Re: GG: Goldbergs on synthesizer; non-homogeneous fingering

["R Johansen" <rjohanse@mail.tds.net>]

Hi All,

The guy's name is Joel Spiegelman, and my copy is an LP (I don't think it
was ever issued on CD); East-West Records 90927-1. It's from 1988.

I entirely agree with Bradley; it's decidedly one of the most interesting
Goldbergs ever. In particular, it throws a sidelight on the normally more
hidden polyphony and brings out detail that would otherwise require a study
of the score to discover. On a few variations (notably the repeats of No.
11) Spiegelman adds additional voices; I don't particularly like this, but
I think my reservation may be more cerebrally than aesthetically
founded...) Another, perhaps more serious reservation about this recording
is Spiegelman's apparent fondness for timbres; different ones, and
sometimes a LOT of them at the same time. At times this creates a kind of
Spike Jones effect, and it can take some listening to get past that
"comedy"-feeling.

Roy

----------
> From: Bradley P Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>
> To: f_minor <f_minor@email.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: RE: GG: Goldbergs on synthesizer; non-homogeneous fingering
> Date: Wednesday, July 30, 1997 11:56 AM
> 
> On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, R Johansen wrote:
> 
> > I find it very peculiar that a man who coupled the Goldbergs (performed
on
> > the piano) with the 14 canons on the Goldberg theme performed on a
> > _synthesizer_ can muster the courage to criticize anyone for
> > "overestimat[ing] Bach's 'indifference about instruments'". Mr.
Takahashi's
> > recording was made in 1976, which was well before any decent-sounding
> > synthesizer, and his synth work wasn't quite W. Carlos standard... It
is
> > awful!
> 
> I haven't heard this particular Takahashi album, but I've been favorably
> impressed with everything else of his I've heard, especially his
recording
> of John Cage's "Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano." 
> 
> My main reason for writing today is to mention a different recording of
> the Goldberg Variations themselves (not the canons) on synthesizer.  It
> was issued more than five years ago with the unfortunate and misleading
> title "New Age Bach."  It's not new-agey at all, but instead a
perceptive,
> creative, entertaining performance of the Goldbergs, with quite a bit of
> tasteful variety, and not in Carlos or Tomita style, either.  (Wish I
> could remember the performer's name, but I can't think of it at the
> moment...my copy is at home.  I think it was Jeffrey something.) I don't
> know if it's still in print or not.  It was on Musicmasters (I think) and
> maybe also Musical Heritage Society labels. 
> 
> Several years ago I lent it to a friend (another professional
> harpsichordist) who has played and taught the GV's, and who has heard
> dozens of different recordings.  He gave it back saying it was the best
> performance he's ever heard on any instrument, and he had rushed out to
> get his own copy. 
> 
> -----
> 
> Junichi's comment about Takahashi:
> 
> > (By the way, Takahashi is now seeking for non-homogeneous 
> > fingering on the keyboard to revive the
> > character of each finger, which makes music a "physical" achievement.)
> 
> This seems to me to be a worthy goal.  It's certainly a part of essential
> harpsichord, organ, and clavichord technique in much of the repertoire:
in
> numerous treatises and traditions, keyboard players were instructed as to
> which fingers are "good" and "bad" and to be used on strong or weak notes
> in the phrases.  It changed from era to era and country to country, so
the
> well-informed performer needs a variety of techniques to deal with the
> different types of music.  
> 
> One chooses a fingering to get a specific sound, in addition to
historical
> "correctness." For example, typically in Elizabethan music such as that
of
> the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book I would play an ascending RH scale
> 3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4 with 3 being the strong finger.  If the passage is
> especially fast, I might choose 1-2-3-4-3-4-3-4.  In fast Italianate
music
> I might choose 1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4, with the second 1 being a quick shift of
> the whole hand, not a passing-under of the thumb, and because I *want* a
> natural accent on each group of four notes.  1-2-3-1-2-3-4-5 (modern
piano
> fingering, with an attempt to make everything equal) gives the wrong
> sound.  When I quit piano in favor of the other three instruments above,
I
> had to unlearn those pianistic habits *and* unlearn the pianistic
> aesthetic...it's definitely worth the change! 
> 
> Similarly, string and wind treatises emphasized the essential variety
> note-to-note from bowing and tongueing techniques.  Not only the
> articulation, but the length and strength of notes didn't have to be
> equal, and the music is far more vital if the notes *aren't* "created
> equal."  It's a vital part of the aesthetic, especially in pre-Bach
> repertoire but also including Bach.  The notes are like the syllables of
> speech: always different one from the other, and combined into words,
> sentences, and paragraphs.  Musical rhetoric. 
> 
> The modern tendency to smooth things out on almost all instruments (all
> fingers equal in strength, equal up-bow and down-bow, constant vibrato,
> even tongueings, equal-sized half steps, etc., etc.) does a disservice to
> music which was written with the understanding that strong and weak notes
> are to be celebrated for their natural differences (rather than
> steamrolled out with no distinction). 
> 
> So Takahashi's goal here seems to me to be very far from anything Gould
> ever achieved or tried to achieve.  GG sought to minimize or even remove
> altogether the effect of any physical playing technique, with its
inherent
> natural differences that occur note-to-note.  He tried to give us
> mentally-constructed performances, not tied to realization on any
specific
> instrument.  (Remember, he got on his own case for having recorded the
> fifth Bach partita too pianistically, with too many "hairpins."  And he
> claimed to have *never* written a fingering into any of his scores.) 
> 
> GG's musicality was completely modern in that sense of wanting equality
of
> notes as a mental aesthetic goal.  Whether that works convincingly is a
> separate question...I think his playing was _sui generis_ enough that it
> drew the attention elsewhere, away from any traditions.  It has to be
> judged on its internal merits, rather than as representative of anything
> "correct" or "incorrect."  That was one of his main points, right? 
> 
> Yes, I'm also one of those folks who think GG's '81 Goldbergs are *not*
an
> improvement over the '55, '54 (CBC), or '59 (Salzburg) sets.  My current
> order of preference: '59, '55, '54, '81.  His 1981 style bugs me, in
large
> part because of that *&@#$&^* inhuman and unnatural general evenness of
> notes, the neglect of rhetorical phrases.  The earlier performances sound
> more graceful to me. 
> 
> I was amused to see in the newest _Fanfare_ the reviewer remarks that
> large-scale rhetoric eluded GG in the Chromatic Fantasy.  Yup,
definitely. 
> 
> Bradley Lehman ~ Harrisonburg VA, USA ~ 38.44N+78.87W
> bpl@umich.edu ~ http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/
> 
> 
>