[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Gould listeners
Bravo!!!
Allan MacLeod wrote:
> I actaully find A. Thayer's question rather insulting and certainly
> condescending. I am an extreme non-musician in his sense, but my
> ability to appreciate a performance is not thereby impaired. As the
> saying goes, you don't have to be a cobbler to assess the quality or
> fitness of a pair of shoes. You don't have to be a pastry chef to
> appreciate a great cake.
> I have been working on a rather lengthy message to f-minor about the
> current debate over Gould's orthodoxy. In it, one of the claims I make
> is that Gould is not a pianist's or musician's pianist; he is a poet's
> or writer's pianist. Gould did not like professional musicians for
> exactly the reasons that the great debate of recent days illustrates.
> He enjoyed sharing enthusiasms with people who were interested in ideas
> and not questions of technique or performance style. Hence his total
> indifference to the question of instrument. He had a sound in mind and
> whether is was authentic or orthodox or not mattered not at all to him.
> As one of our correspondents recently put it, stop burying Gould beneath
> norms.
> Why am I attracted to Gould? For many reasons. For one thing I was
> raised in Toronto and knew the Toronto that Gould did; I too liked the
> zoo and the Islands and , living near the old CBC complex on Jarvis, I
> would sometimes see him. Gould was simply part of Toronto. He would
> write pieces for The Globe and Mail; he would act as a radio host. I
> too, like him, lived through Toronto's emergence from its
> Presbyterian/Methodist image of Toronto the Good to its vibrant modern
> complex self.
> Gould's incredible digital dexterity, his ability to make each part or
> line in a contrapuntal work sing independently and distinctly, the
> ability to bring out the inner voices, also attracted me. His
> performances were virually visual in their ability to make you see as
> well as hear the independent voices at play. Bach made sense , the
> greatness of his skill was apparent, when you listended to his playing.
> There are also the conversations, many transcribed into print. When CBS
> released the 81 Goldbergs it included a second disc of a lengthy
> interview with Gould about this performance. The sheer brilliance and
> daring of the conception as he described it added immeasurably to the
> enjoyment a performance that was alrteady outstanding.
> Third, there are his writings. I can think of no pianist except for
> Rosen and to a much lesser extent Brendel who is articulate in
> expressing the ideas behind his performance. This, of course, must make
> performances by artists like this much more pleasurable and enlightening
> than by those who feel they have no obligation to explain themselves. I
> should also include Kuerti in my list. I heard him perform the
> Beethoven sonatas at Hart House in 1974-75 and each performance was
> preceded by a lengthy, illuminating lecture. These were later expanded
> upon in his notes for the recordings.
> Fourthly, he could be very funny. The liner notes to the Hindemith
> sonatas as well as his Grieg performances were gems as well as the
> "conversation" with Ken Haslem(?) about his Wagner performances. What's
> wrong with being humorous and excelling at more than one medium? Why
> should this diminish the validity of his appeal to non-musicians? And,
> of course, his fantasy shows us what he thought of critics and
> musicologists.
> And yes, he was a complex, contradictory and infuriating man. He was
> interesting. But that would only explain big sales in biographies and
> not an interest in his music. His records sell because anyone can tell
> these are magnificent recordings. I trust the professionals who tell me
> that they are also unorthodox and I can hear that for myself. That is
> why I tell my friends to buy Gould but also buy a performance by Brendel
> or Perahia or Uchida or Argerich of the same work.
> In the era of CDs with so many superb orthodox pianists it is refreshing
> to listen to an imagination at play in a performance. Ultimately, it
> will be we extreme non-musicians who keep classical music alive. We can
> recognize talent. We do not need to hear about their private lives on
> ET or whatever. Many of us have extensive record collections. We can
> detect differences, recognize satisfying performances, and we can read.
> So, don't look down at us. Without us, classical music is dead. And if
> sometimes a little gossip helps to sell a record, then maybe it's a good
> thing.
> Allan