Re: Post '81 Gould

[Sara Meneses <samenese@du.edu>]

Hello List:

I guess this weekend I missed all these really interesting emails, all
have so many good questions, I'll try to be brief.
About whether our purpose in music is first in music in itself











I would say  our                                              . This
primary interest then, makes us go to musicians, composers, etc., whomever
we are interested in. Or at least, that was my own case. I honestly didn't
know anything about Glenn Gould, although I am a musician (not a pianist).
I was born only 6 years before he died, and therefore can not relate to
others' experiences about buying his records or reading his articles.
However I must say that I "found" him, first because I saw him play in the
documentary "the art of piano" and to me he was so amazing, so involved
in the music, he was part of the music, he wasn't playing it, he was on it
(btw, I am referring to the "off the record" part when he plays the c
minor partita). So my interest in him started because to me, that was how
one
should play: one should be part of the music, the music must seem
effortless, you have to love it (or seem to love it), and the rest:
posture, manerisms are totally secondary.
Later, I started to read his articles, and found him so interesting and
more than that, I found that I was learning a lot about music from him
that I decided to keep reading his articles, and then later, when I was
surprised to find out he didn't like some Beethoven I started with the
letters and biographies.
So, I have to say music is first, and then musicians only bring you closer
to the music. Musicians also can serve as "invisible" mentors, and that is
also how Glenn Gould is to me. At the same time I found out about him, my
differences and music taste had grown far apart from my teacher's,
I was constantly questioning myself whether I was just weird or what, but
even when I don't always agree with Gould, I find many common things with
him, specially in music taste.
for Paige, I also didn't like Ostwald's book. I think it has interesting
information, but Ostwald manipulates the information to his own
conclusions, which we know are not always the right ones. And yes, He
wasn't as close to Gould, as he wanted to be.


I don't think it is fair to say that Gould was not an scholar at
all.
I am sure he chose to play the way he wanted because it seemed better,
to him. He did not want to copy anyone, he always wanted to be
original, and that doesn't mean that he didn't read
historical treatises. I don't think he hated tradition, or let it be
dammed, that is just such an uggly word to use. However, he was a well
prepared musician, constatly asking himself questions, investigating about
music, and he was driven by curiosity to find things out. He certainly
didn't have a degree in musicology, but he was an scholar in his own way.
I personally don't think that finishing a graduate program in keyboard
would make one the most qualified to judge other's way of playing. Finishing a
school degree doesn't neccesarily make you smarter or more prepared. I
don't have anything against schools, but proffesors and doctors are not
always open-minded, either, and the way they manipulate information
sometimes is just amazing.
And who cares about the critics? are they the ones who play?, are they
performers?...
and for real scholarship you have to go to a university?


 Sara M.