Re: GG: Great Genius

[Gregory Barton <barton@mozart.inet.co.th>]

Bradley P Lehman wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, David Libby and Steve Burkholder wrote:
> 
> > >   Why exactly are you here? 

Why is any of us here? We must all, including Brother Lehman, have some obsessive quality in common to join.


My criticism of Mr Lehman is his use of the expression "inherent in the music", which is a nonsense. And what 
is an "imposed concept"? A concept is a concept. Too subtle for my meagre magnum.

But you gotta hand it to him for stirring up a bitofa hornet's nest. And for going against the mood of the 
list, which does, from time to time, appear rather adulatory, perhaps even to the point of being uncritical. 

Too bad he backs down when faced with a bit of opposition. Come on Brad! These aren't just *opinions*? Back in 
the ring!




gb




You do not seem to care for Glenn Gould or show any particular respect for his work.

> > I second this.  I wonder, also, with so many criticisms of a great
> > performer why we haven't heard any of your great recordings and how you
> > would do things better.  It is one thing to have an opinion and another to
> > tear down something that others greatly appreciate.  Maybe you are on the
> > wrong mailing list.
> 
> If this list is designed for us all to worship at the holy altar of St.
> Glenn, as faithful disciples who believe everything the man did was
> infallible and unquestionable, then I'm indeed on the wrong list and
> should go crawl back under my rock.
> 
> If instead (as I believe) it's a forum to discuss the work and life of a
> controversial artist, then why is a careful and contextual assessment of
> that artist's work out of place?  I suspect that GG would have *delighted*
> in having people wrestle with his work 15 years after his death.  That
> only proves his significance as a provocative artist.  What's the problem?
> 
> If you'd like to hear "how I would do things better" in these particular
> pieces, then by all means please offer me a recording contract and sponsor
> the necessary release time from my day job, so I can go make recordings.
> I'd be glad to do so.  Meanwhile, I thought it might be helpful to point
> out some other existing recordings which I think are particularly good.  I
> find something to appreciate and enjoy in almost every recording of
> anything, by anyone.
> 
> I thought I said some very highly complimentary things about GG yesterday,
> especially with regard to his great ability to bring the music to a wide
> audience.  And his interpretations are always thought-provoking and
> consistently interesting; I've heard at least 90% of his recordings.  I
> have tremendous respect for them (and for GG himself) in that regard:
> they illuminate the works in new ways.  (Whether that illuminative
> lighting is always appropriate is a different and more subjective
> question.)
> 
> If you guys think I have no appreciation and respect for GG or his work,
> you're simply reading me incorrectly.  If I thought his recordings and
> writings weren't worth hearing, or not thought-provoking, I simply
> wouldn't take the time to say anything about them, and I certainly
> wouldn't have gone out to buy them.
> 
> >
> > Another thing that disturbs me, after years in music school, why there is
> > an opinion that an artist has no right to express himself through his
> > favorite music.  I really like Gould and liked him even more when I found
> > that he approached a piece differently every time he sat behind the
> > keyboard.  Besides, who is to say exactly what it is that Bach wanted,
> > considering that he hasn't been around for awhile.  Also, who would want 30
> > different recordings of a piece being played exactly the same every time?
> > Might as well program this stuff into your PC and listen to that over and
> > over again.
> 
> I thought it made it very clear up front in both the Art of Fugue
> comparisons and the Goldberg comparisons: these assessments are my own
> *opinions* from many years of hearing, playing, and studying the works
> (and I acknowledged that "your mileage may vary" in both: everybody hears
> things differently).  I was trying to point out, with specific reasons,
> why GG's way with the music is not the only convincing way to do it, and
> why I find that some of his choices are sometimes *less* convincing (to
> me) than those of some artists.
> 
> My own opinions about these GG recordings have changed over the years, and
> that's where they are right now.  This obviously isn't a scientific
> investigation; it's an informally philosophical contemplation of art.  If
> you think my opinions are not *a* perceptive way (among many) to assess
> and appreciate GG's art, well, just ignore me.  And if you're more moved
> than I am by his late Bach recordings, fine.
> 
> GG's work has more readily identifiable personality in it than the work of
> most other performing musicians.  My main objection is to the times when I
> feel that GG is doing more to the music than it would require to come off
> convincingly; when he's highlighting it too emphatically with his own
> personality, getting in the way of my enjoyment of the composer's work.
> And that enjoyment of the composer's work typically comes from a range of
> experiences: hearing various performances, reading the score, reading
> history about it, playing it myself if possible, and comparing it with
> other works by that composer and his/her contemporaries.  If the way GG
> manipulates a piece (for whatever reason) doesn't line up very readily
> with the rest of the contextual experiences about that piece, it's worth
> arguing about.  Again, that merely points to its significance as art: it
> has something to say.
> 
> Sometimes I think GG distorted things to the point of distraction, as if
> he perhaps believed the composer needed his extra intervention and help
> (either that, or he merely wanted to draw attention to himself).  GG's
> distortion can be highly interesting and illuminating in itself, sure.
> But didn't GG have his character Teddy Slutz say something like "Well,
> y'know, the way he plays it there, it ain't subtle."?  On days when I
> don't want to hear GG's distracting interposition, I just go listen to
> somebody else who injects less personality into it.
> 
> If I'm trying to offer any words of wisdom here (for what they're worth),
> they'd be: "Beware of letting GG's interpretations and written opinions be
> the *only* way you get to know a piece...you might be unknowingly getting
> a skewed picture from the artistic choices he imposes on the music."
> Meanwhile, taken in careful doses, those performances can be highly
> enjoyable and fulfilling in their own right.
> 
> On the other hand, if anyone insists that GG's work is _sui generis_, and
> that direct comparison with anyone else's work is ultimately meaningless,
> that's OK too.
> 
> Bradley Lehman ~ Harrisonburg VA, USA ~ 38.44N+78.87W
> bpl@umich.edu ~ http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/