@cpe.umanitoba.ca>:
> > > >>
> > > >> > The fact that you noticed 'nothing unusual' is itself amazing!
> > > >>Comparing it
> > > >> > to a 'repressing' misses the point entirely. Is this 24k Gould or
> > > >>not??
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> > From: paul wiener <pwiener@ms.cc.sunysb.edu>
> > > >> > Date: Monday, June 4, 2007 10:49 am
> > > >> > Subject: Re: [F_minor] (no subject)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > I got a copy. I have a reasonably excellent, if normal sound
> > > >> > > system - several.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Other than perfect clarity, I didn't notice anything unusual
> > > >> > > about
> > > >> > > the recording. Of course, it's far, far better than any of the
> > > >> > > conventional repressings of the 1955 version. The jacket info
> >with
> > > >> > > the disc says it should optimally be played on special equipment
> > > >> > > or
> > > >> > > headphones; perhaps I'm an atypical listener - I still depend a
> > > >> > > lot
> > > >> > > on my ears, speakers and amplifier. And on Gould's musicianship.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >so, what's the word. it that new reproduced, or should I say
> > > >> > > >resurrected, 55 goldberg any good. ?
> > > >> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >> > > >F_minor mailing list
> > > >> > > >F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> > > >> > > >https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > > F_minor mailing list
> > > >> > > F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> > > >> > > https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > F_minor mailing list
> > > >> > F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> > > >> > https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor
> > > >> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >F_minor mailing list
> > > >F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> > > >https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Windows Live Hotmail. Now with better security, storage and features.
> > > www.newhotmail.ca?icid=WLHMENCA149
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> New Windows Live Hotmail is here. Upgrade for free and get a better look.
> www.newhotmail.ca?icid=WLHMENCA150
>
>





_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail, with safety bar colour coding, helps identify suspicious mail before it takes your daughter out on a date. Upgrade today for a better look. www.newhotmail.ca?icid=WLHMENCA152



_______________________________________________
F_minor mailing list
F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor