I would not let this article worry me too much.
Glenn Gould never claimed to be playing Bach
authentically, and these people seem to have
understood that it was his mission to do so. It
is a very interesting article, but I agree with
Glenn Gould in saying that with the invention of
recording, it is up to the performer to set new
standards every time a performance is done.
Something new should be brought to the piece,
otherwise everything becomes redundant. Although
Mr. Egarr's approach certainly has validity, it
goes against everything that I see as right and
good in the production of music.
Singh
> From: maryellenjensen28@hotmail.com> To:
f_minor@email.rutgers.edu> Date: Tue, 8 Jul
2008 23:21:42 +0200> Subject: [F_minor] BACK TO
BACH AND BELLYACHING> > > > > > > > > > > These
are the first two paragraphs of an article
entitled:> In Your Face, Glenn Gould!> by
Elizabeth and Joe KahnSunday March 6, Nelson
Music Room, Duke University: Towards the end of
his life, Johann Sebastian Bach composed three
major works into which he poured his lifelong
passion and talent for intricate counterpoint
and musical mathematics. While The Art of the
Fugue, A Musical Offering and the Goldberg
Variations represent the culmination of his
art, the last two works, with their accretion
of myths and mysteries, have challenged
performers, listeners and musicologists
literally for centuries. Enter British
harpsichordist Richard Egarr.> A member of the
ever growing category of musicians dedicated to
matching composers and authentic
contemporaneous performance practices of their
music, Egarr came to Duke to display the
results of his battle on two fronts: with the
Goldbergs and Glenn Gould. Why Glenn Gould? In
1955, Gould came out with a characteristically
quirky many thought exquisite piano
interpretation of the Goldbergs. Over the
years, the Gould recording has sold like
hotcakes. Given the tendency of listeners to
regard as standard whatever interpretation of a
work they happen to have at home, the Gould
interpretation has become one of the
performances to beat. But Bach's title page to
the published work specifically states that it
was designed to be played on a two-manual
instrument thereby excluding the fortepiano,
much less the modern piano. Egarr performed on
Duke's William Dowd, a copy of a Mietke
instrument closely resembling the harpsichord
Bach traveled to Berlin to purchase for his
patron and for which he composed the
spectacular Fifth Brandenburg Concerto. In his
remarks from the stage, contrasting the piano
and the harpsichord, Egarr emphasized that the
harpsichord is actually a "keyboard lute,"
requiring a more legato style of playing to
bring out the flow of melody and the
contrapuntal lines. A double manual was
essential for this kind of playing because,
among other things, it releases the player from
having to overcome the overly intricate and
unnatural fingering required to play this piece
on a single manual harpsichord or a
piano. > > (The underlined boldface type is my
doing) To read the entire article click
below: > >
http://www.cvnc.org/reviews/2006/032006/Egarr.html>
> Now I am neither musician nor musicologist
and thus unqualified to argue what "Bach's
title page" DOES OR DOES NOT state but
crickey!! - and here's my question for F
minorites - is 'instrument' STILL AN ISSUE?
That article is just barely 2 years old. Are
musicians and musicologists asking the question
of whether or not Gould's Goldberg is "valid"?
Isn't just the fact of Gould's creation
validation? Is this an interesting topic for
anyone else because since I received that
'article' from a friend it has been needling
me. "In Your Face, Glenn Gould" ?? Is that
supposed to be a 'playful' or 'humorous' or
'with it' journalistic approach? What next from
the Kahns? How about "Hey Dude, yer just, like,
y'know, SO not Bach!!" It is ad hominem and
worse even than H.C. Schonberg at his most
pugilistic. Is one to assume the Kahns too come
lately from the sport's desk? 'One of the
performances to beat'; this is just the
mentality Gould> targeted in his CBC radio 'The
Scene' sport spoof on the pernicious> aspects
inherent in human competition. Furthermore, the
Kahns' assumptions of 'listener's tendencies'
are simply ludicrous and Gould's Goldberg (1 or
2) is anything but standard. As for Richard
Egarr, try as I might to exclude his having a
knowing hand in this injurious excercise in
poor taste, all the evidence points to the
contrary. It appears that Egarr is on a mission
to restore to us the lost authenticity, legato,
rubato, tempi and intellectual dignity of the
Goldberg Variations that were
'characteristically quirkily' thrown to the
wayside in Gould's recordings and 1955 liner
notes. So this is serious folks, godspeed and
off with the gloves? According to the Kahns,
"Egarr has put Gould in his place" (what place
would that be, 25 years in the grave?). Again,
Mr. Egarr cannot be held responsible for what
the Kahn's scribble but in his essay at
Harmonia Mundi (hardly Google Hinterland) he
sites Gould specifically as purveyor of unBach
Bach - not just Gould's piano - writing
assuredly as well respected expert in his field
and one who knows the difference. The seagull
quills are dipped in ink and thus become
inflammatory. On the other hand Gould himself
disparaged of the 1955 recording 'on the
record' in his advance written spontaneous
interview with Tim Page, so might not one say
"Gould has put Gould in his place" ? Oh where
is Dr. von Hochmeister now? Surely not WITH
Gould on the banks of the river Styx tossing
beadcrumbs to the Moevenpicks??> > Mary
Jensen> > >
_________________________________________________________________>
Invite your mail contacts to join your friends
list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy!>
http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us_______________________________________________>
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