RE: GG

[jerry and judy <jerbidoc@zianet.com>]

>> At 03:09 PM 10/5/98 -0400, Williamson, Mark wrote:
>> >Yes, charlatan, that is the word that comes to mind.  It sounds like he
>> >is playing the piano, but he is not.
>>
>> He was playing games.
>>
>> dbk
>>
>
>Not unlike you're doing.
>Don't subscribe to a Glenn Gould newsgroup
>just for the sake of tearing him down --
>it's the original fart in church, pal.
>--John

Mr. Gould took big chances with his conceptions and he must have known that
people who weren't following, for whatever reason, what he was trying to
do, would become derogatory and maybe even hostile, BUT I believe he had to
do it!  A la Schoenberg, he dearly loved music and he wanted to make a
large contribution to it, even if he knew he would be roundly criticised.
Some say Schoenberg wrote ugly music and some say GG was a charlatan or at
least eccentric to a fault.  For me, both men were striving against
traditions that they had found to have gotten off-the-track aesthetically.
 The standard pieces that GG played in a 'new way' most always were equally
valid, after you got used to them (and understood his reasons).  But
sometimes, as with some JSB, Byrd and Schoenberg, it was a whole new world
of possibilities to explore, especially for an amateur pianist like myself!
Isn't this what art is about?  Do you believe that art is more the sum of
its elements?
 The development of artistically contained (or constrained) ambiguity down
through history MUST be nurtured and encouraged (but not too much!).  Glenn
achieved this balance with his high ideals, his seriousness and his
formidable technique.  IMO, his jokes and his (few) obviously 'satirical'
interpretations were a predictable consequence of the 'unhealthy' aspects
of his life, but even in these cases, he had 'valid' reasons for his
particularized expressions.

Jerry