Re: GG...and that harpsichord (old messages from fminor)

[Jim Morrison <jim_morrison@sprynet.com>]

Hi fminor,

I hope this doesn't violate the list manners, but I've pasted some
of the old messages concerning the Handel recording
for all of us who'd like to read what members in the past had to say about
it.  Once again, Bradley is a generous voice.  I've yet to find in the
archives a serious, detailed defense of this recording.
The votes in favor of it seem to be of the type "It's fun, I like it."
And that's okay, I kind of like it to.  I think the real judge of how
much you like it though is to listen to the Goldbergs and then the
Handel, then the Partitas and then the Handel, then the English
Suites and then the Handel, then Beethoven's Fourth then the Handel,
then the Bryd/Gibbon and then the Handel, then the Mozart and then the
Handel, then the Brahms and then the Handel, then the Inventions and then
the Handel, then the Schoenberg and then the Handel.

I would be amazed if this recording was anywhere near the top of
a person's list of favorite Glenn Gould cds.  Not that anyone IS saying
that it's a great album.

To put it another way, it's pretty easy to find people who are serious about
Bach specifically and piano playing in general who will say that Gould
played
Bach incredibly well and innovatively on the piano.  I have a deep
suspicion,
though only a suspicion, that it's fairly difficult to find some who takes
Handel
and harpsichord playing seriously to say that the Handel disc is even a
decent
album.  It this is true, what does it say about the recording?

Now onto the more educated opinions.

Jim





To: f_minor@email.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: GG: Handel
From: Bradley P Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 10:29:51 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <v01540b03af0dd99780a8@[207.69.150.5]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Alun Severn asked:

> >I'd swallow my principles however if the h'chord performance of the GFH
> >sonatas is *really* -- **really** -- worth having. Help, as ever,
> >appreciated.
>

Kristen Immoor responded:

>         Assuming that you admire Gould performances more than
> harpsichord music, I'll go ahead and say oh definitely, I think the disc
> is marvellous.

I think that so much depends on what you're looking for.  Gould, being
Gould, had a way of producing some effective musical results despite wacko
"stylistically wrong" interpretations (let's see...the Dispassionata, the
Mozart sonatas, the Chopin sonata, the SLOW Beethoven/Liszt 6th, the
heavy-handed Bach French Suites, the neurotically intense Brahms
rhapsodies, that pointillistic WTC I/1, the Hetu, the ungraceful La Valse,
the Siegfried Idyll's, the Gibbons Salisbury P/G and Italian Ground, the
live Brandenburg 5 in Baltimore...).  He made his work sound convincing,
at least at an intellectual level of interest.  That's where I'd put his
Handel suites: so far out there and harpsichordistically "wrong" that it
can be stylistically excruciating to listen to...but the *musical* results
are enjoyable and interesting, intellectually.  I cringe a lot when
listening to the way he didn't understand the harpsichord at all (few
pianists do, anyway, having not put in the time).  But his performances do
make me hear the music in a new way, and I enjoy all the above-mentioned
recordings.

>         However, let me add that I love it specifically because it has
> alot of "Gould energy." There are some places where he really "slams the
> keys into the beds" as one reviewer negatively put it, but that
> overabundance of energy is exactly what I like about the performance.
> Despite the reserved and "pointillistic" (Gould's word) line that comes
> from a harpsichord, you can really hear the keys being pounded, especially
> in the Gigues. Something about beating up on a harpsichord... very
> exciting.

True, that aspect is visceral.  And it's clear that Gould isn't responding
to what the harpsichord naturally does tonally (at least a good
harpsichord, not necessarily the one he [ab]used)...he just isn't
listening to the harpsichord's ability to sing clear, full tones, with
time to let them bloom.  Instead of hearing a harpsichord playing notes
written by Handel, we hear Gould playing notes written by Handel.  In that
sense, it *musically* works as we hear his interpretations (strong Gould
personality) despite the grotesque way he shoves them through a
harpsichord.

Reminds me of Alfred Cortot's comments about the time he went to play some
of Debussy's works for D's widow and daughter.  He asked Chouchou, "Is
that how your daddy played?" and heard the response, "No, Daddy listened
more."  (I think Cortot's later Debussy recordings are stunning, BTW.)

