Just a quick hello. I have not heard or read the reviews or interviews that this thread refers to.....having said that I want to remind all once again that any references to absolutes in music will fail. What I mean by this is that a reliance on certainty when stating how any piece "should" be played or interpreted only reflects the bias of the individual. There are no absolutes with interpretation. So, one perspective can argue well that the best way of attacking a 'theme and variation' structure would be to highlight the underlying wholeness at the architectural level. Another, just as valid argument can be posed that a pianist can take liberties with tempos and key changes and can direct our attention to the individuality of each variation, giving the impression of many pieces, sublimating the underlying connections in favor of variety on the surface layer. These are both valid methods and you will find that pianists sway between these two perspectives; not always clearly and sometimes within the same piece.
Gould was intensely aware of and fascinated by structure. His intellect could hold within his awareness the overall beginning and end of a piece and derive a musical philosophy for where he felt the composer might have wished to traverse. He would not always agree with his own perception, giving credence perhaps to his own, sometimes extreme philosophical inclinations towards exposition. That is the endless charm of GG's mind.
Perahia is a superb pianist with great talent and sensitivity. I have enjoyed his Bach playing for many years and consider his interpretations to be of the best thought out and expounded on record. Hewitt as well is superb. These great Bach players will all consider Bach deeply and through their study and meditations they will produce results that will all be different. In short, whatever resonates with your sensitivities, with your heart and mind is what you gravitate to and repeatedly. For most of us, GG tickles, delights, enlightens and stimulates, but his was not the only way. He had no copyright on bright ideas.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Kpapademas
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:24 AM
To: Singh; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: [F_minor] GG's GVs versus the world
Hi Mr. Singh - It appeared to me, at any rate, that the commentators were not well-versed in either of Glenn Gould's versions of the Goldberg Variations. I think they should have listened to the GG "interview" with Tim Page (that came with the "State of Wonder" CD).
In a message dated 08/07/09 15:54:53 Central Daylight Time, email@example.com writes:
_______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please advise me (by return e-mail or otherwise) immediately. Ce courrier électronique est confidentiel et protégé. L'expéditeur ne renonce pas aux droits et obligations qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce message ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le (les) destinataire(s) désigné(s) est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courrier électronique par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser immédiatement, par retour de courrier électronique ou par un autre moyen.