[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C.B.C.piano-chickering
Well, you will probably get a more detailed response from
some of the hard-core GG scholars on our list, but no
question he looked for a very responsive action with a
signficantly lighter touch than you find on other
instruments, particularly those made in the last 10 or 15
years. To some degree, he seemed to be willing to sacrifice
sound to action. I have seen him quoted as saying that he
wasn't even that wild about the sound of the piano, that it
was simply the most convenient means of expressing is
musical ideas.
Recently there has been some discussion about the damage to
his instrument at one point in his career. With respect to
that, I have seen him quoted as saying that after the
instrument was rebuilt, it had the heavier feel of a newer
instrument, and that he had compensated in his recordings by
playing certain things at a slower tempo than he would have
had the instrument not been damaged.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: C.B.C.piano-chickering
Author: apollo@toronto.planeteer.com at internet
Date: 1/15/97 12:59 AM
I've been to C.B.C. (Glenn Gould) studio here in Toronto and a few times
I had the opportunity(when nobody was looking) to play on his piano. If
I'm not mistaken it was his Chickering. The touch was quite surprising
compared to my own piano. I felt that Glenn's piano had a quite light
touch(or maybe it is because I think mine is too heavy). But does
anybody know what kind of weight or sound Glenn looked for when playing
a piano?
R.R.