In the Handel, I think of what Gould *might* have been able to do with
clarity if he had simply staggered the notes a bit more loosely in
contrapuntal textures (as he did sometimes on piano), and slowed most of
the fast movements down, and played with instead of against the
instrument.  In good harpsichord technique, the player feels every pluck
individually (like the sensitivity of playing a lute), and has good
control of the placement of releases as well.  Gould pretty much plays
ON-ON-ON, overdriving the plucks and releases, and not differentiating
much between strong and weak notes.  It's sad, because he certainly had
the finger control to be able to play harpsichord well, if he had chosen
to understand it better.  This Handel recording could have been stunning.
(I'm not very fond of Keith Jarrett's harpsichord efforts, either, for
similar reasons.) As it is, I think it's merely another interesting Gould
record, not a natural musical experience that sounds like Handel.

Little-known harpsichord fact: on a good instrument, one gets a louder,
fuller, richer tone by depressing the keys SLOWLY rather than quickly.
The string gets displaced more before the plectrum lets go, and
reverberates more openly.  This is counter-intuitive to pianists who are
used to having more force = louder.

> Also, the Allemande from the 1st A Major suite is worth the 10
> UKp alone, it is quite beautiful. The WTC is from 1970 CBC TV, and
> performed on the dreaded harpsipiano. Not bad, but his singing is quite
> loud in a few places. All in all, I think this disc sums up an interesting
> non-piano experiment in Gould's career, and is worth owning.

I agree, for those reasons it's worth it.  And some of his treatment of
the "improvise on these chords" sections is astonishing, the way he
chooses to arpeggiate in several speeds at once.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Lehman,




To: f_minor@email.rutgers.edu
Subject: re: GG: influence of harpsichord
From: Bradley P Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 10:57:39 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: f_minor-og@email.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.A32.3.91.970820101132.26859B-100000@smasher.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Sender: owner-f_minor@email.rutgers.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


Comments to several of the postings, which I've digested here:

> From: Rohan Masilamani <romasi@leland.Stanford.EDU> (...)
> my question concerns the influence of the harpsicord on glenn gould's
> playing. i'm currently being audacious enough to attempt to learn the
> "goldberg variations" on harpsicord, hence i've been paying attention to
new
> details in  the gould recordings. even though gould confined his bach
> playing to piano, i've noticed some influences of the harpsicord in his
> playing. his articulated phrasing and use of rubato are not unlike
> techniques used on harpsicord. does anybody know if gould ever made any
> definitive comments on this subject?

Hi Rohan, congrats on working on the GV, which is one of the Everests.
You might also enjoy checking out Hassler's 30 variations on "Einmal ging
ich spazieren," which is a marvelous harpsichord piece (about 35 minutes
long) that is still pretty much unknown.

> From: Rob Haskins <rh@wozzeck.esm.rochester.edu>
> I think that Gould's articulation is in many ways
> totally antithetical to what a harpsichordist would
> do.  GOuld's characteristic non-legato is quite
> uniform, whereas a good harpsichordist would vary
> his/her note lengths from anywhere around 1/4
> length to over-legato.  It is unfortunate that
> Gould's non-legato playing has encouraged some
> harpsichordists to approach articulation in the
> same way.
>
> By the way, as much as I love Gould, I find his
> harpsichord recordings the least satisfying
> musically and technically of his legacy.

I agree 100% with Rob's comments here.  As Our Hero GG tried to be a
harpsichordist, he really had no clue about how to play a harpsichord as
if it were a harpsichord.  He played it as a generic instrument, and (on
the evidence of the recordings, anyway) didn't employ any of the normal
expressive techniques in his touch.  He consistently rammed the jacks into
the rails, with far too heavy a finger action.  And his arbitrary/weird
way with registration in the Handel suites is more reminiscent of certain
organ schools than with any harpsichord traditions.

Didn't GG comment about the Handel recordings that he deliberately tried
to play "against the grain" of harpsichord technique?  I'm wondering if
that comment is not partially a cop-out...he might have been saying that
in part because he frankly couldn't make it sound as if he had harpsichord
technique.  A good harpsichordist plays gently enough on the surface of
the keys to feel every pluck, and has a great variety of release styles
(both with individual notes, and ways to release chords) to fit the music.
On the Handel recording and the WTC excerpts, it sounds as if GG is
pounding away from above the key surface, and he doesn't demonstrate much
variety of release speed.  His particular style of staggering note attacks
(on either the harpsichord or piano) is more a property of GG mental
technique than harpsichordistic technique, where the staggering is done
differently.

