Re: Shouldn't this list be called G minor (for GG)?

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

>On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:41:10 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> With his
>>special insights and his virtuosity, these performances/interpretations are
>>on a par with the 'perfect' conceptualizations of their original creators,
>>in my opinion.
>
>Eh ? what do you mean by this ? What if Horowitz played them ? Would it be the
>same.
>
>Neil


Not for me.  Horowitz sounds like every other traditional player, except
for his unique romantic soul and his 'tone' etc.  :)  But I'm not referring
to command of the instrument or manner of playing.  I was trying to convey
what hidden 'music' GG's unconventional interpretations evoke for me, when
they're successful.  They show what is possible in JSB and Haydn
(Beethoven, Byrd etc.)!   They uncover new relationships, which can't be
put into words, but you can follow them in the score and you can play with
them at the piano!   With Horowitz or Rubinstein you don't get new snippets
of the threads of the music.  The playing is usually glorious, but they
don't try to bring out parts in an unconventional way or add enthusiastic
'notes' or seize upon unusual tempos, for example.

Now, whether I want to incorporate aspects of GG's approaches into my
playing (where possible) is another question.  I don't, it wouldn't be
workable.  He's a whole package of eccentricities and it's all or nothing!

Jerry