Re: C.B.C.piano-chickering

[mwilliamson@alston.com]

     Well, you will probably get a more detailed response from 
     some of the hard-core GG scholars on our list, but no 
     question he looked for a very responsive action with a 
     signficantly lighter touch than you find on other 
     instruments, particularly those made in the last 10 or 15 
     years.  To some degree, he seemed to be willing to sacrifice 
     sound to action.  I have seen him quoted as saying that he 
     wasn't even that wild about the sound of the piano, that it 
     was simply the most convenient means of expressing is 
     musical ideas.
     
     Recently there has been some discussion about the damage to 
     his instrument at one point in his career.  With respect to 
     that, I have seen him quoted as saying that after the 
     instrument was rebuilt, it had the heavier feel of a newer 
     instrument, and that he had compensated in his recordings by 
     playing certain things at a slower tempo than he would have 
     had the instrument not been damaged.
     
     
        

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: C.B.C.piano-chickering
Author:  apollo@toronto.planeteer.com at internet
Date:    1/15/97 12:59 AM


I've been to C.B.C. (Glenn Gould) studio here in Toronto and a few times 
I had the opportunity(when nobody was looking) to play on his piano. If 
I'm not mistaken it was his Chickering.  The touch was quite surprising 
compared to my own piano.  I felt that Glenn's piano had a quite light 
touch(or maybe it is because I think mine is too heavy). But does 
anybody know what kind of weight or sound Glenn looked for when playing 
a piano?
     
                     R.R.