> From: Mark Williamson <mwilliamson@alston.com>
>      (...) There are also some
>      "harpsipiano" recordings which I don't own and an organ
>      recording of the Goldberg Variations which I don't own.

Art of Fugue (I-IX only) on organ, not Goldberg Variations.

> From: David Daniel <DanielFamily@worldnet.att.net>
> I don't think GG had any knowledge of "traditional" harpsichord
> articulation/technique, and he had no formal training on the instrument.
>
> He did admit (I think to Kazdin) that he "loved the sound of the
instrument."
> I think he probably liked it for its lack of resonance (the sound dies
away
> _much_ faster than a Steinway) which probably worked well with his
non-legato
> style, and also for its quick touch, or "tactile immediacy."

I wonder if GG ever heard or played a *good* harpsichord, one with real
resonance.  The Wittmayer he recorded on was a factory model, not a
hand-crafted instrument.  For some great articles on the sound of
a good harpsichord, see http://www.dioptra.com/khill/articles/bloom.html
and http://www.dioptra.com/khill/articles/chapone.html

Also, I have a website that compares the sounds of various harpsichords,
including Gould's Wittmayer.  The samples aren't great, but at least
they're all equally discolored by the same sampling program, and I think
some of the variable instrument quality is audibly evident.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/hpsi.html

In addition to a resonant sound, a good harpsichord has an action that is
sensitive to variations of touch and release, much more than most people
realize.  From GG's Handel recording it sounds as if his Wittmayer has an
"either on or off" touch and nothing more.  Or maybe at least part of that
is just GG's lack of harpsichord techique.

> From: Jeff Dods <jdods@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
> Yes, let me second the complaints about the sound of the recording.
> The voice if the instrument is weak and dry, typical of the early
> 20-th century "lets build the harpsichord like a piano" school.
> I beg people not to judge the sound of harpsichords by this recording.

I third the complaints.  :)

Bradley Lehman ~

To: "Michael D. Benedetti" <benedett@bluestone.COM>
Subject: Re: [BACH-LIST] gould
From: Bradley P Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:03:12 -0400 (EDT)
cc: f_minor@email.rutgers.edu
Delivered-To: f_minor-og@email.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980420172659.009d53b0@blustone>
Sender: owner-f_minor@email.rutgers.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Michael D. Benedetti wrote:

> More reasons why Gould's versions are completely invalid:
(...)
> 5. Gould didn't understand that music is not supposed to be about fun or
> creativity, it's supposed to be like a Civil War reenactment--you're
> supposed to produce the exact circumstances of an ancient event. (Don't
> bother asking to what end.)
>
> I sure wish all the period instrumentation wankers would have
> had the chance to hear the songs performed by Mozart himself. Cause then
> they'd all be dead and we could enjoy the modern world for what it is.

That must have been some caffeine high, as you claim.  I hope it didn't
damage you permanently.

Meanwhile, I suspect you don't understand *why* some of us out here who
have doctorates in "period instrumentation wankery" (as you would put it)
choose to use those instruments to make music.  It has nothing to do with
recreating what the composer or his audiences might have heard, a
reenactment.  It has everything to do with being convincing, and develong
an environment that makes the job as natural as possible.  It's becoming
trained oneself in the same way the earlier musicians were trained (and on
similar instruments), so one's repertoire of musical gestures is
automatically appropriate to the music being played and one is then free
to play musically and passionately on top of that.  *That's* authenticity.

Using the modern piano for some music that wasn't written for it *can*
work, in the same way that it *is* possible (sometimes) to use a pair of
pliers when a wrench is called for.  But the correct tool makes the job a
whole lot easier, because the gestures of using that tool give good
results without any wasted effort (and with less danger of
damaging/distorting the item being worked on).  A tool that is appropriate
and of good quality offers a range of options not available when one is
using a less-appropriate tool.  Sure, a person using the wrong tool can
get "authentic" (convincingly musical) results, but just has to work
harder at it to overcome the limitations of that tool.  And the results
might be strikingly different from the results obtained otherwise.

