Re: about Mozart, Musicians and Gould

[Pablo Fagoaga <faguss@yahoo.com>]

Hi Sara:
Definitely, participating in this kind of list means fun to me, and it helps
me in many ways, to know things better.
I suscribed some two weeks ago, and I am kind of surprised by the fact (of
course I learned it here) that Gould didn't like Mozart.
I love Gould's recordings, but I'm not very informed about his life and
whereabouts, so the list is a constant joy to me.
Back to Mozart, and trying to think about the reasons behind Goulds dislike,
let me tell you that surprisingly, I'm not precisely a big fan of Mozart.
Moreover, in what I consider an extense CD collection I own, he represents a
mere 1%, may be 2%.
To summ up my impression about Mozart, the work I admire the most, the
Requiem, was mainly written by another guy!!!
I find myself not being the tip of the thumb of Gould as a pianist, and with
a  humble amateur reach when it comes to musicology or technical
understanding of music.
So I can easely admit that I have no rational element to judge Mozart's art.
BUT, on the other hand, I feel exactly the same as Gould towards Mozart.
I believe that in music, there is a sort of apreciation that can be
rationalized, but it is primarily, and firstly, irrational. I'm talking
about that instinctive perception of the equilibrium between the obvious and
the predictable.
The musical genious just manages to make his trip on the rope of music not
falling in these extremes.
I think that everyone is able to unconciously "follow" the musical speech of
a work, and therefore unconciously "guess" what's comming next. The subtle
seduction of this continuous "mind game", and the right mix between guesses
and falilures, makes music enjoyable.
To me, Mozart is generally dangerously near to the edge of "the gorge of the
obvious".
In "eine musicalisches Spass" (A musical joke), Mozart intended to summarize
the cliches and common places of any mediocre composer of his time.
Paradoxically, until I read about the reason of the name given to the work,
I considered this work as a tipically "Mozartian" piece of music. After
reading the explanation, with pain I must say that my opinion didn't change,
and it only happened that I added to my inner picture of Mozart an "Here is
an ill advised joker" sign hanging on his neck.
Don't get me wrong. Not even in a zillion years I would be able to conceive
music like "eine kleine Nachtmusik" or Haffner or Jupiter symphonies. But I
don't see Mozart SO far away from the rest, and may be he many times was too
close to be obvious.
So, it is an honor to me to be as politically incorrect as Gould.
Regards.
Pablo


----- Mensaje original -----
De: Sara Meneses <samenese@DU.EDU>
Para: <F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU>
Enviado: Lunes 30 de Abril de 2001 14:43
Asunto: about Mozart, Musicians and Gould


> If I am too repetitive and you already know why Gould didn't like Mozart
> just read the last paragraph.
>
>         About Mozart, Gould states (in his interviews) that
> he never understood how Mozart left untouched canonic posibilities
> for the left hand, in other words, he left most of the work to the right
> hand leaving the left one to a supporting role.
>
>         To me, Gould missed poliphony in neo-classical music and
> to his "contrapuntal" mind, Mozart music didn't offer enough challenges as
> Bach's, where there are at least 2 independent, equally important voices
> together (unlike most neo-classical, where one melody and its servant, the
> accompaniment, is the rule). He just didn't like music that was too
> predictable,
> and most of all (for me at least) he didn't like music that was so
> obviously simplified (music that didn't have any secret kept for the
> composer and performer), which left very little to the imagination. So I
> guess to Glenn Gould, Mozart's music didn't allow him to "create" (so
> much) as a performer, because everything was just so simplified
> already in the score, in its mostly predictable harmonies, scales and
> arpeggios.
>          When you think about it, Gould is great at letting you know
> what is going on in the music, when he plays Bach he lets you know what
> voice is saying what at a certain moment, he clarifies the
> "dark" passages for you, he does the work for the listener, and at the
> same time he makes you think. When he plays something like Schoenberg he
> does exactly the same thing he clarifies and translates something that at
> first might seem absurd, but then when he plays it he makes the listener
> understand it, even something like Schoenberg. Now, with Mozart I don't
> think there is much to translate or clarify, there is nothing visibly dark
> that he can help you clarify, and maybe that's why he didn't like it.
>
>         I happen to like Mozart, however, there are many good points that
Gould
> mentions, often to the horror of most musicians.
>         To someone like Gould Mozart music didn't offer enough
intellectual work,
> or harmonies (from the composer point of view), as a creative performer
> who saw himself more like a composer that played the piano, he was very
> hard on judging others ways of writing music, and always looked for the
> things that they didn't do, instead of what they did accomplish.
> To him Mozart was too theatrical, and perhaps not very sincere (may I
> suggest Don Giovanni as an example?), and for someone like Gould, who put
> so much intensity in his music this (superficial) theatricality was
> offensive.
>
>         After all this, I am sorry I don't know of any other performer who
> doesn't like Mozart. I think most do, and if they don't they are not as
> open as to express some kind of dislike like Gould. Maybe it would help to
> know that most musicians are taught that you should be like an actor, when
> you play a piece you are acting a part, it is not you, but a character,
> and so in a way it is irrelevant whether you like the character or not, if
> you are a good actor you still have to be convincing with the character
> you are playing. I assume that most performers do this when they play
> Mozart. But then why didn't Gould do this?, maybe because he
> was unique and also wanted to be different in everything, and he didn't
> care much of others in that respect.
>
>
> Sara M.



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com