Re: A question for all you Gouldians

[Cristalle Watson <wcristalle@HOTMAIL.COM>]

> From: Juozas Rimas <JuozasRimas@TAKAS.LT>
> Reply-To: Juozas Rimas <JuozasRimas@TAKAS.LT>
> To: F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU
> Subject: Re: A question for all you Gouldians
> Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 17:50:21 +0200
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "l.caprotti@libero.it" <l.caprotti@LIBERO.IT>
> To: <F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:38 AM
> Subject: Re: A question for all you Gouldians
>
> ===
> But I can tell you more! Have you (or somebody else) a recording of
> something really difficult played by Gould?

It really depends on how you define "technique." Far too often technique is
seen as mere brilliance, an ability to perform runs and arpeggios and trills
at top speed and without stumbling. Much of Chopin (especially the etudes
and the Fantasie-Impromptu) demonstrates this side of technique.

But that's only one side of technique. There are many other aspects to
having a good technique. The ability to voice, for instance, to bring out
individual lines in a multi-part piece. Playing effectively with different
articulations. Using fine shadings of dynamics. Using pedal effectively
(this is often most difficult of all!) And endurance -- the ability to get
through a long piece in performance without utterly exhausting yourself
halfway through.

The pianist Fisher, for instance, was often criticized for "lacking
technique," especially in later years. It's true that his fingers ran away
with him sometimes. But he had an amazing ability to bring out individual
lines in Bach and an incredible subtlety in his dynamic shadings
(particularly in pianissimo passages.) The overall effect was a warm,
sensitive sound, and one I would vastly prefer over an technically perfect
yet expressionless performance.

I heard two performances of the Schubert A Major sonata at the Music School
at my university last year. The first was played by a brilliant pianist, the
top student of his year. As far as I can tell, he didn't make a single
mistake. Yet I felt that his performance was lacking in emotion. It didn't
feel like he really cared about the music. For all his technical brilliance,
the performance did nothing for me emotionally. The second was played by a
pianist who was not as technically brilliant. She made a few mistakes here
and there. Yet she played the piece with an incredible sensitivity. She
really loved the music. And I felt deeply touched by her performance, where
the first performance had caused me to feel nothing.

The moral of the story:
Technique does not equal brilliance.
And brilliance isn't everything.

Cristalle Watson

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail