[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: R: GG a scholar? Ni! Ni!



Well, yeah ... somebody's already taken me to task off-List for not defending my position that Glenn Gould was a profound scholar of the history of keyboard interpretation.
 
I just didn't want to get in the position of throwing a long list of musicology books back at Bradley. Because I don't think that's really germain to the issue.
 
Gould's lack of a university education certainly has nothing to do with not so much his CREDENTIALS as a scholar, as his actual ACHIEVEMENTS. Bradley is sort of positing that "Wizard of Oz" thing, where the fellow who wanted a brain receives, in its lieu, a Diploma.
 
Everything I know about the history of interpretation I learned from Gould. Admittedly, that's not a lot. But I know enough to know a brilliant, dedicated and original scholar and researcher when I see one. Perhaps we're unaccustomed to seeing a single human body containing both the brilliant pianist and the brilliant scholar, and his lack of the proper academic credentials makes it more unexpected and unfamiliar.
 
But I think Gould did know a lot more than most critics and historical specialists -- and his actual playing talents made what he knew far more meaningful than for ordinary scholars. He knew what all this meant way down on the finger level.
 
Bob
 
-----Original Message-----
From: madiva <madiva@WORKING.IT>
To: F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU <F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Saturday, May 12, 2001 5:22 PM
Subject: R: GG a scholar? Ni! Ni!

>Can I make a reflection?
>
>The Gould's think was absolutely wide and profound ( He know about Music-
>Philosophy -Theology- Literature....) and I suppose that his criticism was
>not too dilettante.
>Gould had a personal and solid culture, perhaps not officially acquired, but
>had less merit  his sharp mind for this reason? I hope not!
>
>Regards
>
>Valeria Massari