Fw: Re: GG...and that harpsichord (and much more)

[Jim Morrison <jim_morrison@sprynet.com>]

whops, looks like I sent the following message only to mr flemmer, so I'm
now forwarding it from my sent box to the rest of f min.  please excuse all
the >>>>>>s
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Morrison" <jim_morrison@sprynet.com>
To: "Mike Flemmer" <mikejf@FREEWWWEB.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: Re: GG...and that harpsichord (and much more)


> Great to have so many people aboard.
>
> Comments in no particular order below.
>
>
>
> From: "Mike Flemmer" <
>
> > >
> > And the fuga in the Fmajor suite is show
> > stopper.
>
> That is a fun piece to hear.  Richter also has a good time with it on his
> and
> Gavrilov's EMI set, being aggressive with the entry of the subject and
> then playing the rest of subject, and the contrapuntal material,
> with a softer touch.  So it's like WHAM WHAM da ta da ta da,
> if you can hear the picture.
>
> Maybe Gould thought having miked all those mechanical noises coming from
> the harpsichord would compliment his humming well.   He's trying to
> create a new type of chorus, or perhaps become like one of those street
> performers
> you see playing the saxophone with their hands, the cymbals with their
> elbows
> and tapping dancing all at the same time.  Do you think this is what
> the Gould/Handel sounds like to some of us?
>
> From: "Birgitte Jorgensen"
> > I do think it is possible to over-analyze a piece of art.
>
> but it's one of my favorite things to do.  I've noticed that I do like to
> analyze art more than most of my friends.
>
>
> >How much does the music which means
> > the most to you owe to the recording's quality or technique?
>
> Well, it does owe some, but I'm sure you know it's hard to quantify.  A
> slightly different question is "how much good music is out there which we
> find hard to access on the first listening because the recorded sound
> quality is poor?"
> Perhaps sound doesn't matter to those interpretations that rivet us and
> speak to our souls, but I suspect sound quality is important in
> determining how we respond to pieces that we are less moved by, you know,
> music that's okay, that you like, but just don't love.  The poor sound
> quality of those recordings could be a significant factor in our
> under-appreciating them.  I think a similar argument could be made for how
> we
> decide which specific recordings to listen to of music we don't "love" but
> merely like
> in a more disinterested, less passionate way.  I suspect we are "fooled"
> into thinking
> some performances of a particular piece are better than others because of
> the sound quality of the recordings.  Once again, though, I suspect this
> phenomenon is true mainly of music we aren't deeply moved by.
>
> I think you're right, by the way, in that for interpretations that we most
> emotionally respond to,
> be it positively or negatively, sound quality is of little importance.
I've
> come to feel that the poor sound
> quality of the 55 and 59 Goldbergs is part of their inherent nature (even
> though I know that inside the studio, and to the audience in Salzburg,
> Gould's piano
> didn't sound like it does on those mono recordings.)  The sound quality
has
> actually become part of their charm, esp the aria and the other slow
> movements; the aria sounds so much more pensive, beautiful in it's
> melancholia, in mono.
>
> > One's relationship to music like Gould's,
> > on the other hand, is intensely personal and timeless.
> >
>
> well said.
>
> >L.A.
> > has been invaded by Canadians, who, like insidious aliens, can only be
> > recognized by other Canadians.
>
> I've noticed there sure is a lot of Rolling Rock sold in the supermarkets,
> though I've yet to see a thirty gallon jug of moosemilk.  But aside from
> that, I can't say that I've ever come across a Canadian in LA.  So just
what
> are they doing down here invading the desert?
>
>
>
> From: "Baldwin, Daniel"
>
>
> >I find it very difficult to
> > listen to for more than the first 4 or 5 contrapuncti.
> >
> me too, but then again, I don't know much about organ music and I'm sure
> some
> of the fault in my lack of appreciation for this album lies with me.
>
> >Still, that doesn't mean that the player should
> > be indifferent to the particular sonority of the instrument he is
playing.
> >
> Right.  On each instrument there are going to be better and worse ways of
> exploiting it to bring to life the musical architecture that GG was so
found
> of, techniques which distract from and those which enhance the structure.
> It's the opinion of
> the only professional harpsichordist on this list that I know of, Bradley,
> that GG's harpsichord playing is extremly distracting and detrimental to
> presenting the music in a structurally (and sonorous) manner.  (Which
Gould
> might have agreed with and said so what I was just having fun and you
should
> too when you listen to the album and you shouldn't take it very
seriously.)
>
> I think what we keep circling around is not if the album does or does not
> have
> novelty and fun value.  We've all said it does, right?  But the more
serious
> issue is
> of our time on earth being limited, and should we really be spending it
> listening to Gould play Handel when we could be listening to Leonhardt
play
> Scarlatti or Parmentier play the English Suites?  I suspect, though please
> forgive
> me Bradley if I get this wrong and your clarification is asked for, that
> Bradley
>  would say if we just acquaint ourselves
> with some of the great harpsichord recordings we'd get just as much "fun"
> out
> of them with the extra bonuses being in contact with greatness/genius.
> I must say that I'm sympathetic to that view and am often called somewhat
> "snobbish" and "elitist" and "serious" for not having much time for
> "silly" music and writing.  Having said that, my friends and soulmate
 you
> know
> who you are) through loving and exasperated persistence have shown me that
I
> have undervalued some
> art because of an immediate "ugh" reaction due to it's "fun" factor.
>
>
>
>
> >I do recommend
> > Helmut Walcha
>
> thanks for the recommendation.  They are always appreciated.
>
> >
> > the Pastoral Sonata;
>
> glad to hear someone else likes this recording.  It really is one of my
> favorite GG performances and there is a "warmth" as you say to this
> recording that is lacking in much of his Beethoven.
>
> >this is a late (I think ''79) recording,
>
> You're right, June 13th and July 13th.  Any significance in the
> triadaidekia?
> Sonata No.15 plus 13 = Op 28?
>
>  >and it has a
> > warmth that one doesn't so often associate with GG.
>
> To my ears, this recording has integrity and a wealth of intelligence.
His
> performance
> seems to have been thought out before hand to present it as a significant
> and integrated work of art.  Gould's heart and head seem to be flowing
> with the piece.
>
> There's such great rolling/rollicking feel to this sonata.  The second
> movement is my favorite, esp the passage that begins at 3'55''
> where the tempo picks up.  It's one of my favorite moments
> in all of Gould's recordings.  Now this is "fun" Gould that I take much
> pleasure in perceiving as great.  Highly recommended.
>
>
> >         I get a real jolt of energy from the Prelude to the c minor
> >Partita;
>
> A good piece.  I'm curious about your comment.  The c minor, right?
Partita
> 2, bwv 826?
> The prelude/sinfonia moves from "grave adagio" to an "andante" and
> finally to an "allegro" at the 2'41'' mark, which is also the spot where
> the music starts becoming contrapuntally interesting.  It that the part
> you love so much, the last 90 seconds? which are and exciting
> 90 seconds by the way.  Do you like different feels of this single
movement?
> the way it builds to that allegro?  I know I do.
>
> The most "exciting" prelude to me is the Fantasia of Partita 3, a minor,
bwv
> 827.
>
>
> Thanks for listening,
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>