Re: [F_minor] Re: Zenph 55 G'bergs released! (Brad Lehman)

[Kate Clunies-Ross <appassionata_kate@yahoo.co.uk>]

>From that New York Times article:
"The disappointment is also a relief. For had Zenph
succeeded, there would have been a severe price. Had
that really been Gould?s sound coming from the piano,
it would have dealt a severe  blow indeed to an
ancient prejudice: that music, in all its complexity,
is beyond the reach of the merely technical, and that
it belongs, in creation and  interpretation, to
humanity?s ever-shrinking domain. Relief: no Gouldian
robotics. Yet." 

Good afternoon, all . 
Please excuse in advance the length of this post;I
seem to have gone a bit into rant-mode, and I hope my
ideas are not too vague or fuzzy to be relevant.
I am sure the new technology is brilliant,,,,but...
I find  the discussion about the Zenph version of the
'55 Goldbergs very interesting, although as yet I
personally haven't heard it. But am I alone in finding
the whole effort rather unnecessary ....even a bit
sad? Admittedly, I should point out that I am not a
musician, nor any kind of musicological expert; but I
love music, and find it can produce in me the most
wonderful emotional response which I am sure others on
this list also share (GG's "sense of wonder" springs
to mind, immediately)

Gould disliked the cult of the virtuoso, and indeed
seems to have regretted that modern musicians (and
presumably all artists) could not be granted
anonymity, like the artists and craftsmen who worked
on medieval cathedrals; they were producing works to
serve a higher purpose than their own personal benefit
or fame. Yet this does not mean that the artist, his
mind and indivisuality, are not important, even if you
dont know his identity. Surely one of the purposes of
art (today at least) is that it gives us a glimpse
into another human mind - or soul, if you want to be
fanciful. It is not just a matter of producing
something beautiful, or uplifting. although these are
important qualities; it should show us something of
the personal inner world of its creator, maybe spark
new ideas and ideas, and hopefully experience new
feelings and concepts that didnt occur spontaneously.
This may be an idealised view, but it is grounded in
the notion that all art is a peculiarly human
creation.  In a way, its a living thing that can
outlive its creator.

But this doesnt mean art has necessarily to
be"perfect" (and I wont discuss here what "erfection"
means because everyone will no doubt have their own
definition). All artists (including musicians) have to
work within the conditions, technology, and 
limitations of their own age. Yet this does not
detract from their achievements. Gould himself was not
happy with the recording technology available in his
youth; that indeed was one of the reasons (along with
his wish for a new interpretation) that he re-recorded
the Goldbergs in 1981, by which time he was happier
with the  newer technology that had developed since
the 1950s.

Yet we know how heen Gould was to pursue his own
concept of perfection .... not only with the repeated
tracks in the studio, but with the details of editing
the recording. Presumably by the time each record was
released, he was happy with the sound he heard, and I
like to think that when I listen to him play, I am
hearing, as far as possible) the same sounds he also 
heard and approved . OK, there will be differences,
not the least of which is the fact that the accoustics
in the front room of my apartment are completely
different from those of his recording studio!  But
Gould trusted his listeners. He thought that the
creation of music involved three people: the composer,
the performer...and the listener. Gould welcomed the
advent of electronic technology in this respect
because it gave the listener himself the ability to
manipulate what he heard to suit his personal taste.
But - and to me it is a big "but' - he meant that the
listener could manipulate the sounds that the
performer, with his own musical skill,had actually
made. And that it seems to me, is the problem with a
new production such as the Zenph recording. However
much it resembles Gould's playing, whatever
astonishing clarity it has beyond that achievable by
the man himself - it is only a _copy_. Not an
enhancement, not a clarification, but a copy. There is
no flesh and blood Gould there, no extraordinary hands
on the keys. It's not even his piano. Maybe I am
sentimental, but surely part of our enjoyment of
music, or any art, lies in our imaginations? I like to
feel that the living man  was once there. Humming and
all.

Would we accept new copies of other arts? If we had
the technology to make a time machine, would we go
back and take a photograph of the Mona Lisa to see
what she 'really' looked like? Should we ignore the
power and characterisation of, say, Rembrandt's later
protraits because they are not "perfect" - they are
rough (maybe because of his deteriorating eyesight)
and not exact representations of the sitter?Should we
get another artist to repaint Rouen Cathedral to show
the architectural details to perfection, because
Monet's series concentrated more on the changing
light? And should we edit Shakespeare or other authors
so that their text reflected modern spelling, usage,
and grammar?

I doubt it. So although Zenph are no doubt eager to
show off their new and advanced technology, why do it
by "updating" an older and much loved recording by a
pianist who is no longer with us?  Of course, being
dead might be an advantage to Zenph. He isnt around to
complain! Although he didnt seem to mind the public
modifying his own recordings. he might have objected
to his name being used in respect of a new creation -
over which he had no control (and we all know he was
something of a control freak!)

Being interested in developing technology, he would
probably have been fascinated by what the Zenph piano
can do. But he would have expected it to be used to
create new experiences, explore new possibilities; not
just to re-create someone else's work.
Gould's legacy of recordings might not be 'perfect'
however hard he strove. They might have technical
inadequacy by today's standards. But they are a
wonderful gift to us, and a great artistic treasure.
Maybe I am wrong, and will change my mind if and when
I hear the Zenph version for myself, but when I hear
any of Gould's performances, it warms my heart to
imagine the hunched figure murmuring and singing his
heart out over the keyboard. And no machine can
replace that.

Yup, guess I'm just sentimental at heart :-)  To those
of you that have read this email, I thank you for your
patience!
Kate
  








	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes. 
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk 
_______________________________________________
F_minor mailing list
F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor