[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
>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