Re[2]: GG, Helfgott & Dutton

["Mark Williamson" <mwilliamson@alston.com>]

     Well, I certainly agree with this, and I think it would make 
     a big difference if the player were a good friend even if I 
     had never worried that he or she wouldn't play again.  
     Nothing like intimate music-making, you know.
     
     As to authenticity, I belong to the old-fashioned school 
     that considers Mr. Gould a pioneer of Bach authenticity.  
     (There were others, to be sure.)  Although he was certainly 
     a willful performer who would play things the way he wanted, 
     they are still much closer to 18th century performance 
     practice than 19th century piano transcriptions of Bach, for 
     example.  Maybe that's what makes these records so exciting, 
     that they are simultaneously true to the composer yet boldly 
     innovative.
     
     But there has certainly been a lot of progress in period 
     performance in the last few years; I don't deny that.
     
     Mark


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: GG, Helfgott & Dutton
Author:  Robert Kunath <kunath@hilltop.ic.edu> at internet
Date:    5/28/97 12:30 PM


Dear Fellow F-Minors,
     
        David Helfgott doubtless deserves quite a bit of the severe
criticism that he has received, and, as Kristen points out, it's 
especially well-deserved when it is a response to the over-inflated 
claims made by those seeking to market him as a music commodity.
     
        But that should not obscure for us the fact that many people like
or dislike music according to their subjective/emotional responses. That's 
especially the case for those (like myself) who are not musicians, and who 
cannot appreciate the technical and structural aspects of a performance as 
well as those like Arin, who can draw the distinction between a brilliant 
performance and a bad-sounding instrument.  A lot of people have come to 
feel that they *know* David Helfgott as a result of the movie Shine, and 
so his performances have an emotional resonance for them much greater than 
some perfect but anonymous performance by a master musician.
     
        I don't think that we can deny the legitimacy of that response,
even if we do not share it.  Ask yourself which performance would touch 
you more: a brilliant Scarlatti sonata played by a supremely-gifted 
virtuoso, or a substandard performance by a good friend whom you never 
thought would play the piano again.  I don't expect that there's much 
comparison!  (Though I would be happy to admit that the latter case is 
more an emotional than a musical experience).
     
        And, at least for me, similar considerations apply to GG.  I think
I have learned enough over the last 15 years of listening to him to 
appreciate that he is a brilliant pianist.  But what touches me most about 
many of his performances is my sense of how the music he plays expresses 
who he was.  I have friends who tell me that Gould's Bach is willful and 
inauthentic, and my response is that I don't really care.  There are more 
than enough outstanding musicians who play Bach "authentically," and I'm 
happy to own some of their recordings.  But I love listening to Gould's 
Bach, and as much for what I learn about Gould as what I learn about Bach. 
I can well understand how people who feel a connection to David Helfgott 
don't really care whether it's objectively "good" Rachmaninoff or not: 
when you feel that you know and like a person, and know that he had to 
fight for every note he plays, it's not so important that all the notes be 
right.
     
        All the best,
     
        Robert
     
On Sun, 25 May 1997, Arin Murphy wrote:
     
> Hail Tim!
>
> I saved the DD article until I had time to read it thoughtfully instead of 
> skimming it. I'm glad I did; it needs room.
>
> I'm not sure if this is odd or not, but I hadn't heard of DH until Shine
> came out and a slew of books and recordings were released. I've managed to 
> avoid both the movie and any recordings - though I was tempted to pick up 
> the soundtrack; after reading DD's article, I think I'm glad I didn't.
>
> If GG did vocalise during recitals, chances are the audience didn't hear 
> it overmuch, nor was it intrusive (or so say all of us who like GG
> becuase of his vocalising, right guys? :). It sounds like DH did
> all this with the aim to intrude on his own performance, to get that
> reaction out of the audience. As for musical technique, well, having never 
> heard him I can't say... but if DD is right, then DH's attraction is his
> novelty, not his genius. I think his audiences might be confusing genius 
> with eccentricity, no? Our friend GG was both. If you're a genius,
> eccentricity is allowed, expected, even encouraged; if you're eccentric, 
> genius doesn't necessarily follow. The technical merit of GG's musical
> performances (I call them that to distinguish them from stage antics) 
> pardons his odd performance behaviour.
>
> It might also do to remember who the audiences are, as DD points out. DH's 
> audiences are filmgoers, not necessarily musical aficionados. GG's
> audiences were often knowledgeable concertgoers. If one collected a panel 
> of conductors and music critics and gave them a performance by GG and DH
> to judge, it sounds like GG would win out for technical merit and artistic 
> impression. (What is this - a skating competition?)
>
> Granted, performers often perceive that their audiences need some sort of 
> visual hook to pull them in - an appeal to more than one sense, so to
> speak. Witness violin players who close their eyes and sway all over the 
> stage. Granted, closing one's eyes helps focus (been there, done that), 
> but excessive swaying damages technique (unless you're really, *really*
> good) and in fact can ruin the experience for some concertgoers. Again, I 
> don't want this to sound elitist, but there are two kinds of concertgoers: 
> the ones who want to see/hear something impressive for their money (you
> know - the ones who want to hear lots of quick high notes and who think 
> the faster it is the harder to play, whereas I'm of the opinion that if 
> you can grab an audience during a slow movement, creating that perfect
> atmosphere where you don't dare breathe, then you're a heck of a lot more 
> talented), and those who can appreciate talent and musicality no matter
> how it's packaged. I went to a chamber music concert a few months ago, and 
> the violin soloist's violin had a nasty wolf-tone on the highest string,
> so it shrilled and bit back and all sorts of things. I loved her
> performance; she had the most animated interpretation I'd ever heard of 
> Mozart's 5th violin concerto, and a terrific musical sense; but most of 
> the people around me filed out muttering about how terrible she was and
> how badly she'd played, simply becuase of the unfortunate response of her 
> instrument that day. If I'd been her I'd have been humming desperately,
> trying to atone for the deficiency of my instrument :). 
>
> So DD's article didn't seem all that surprising to me. I could relate to 
> it without truly knowing anything about DH. Granted, I should acquaint
> myself with his work to be fair; but DD's `review' was so matter-of-fact, 
> so evidently not an attack, that I don't really feel the need.
>
> Besides, the money can be better spent on all those GG CDs I don't yet 
> own. Kirsten - you have my deepest sympathy. And I can understand how
> aggravating yet comforting it must be to know that the idiots who stole
> your life didn't have the culture necessary to recognise some of your most 
> valuable possessions.
>
> So. There's my tuppence. Anyone ever heard DH himself, or hear recordings? 
> How off-the-mark was DD?
>
>
> Arin Murphy
> Student, Savoyard,
> Bookseller, Cellist-By-Night
>
>         --------------
>
> "It really isn't difficult if you give your whole mind to it." 
>                                 -Lady Angela, Act 1
>                                    Gilbert & Sullivan's `Patience' 
>
>