Re: GG: musical revisionism (GGL, June 22, 1968)

[Mary Jo Watts <mwatts@rci.rutgers.edu>]

Junichi and everyone,

Here's my paraphrase of the problematic prose of our pianist pal:

Junichi Miyazawa wrote:
> 

> However, I am not sure that there's
> all that much to be said about Liszt the transcriber, that
> hasn't already been said via the interminable comments
> of Mr. Harold Schoenberg and his undoubted British
> counterparts.  Perhaps rather a discussion, if there is one,
> and if we have a span greater than one hour available,
> of sufficient latitude as to include
> the whole nation of musical revisionism, would be
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> appropriate, in which case, the examples would not
> have to come necessarily, certainly not exclusively,
> from the symphony itself, and
> thus the better surprises
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> which Liszt has in store would not lose their edge prematurely.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ===============
> 

> What does "the whole nation of musical revisionism" mean?

It's not clear from the context of this letter.  "Nation" wouldn't be an
apt term.  Maybe it's a typographical error for "notion"-- this seems
likely given how poorly typed many of GG's letters were and how awful
his handwriting was! 
[If it *is* supposed to be "nation" maybe it refers to one of
Schoenberg's theories about Liszt-- I'm not familiar with his take on
the issue of the transcriptions.]

> What does the "whole nation" stand for?

Given my theory that it should read "whole notion of musical
revisionism" it would make sense that Gould would have talked about the
art of transcription-- that Liszt wrote a very literal score without
much concern for the limitations and qualities of the keyboard.  Of
course GG, being the genius he was <smile>, would demonstrate how he had
fixed Liszt's problematic score with various techniques...  '68...when
did GG record the Wagner transcriptions?   

> Does the "musical revisionism" refer to Lszt's transcribing
> symphonies into piano music?

I would think so, yes.  The problem with this theory, though, is that GG
often made note of how (amusingly) literal Liszt's transcriptions were. 
Perhaps in this context he means *his own* "revisions" of List's
transciptions of Beet's symphony.


> I don't understand the usage of "include".
> In what to include the "whole nation"?
> 

Try reading the sentence like this:
"If we have sufficient control over the length and the content of the
program, we can 'include' in the program a discussion of the 'whole
notion' of musical revisionism." 


> Does anyone paraphrase the last part of the quotation?
> I don't understand.
> 

Do you mean the quotation about John Donne?

> 
> P.S.  In the letter, there is a "Dr. Donne":
> "Do you, for instance, want programs embodying 'a great
> quanitity of thinking' as was said for Dr. Donne...."
> Who is Dr. Donne?
> 

"Do you want programs with a 'complex intellectual content,' (a phrase
which was used to describe the writing of Dr. Donne?)"

John Donne, was a marvelous Metaphysical poet and Dean of St. Paul's
(thus the title "Dr.").

See the following URLs for more info:

http://www.salc.wsu.edu/classes/english/life.html

http://www.nortexinfo.net/McDaniel/d-relig.htm

Gould meant to ask if the addressee wanted a program with sophisticated
musical analysis or a simple demonstrative approach.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regards,
Mary Jo