[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [F_minor] (no subject)
Another very good point, and one that is probably correct. However, in my
own defense, I present one last point. It is impossible to say what the
human mind (particularly a mind such as Gould's) can think up. It is also
known that scientifically, a human CANNOT completely control his muscle
movements. Some are better than others at it, but 100% can never be achieved
for the simple reason that our bodies do not work that way. Therefore, I can
still doubt that ths subtleties and extreme nuances that the human mind can
concoct could be reproduced by Glenn Gould, although I am sure he came
close. Also, and more abstractly, in order for his music to have been
perfect, Glenn Gould would have wanted that the listener felt what he did.
After all, music IS emotions. Not only because of technological
shortcomings, but also because of the intellectual short-comings of us, the
listeners, this side of perfection was never achieved by Glenn Gould,
although it may very well happen in the future.
I am enjoying this exchange, let us continue it,
Singh
From: aboikov@nd.edu
To: Chester Singh <k_dawg71@hotmail.com>
CC: pwiener@ms.cc.sunysb.edu, Randy_Walld@cpe.umanitoba.ca,
MMacelletti@msn.com, F_MINOR@email.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: [F_minor] (no subject)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:55:23 -0400
I'm not sure that I can quite agree with the notion that Gould's playing
(to him
at the time,
at least) was anything short of perfect. We're all familiar with his
legendary
obsession with having complete control over all aspects of his life--his
genius
made this somewhat fantastic desire more or less reality. However, when
that
perfect
control could not be achieved--in the realm of composing, for
instance--Gould
quit. In another example, his inability to exact complete reign over the
concert platform led him
to retreat to the recording studio where he could in fact attain
perfection.
However, one can argue that Gould's ability to achieve perfection was
limited by
technology, not his musical abilities. Notice that for every hour of piano
practice, he spent so many more hours writing about and investigating new
prospects for recording technology. What's most telling about Glenn
Gould's
perspectives on a musical ideal may be his dream of allowing the listener
the
ability to create a particular version of a performance that suited that
listener's particular preferences. The closest Gould was able to get to
that
perfect notion was to realize a work as perfect in his perspective--how he
actually did realize that end result is another matter of debate.
Quoting Chester Singh <k_dawg71@hotmail.com>:
> A good point, and well made. Although perhaps it was not Glenn Gould's
> willpower that stopped him from playing a perfect Bach, but the fact
that
> perfection cannot be created? Perhaps even his technique had limits, and
it
> is in this way that I see musical notation as well. A very innacurate
art.
> Singh
>
> >From: paul wiener <pwiener@ms.cc.sunysb.edu>
> >To: aboikov@nd.edu, Randy Walld <Randy_Walld@cpe.umanitoba.ca>
> >CC: michael macelletti <MMacelletti@msn.com>,F_MINOR
> ><F_MINOR@email.rutgers.edu>
> >Subject: Re: [F_minor] (no subject)
> >Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:43:06 -0400
> >
> >That's a very good point you make. The "dry, intimate sound" is how
most of
> >us got to know Gould on record, and we have tuned our inner ears to it.
> >Anyone who can't mentally extract perfect sound from the 1955
recording
> >(or, for that matter, from a 1936 Szigeti recording) just doesn't know
how
> >to listen.
> >
> >Nevertheless, the clean, driving, immediate sound of the Zenph deserves
a
> >place in the subjective world of sonic perfectability.
> >
> >It may be that Gould felt that no matter how well he played Bach it
could
> >never sound the way he heard it in his head - it always came out
filtered
> >through his willpower - a power he couldn't put aside.
> >
> >
> >At 01:44 PM 6/4/2007, aboikov@nd.edu wrote:
> >>In my opinion, no, the Zenph re-performance is not 24k Gould--closer
to
> >>10k
> >>perhaps. Yes, the notes are all in place and the unsuspecting would
have
> >>a
> >>hard time believing it's not an actual person at the piano, but the
> >>Gouldian
> >>sound is nonexistant, and for me, that is half of the equation. I
miss
> >>the
> >>dry, intimate sound of Gould's recordings. That
"head-inside-the-piano"
> >>intensity I experience with the other recordings is nowhere to be
found.
> >>Even
> >>when compared to the 1981 Goldbergs, it is easy to see how simply
having a
> >>Yamaha will hardly reproduce the laser-like timbre we're so used to.
It
> >>seems
> >>that having the same tuner, sound engineer (or whatever other
authorities
> >>helped in making the re-performance) was not enough to acheive that
unique
> >>sound. But I am relieved to know that GG's physical presence--the
most
> >>important ingrediant--did indeed seem to be this project's only
> >>shortcoming.
> >>
> >>I believe that the new recording surpasses the 1955, where most
elements
> >>I've
> >>mentioned were lost in the horrible attempts to suppress singing,
> >>squeaking,
> >>etc. However, the new recording does not live up to the sound
standards
> >>that
> >>are the hallmark of Gould's stereo recordings. I enjoyed listening to
it,
> >>for
> >>it made me better understand and appreciate the 1955 recording. If
for no
> >>other reason than that, this CD should be in any Gould fan's music
> >>library.
> >>
> >>Quoting Randy Walld <Randy_Walld@cpe.umanitoba.ca>:
> >>
> >> > The fact that you noticed 'nothing unusual' is itself amazing!
> >>Comparing it
> >> > to a 'repressing' misses the point entirely. Is this 24k Gould or
> >>not??
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: paul wiener <pwiener@ms.cc.sunysb.edu>
> >> > Date: Monday, June 4, 2007 10:49 am
> >> > Subject: Re: [F_minor] (no subject)
> >> >
> >> > > I got a copy. I have a reasonably excellent, if normal sound
> >> > > system - several.
> >> > >
> >> > > Other than perfect clarity, I didn't notice anything unusual
> >> > > about
> >> > > the recording. Of course, it's far, far better than any of the
> >> > > conventional repressings of the 1955 version. The jacket info
with
> >> > > the disc says it should optimally be played on special equipment
> >> > > or
> >> > > headphones; perhaps I'm an atypical listener - I still depend a
> >> > > lot
> >> > > on my ears, speakers and amplifier. And on Gould's musicianship.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > >so, what's the word. it that new reproduced, or should I say
> >> > > >resurrected, 55 goldberg any good. ?
> >> > > >_______________________________________________
> >> > > >F_minor mailing list
> >> > > >F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> >> > > >https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > F_minor mailing list
> >> > > F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> >> > > https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > F_minor mailing list
> >> > F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> >> > https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor
> >> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >F_minor mailing list
> >F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> >https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live Hotmail. Now with better security, storage and features.
> www.newhotmail.ca?icid=WLHMENCA149
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
New Windows Live Hotmail is here. Upgrade for free and get a better look.
www.newhotmail.ca?icid=WLHMENCA150
_______________________________________________
F_minor mailing list
F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor