[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: Much Ado About Humming - Glenn Gould's Imaginary Orchestra
Good afternoon, all
I've just been reading Sean's post and I find it fascinating.
I didnt realise that the humming is so clear that it
can be transcribed it and analysed it in this way.
Mind you, I did realise that Gould did not always hum exactly what he was
playing. I have always thought however that his singing and gestures
demonstrate such a deep and total absorption in the music
that the existance of an audience becomes an irrelevance, and even the
mundane reality of the world around him pales into insignificance; the true
world he creates and lives in being quite simply , music.Maybe this is part
of the reason he objected to public performance: it's an intense and
personal world, a private world, but yet... it is one that he allows us to
experience too, via his chosen channel of recordings, when he felt in
control.
So, although of course we all have our own opinions, I personally never
really inderstand why some people find his manner of playing irritating or
even embarrassing to watch, or regard his vocalisation andgesturing as a
laughable oddity, of no consequence.
But one question does intrigue me: If his movements and humming were so
structured, was he consciously aware of the patterns
and relationship to the music of his actions, or were they completely
instinctive, born of his total awarness and comprehension of the piece he
was playing? Sean's description makes it sound as though , for example,
each type of gesture was deliberate, a calculated way of expressing a
different
aspect of his interaction with the music. (Maybe this is not what Sean
implied, and if so, I am sorry for my misinterpretation)
My impression is that however intricate his relationship with the music
was,
Gould did not make any conscious decisions concerning the 'meaning' of his
actions. He might not have been aware of the patterns and rationale
underlying his mannerisms.This I think is backed up by the letter which I
have quoted elsewhere, written in reply to a fan who queried the reasons
for his 'conducting' as he played; he said he really could not explain why
he did what he did. He appeared to suggest he _would_ explain it, if only
he knew the answer! Surely this suggests that what he did was not exactly a
conscious process.
I think Gould would have been puzzled by the interest that his manner of
playing has generated in his listeners. But perhaps he felt that if he
tried
to analyse his behaviour too deeply, he would lose something, maybe the
imtimate relationship to the music itself. This would be akin to his
response when invited to investigate why his music
was therapeutic to some people; although he found this idea very
complimentary, he refused the onvitation, evidently worrying that if he
became too introspective and analytical, he might lose the ability to
create this effect with his playing.
I love music, but as is no doubt apparent, I am no musician myself. I am
always astonished by how, if you try to imagine seeing the world through
Gould's eyes (difficult!) how much musicality surrounds us.
It is the sheer intensity of Gould that always astonishes me. There is one
gesture in particular that to me always expresses this; he holds his hand
up, palm inturned towards him, and the whole hand appears to shudder. (I
think this is what Sean is describing in his "third category " of
gestures). But I never considered before that this movement could have such
a particular meaning.
Incidently, am I right in thinking that the physical movements changed as
he became older? (Not the humming ..somebody once wrote to me that his
"young hums" sounded much the same as his "middle aged hums" !) but, as an
example, it seems to me from the videotapes I have managed to get hold of,
that the rhythmical circular rotation of his upper body was something he
did more as a young man. Is this so, and if so, why?
Thank you, Sean, for such an interesting post. The email certainly wasnt
"too long" as you suggested. I hope this one isnt, either.
Kate
>
>