In GG's liner notes to the Bach Partitas (on one of the LP issues) he
points this out, too, writing that it's so much easier to bring out Bach's
lines clearly on a harpsichord than a piano because of the "marvelous
clarity" inherent to the instrument.  That he succeeds in doing so on the
piano, the wrong instrument, is a tribute to GG's skill, not to the piano.
The piano offers *different* possibilities of expressing the music; not
necessarily better ones just because the instrument was invented later.
In the same way, the modern Steinway or Yamaha or Boesendorfer etc.
offers different possibilities from the Viennese Stein that Mozart knew.
It's a whole lot easier (in some ways) to play Mozart on a Stein than on a
Steinway, because the possibilities immediately available are more
appropriate to that type of keyboard writing, and the player's options
playing in the heat of the moment fit more directly into the style.

On musical terms, GG's (or anyone else one would pick: Gustav Leonhardt's,
Malcolm Bilson's, Virgil Fox's, Leopold Stokowski's, Swingle Singers',
...) success or failure comes down to the question: do their performances
communicate well with *today's* audiences?  It really doesn't matter what
Mozart would have thought of the way Bilson or GG or the Swingles do
Mozart's music, because Mozart is dead.  Does Bilson play Mozart well?  I
think so, because he makes Mozart sound like a good composer.  That's a
modern aesthetic judgment on my part, having nothing to do with what I
would think Mozart would have wanted.  Incidentally, I happen to *like*
GG's Mozart performances, but again that's an aesthetic judgment about
their own merits, again having nothing to do with what I think Mozart
would have wanted.  He makes the music sound interesting and whimsical,
which I think are good traits a composer can put into music.

I happen to hate the way GG played Ravel's "La Valse," because I think it
sounds graceless and turgid (and drowned in a hailstorm of notes), the
opposite of the way I think the piece ought to go to make a good musical
effect (and again, that's based on my expectations/reactions as a
listener, not on Ravel's "intentions").  GG in this case makes Ravel sound
like a mediocre composer, while Ravel sounds wonderful when this piece is
played by Pennario or Simon or Lortie (et al)...therefore GG's way with
this piece isn't "authentic" even though he's using an appropriate
instrument just as the other players are.

I also hate the way GG played Handel on the harpsichord, because he makes
the harpsichord sound silly and the pieces sound driven and brutal, and
this doesn't give a good impression of Handel (Handel with a chain saw?).
In this case GG used the right physical tool but the wrong playing
techniques, which is just as far off as using the wrong instrument.  But
again his failure here is (in my opinion) a failure of musical
communication, not merely some wrong basic choices.

Is this enough to establish the pattern I'm talking about?  Either the
results are convincing or they're not, and that's a modern (and somewhat
personal) judgment for the listener to make.  Everyone's mileage may vary.

I do think it's out of line to say that most (or even many) period
instrument practitioners have the goal in mind that you think we do.  If
you happen not to like those instruments or our performances, fine, that's
your choice.

Bradley Lehman ~


To: "Pat.Zumstein" <pzumst@bluewin.ch>
Subject: Re: GG's orthodox interpretations
From: Bradley P Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:01:06 -0500 (EST)
cc: f_minor@email.rutgers.edu
Delivered-To: f_minor-og@email.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <36A8A72C.59E6D4E0@bluewin.ch>
Sender: owner-f_minor@email.rutgers.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Pat.Zumstein wrote:

> What about his Händel recording ?

Wacky.  He beats the harpsichord mercilessly, bashing the jacks into the
rail.  His way with the improvisatory preludes is pretty interesting (in a
strangely measured manner), but the rest of it is brutal.  GG did say he
was deliberately going against the norm of the harpsichord's expressive
techniques, and he definitely got that right!  Odd registrations, odd
touch, odd refusal to use expressive de-synchronization of the voices, odd
tempos, odd sewing-machine strictness, odd, odd, odd.  It was very clear
that he didn't practice these pieces on the harpsichord.  (And, obviously,
I don't consider his "my piano just fell off a truck" a sufficient excuse
to terrorize a harpsichord in this manner, treating it as a surrogate
piano.  A couple months of practice on the harpsichord might have made
this album a whole lot better.)

So, as a musical experiment I think it's worth hearing, but as harpsichord
playing it's a travesty.  GG didn't take the harpsichord's possibilities
seriously, so he imposed a foreign technique and aesthetic onto it.  He
could have become a great harpsichordist if he'd applied himself to it.
He halfway redeems the Handel effort through his powerful musicality and
his engaging humor.  It's not completely a loss.  It's definitely
entertaining, energetic, and a-thrill-a-minute, which is better than being
boring.  How many liters of double-double coffee were wiring this man's
synapses during the sessions?

Bradley Lehman ~