RE: [F_minor] Glenn Gould

["Houpt, Fred" <fred.houpt@rbc.com>]

Hi Brad. That remark about the Penguin just made my day.  

We have to be vigilant (everyone) in remembering that there is no such
thing as the ONLY way to play a piece of music. Gould's way is only one
way.  You guys should listen to Wilhelm Kempf play Bach. Now, here is
one of the very great pianists of the 20'th century and is renowned for
his Romantic composers.  Does he play Bach in the dry vistas of Gouldian
autobahn speed and articulation?  Heck no.  But, it is all delicious
just the same.  

I somehow cannot imagine how the famous piano banger (destroyer?) Lazar
Berman must have sounded trying to coax some finesse out of a two or
three part invention.  Now that's a funny idea.....Lot's and lot's of
good Bach alternatives out there.  

Mind you, I've yet to hear anyone match Glen for his Renaissance
composers.   That domain he still owns.  

Cheers,

Fred Houpt 

-----Original Message-----
From: f_minor-bounces@email.rutgers.edu
[mailto:f_minor-bounces@email.rutgers.edu] On Behalf Of Brad Lehman
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:50 PM
To: f_minor@email.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: [F_minor] Glenn Gould

Singh wrote:
> The only evidence for what I have said that I know of, is in the 
> Penguin Guide, where Glenn Gould's recordings (although mentioned) 
> frequently rank below other pianists renditions of the same work.
> Sometimes even strikingly so. For example, his 1982 Goldberg 
> Variations was given 3 stars out of a possible 4, but two of those 
> stars were questionned in the text below the rating. His inventions I 
> think were similarly dealt with.

Well, Gould's interpretations (especially of Bach) *are* _sui generis_
enough that they infuriate some people, or come across as merely
perverse or arbitrarily odd.  They're not necessarily very good
interpretations to give to students to try to emulate, either, since
Gould wasn't interested in using historically-verifiable techniques; the
students would learn "wrong" things and then have to unlearn them later.
Instead, Gould made his own modern way and was convincing at it.  (Well,
I guess I already said that, essentially, with "_sui
generis_".) 

The Penguin is perhaps trying to recommend safe mainstream choices to
its readers.  Some publications do that, shying away from iconoclasm.

Also remember in general: penguins are small flightless birds.

=====

I'm not happy with the inventions recording, myself.  I've been
listening to it again several times recently, after I've owned earlier
copies both on LP and CD for about 20 years.  My quarrel isn't so much
with the gulping piano and its surgical problems, but rather with
Gould's choices of very fast or very slow tempos, and his machine-gun
sameness of inflection (i.e. not enough inflection) of dynamics or
articulation within those lines to make them seem like natural
expression.  The notes are just too much the same as one another, for my
preferences, and for my current understandings of Baroque performance
practices and the art of communication.  Getting past the "wow" level of
Gould's delivery for its own clean sake, I find I'm bored with the
interpretation.

I'm aware that a lot of people still like this inventions recording
anyway, and find that it reaches them.  Fine; but if the piece has to be
played on piano, Rubsam's recording reaches me a lot better than Gould's
does.  I find Rubsam's flexibility very attractive in that performance.

And I'm eager to hear Peter Watchorn's new recording of the
inventions/sinfonias on harpsichord, to be released any day or week now.
It will show up at http://www.musicaomnia.org/bachharpsichord.asp
when it is.


Brad Lehman

_______________________________________________
F_minor mailing list
F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor
_______________________________________________________________________

This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations.
Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized.
If you received this e-mail in error, please advise me (by return e-mail or otherwise) immediately.  

Ce courrier électronique est confidentiel et protégé. L'expéditeur ne renonce pas aux droits et obligations qui s'y rapportent.
Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce message ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le (les) destinataire(s) désigné(s) est interdite.
Si vous recevez ce courrier électronique par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser immédiatement, par retour de courrier électronique ou par un autre moyen.
_______________________________________________
F_minor mailing list
F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor