[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
GG: GG in '81 on JB's D Min
In an interview Tim Page did with GG just before the release of the
new Goldbergs, GG and TP discuss the Brahms D Minor furor in relation
to the tempo system GG devised for the Goldberg release. Seems GG
used this tempo system on many celebrated occasions. (The system is
discussed at length in the interview.)
I transcribe a piece of this interview from the Japan-only release CD
(thanks, Junichi!) As far as I know this interview isn't published
anywhere though I don't know why considering it's one of the most
detailed and lengthist comments GG made about the Goldbergs and his
tempi. It's also one of his last interviews. (Though I suspect, from
the sound of it, GG scripted the whole thing.) Maybe it will show up
in _GlennGould_ the magazine. Anyone know?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GG: You know Tim, I maintain to this day that what shocked everybody
vis-a`-vis the [Brahms D Minor] interpretation [with Bernstein
conducting] (Of course there are some people who are
just shocked by the on stage admission that a conductor and a soloist
could have a profound disagreement which everybody knows
perfectly well goes on off stage anyway.) But what's shocked
them about the interpretation, I think was NOT the basic tempo
itself. Certainly, you know the basic tempo was very slow. It
was unusually slow but I've heard many other performances which didn't
shock anybody with opening themes very nearly as slow. Sort of
(sings opening). It was, to come back to our Goldberg
discussion, the relationship between themes that
shocked them. It was the fact for example that the second
theme of the first movement of the Brahms (sings) which, you know
after all is an inversion of the first theme, was not
appreciably slower than the first theme. It was in fact played
with something like um Haydenesque continuity instead of I
guess what most people anticipate as Brahmsian contrast, you know.
TP: I'm going to anthropomorphize a bit here
GG: Good heavens!
TP: ...and wager a guess that what they objected to was the fact that it
didn't present the well shall we say masculine/feminine contrast
that one has come..
GG: Mmmm Hmmm. Mmmm Hmmm. Yeah.
TP: ...to expect.
GG: Exactly. I'll stick with your terms. It presented an asexual or
maybe a unisexual view...
TP: Mmmm. Hmmm.
GG: ...of the work you know. But you see in the case of the Goldberg,
I felt there was an even greater necessity for this system than in a
work like the Brahms D Minor because as you know the Goldberg is an
extraordinary collection of moods and textures. I mean think of
Variation 15....It's the most severe and rigorous and beautiful
canon...that I know, the canon in inversion at the 5th. It's a piece
SO moving so anguished and so uplifting at the same time that it would
not be in anyway out of place in the St. Matthew Passion. Matter of
fact, I've always thought of Variation 15 as the perfect Good Friday
Spell, you know. Well, anyway a movement like that is preceded by
Variation 14, logically enough, which is CERTAINLY one of the giddiest
bits of neo-Scarlattism imaginable.
TP: Cross hand versions and all! (both laughing)
GG: Yeah and and and quite simply the trap in this work, in the
Goldberg, is to avoid letting it come across as thirty independent
pieces because if one gives each of those movements their head it can
very easily do just that....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comments?
Also could someone with a background in music explain to me what GG
means when he talks about the gender qualities of music (usually when
he's trying to blur the contrast)? I assume there is a tradition in
music criticism and composition of associating particular tempi,
registers, etc. with one gender or the other?
-Mary Jo,
mwatts@rci.rutgers.edu