Re: GG, Helfgott & Dutton

[Melissa M Stewart <stewartm@acsu.buffalo.edu>]

Hello all,

I'd just like to comment on Robert's remarks.  I agree with him that there
is more than one way to appreciate a performance.  In fact, I would go so
far as to argue that many of the so-called "master" performances are
actually not so great as their performer's fame implies.  But unlike many
of GG's critics, I do not put him in this category.  Gould's performances,
when not being dissected for idiosyncracies (and therefore "weak spots" to
aim for), usually offer fresh insight into the works performed.  I do not
believe that the effects GG worked so tirelessly to achieve were merely
for the sake of being different, but rather to try to communicate a "state
of being" not found in other performances, certainly not in the
often-tired "traditional readings."  For that reason, I do not find
Gould's "willful and inauthentic" Bach to be the travesty the critics
would like to say it is.  Even if the appellation is true (and indeed, how
can we know for sure what "authentic" is?), any scholar of music history
will have to acknowledge that Bach himself was the prime example of
"willful and inauthentic" musicianship.  Turning those thumbs under was
about as inauthentic as you could get, fingering-wise, and for willful
performances, one need look no further than the chorale-preludes and the
cantatas.  Surely Bach's willful use (contemporaries would have said
"overuse" I'm sure) of ornamentation stimulated as many critics then as
GG's performances of the same pieces do now.  And there are many more
examples than the ones I have just cited.

While I did not invest myself into Helfgott's story, and so now have
little emotional attachment to his performances, Robert's comments are
well-written and well-taken.  I would only caution (and I don't mean to
imply that Robert intended this) that comparing Gould's intentional
differences in reading with Helfgott's difficulties in technique and
interpretation is quite unfair to both.  

But to say there's more than one way to value a performance, I'm there
with that.

Regards, Melissa

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Melissa M. Stewart			    |  Graduate Student           |
|State University of New York at Buffalo    |  Potential Theorist         |
|stewartm@acsu.buffalo.edu		    |  Hockey Player              |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 28 May 1997, Robert Kunath wrote:

> Dear Fellow F-Minors,
> 
> 	David Helfgott doubtless deserves quite a bit of the severe
> criticism that he has received, and, as Kristen points out, it's
> especially well-deserved when it is a response to the over-inflated
> claims made by those seeking to market him as a music commodity.
> 
> 	But that should not obscure for us the fact that many people like
> or dislike music according to their subjective/emotional responses.
> That's especially the case for those (like myself) who are not musicians,
> and who cannot appreciate the technical and structural aspects of a
> performance as well as those like Arin, who can draw the distinction
> between a brilliant performance and a bad-sounding instrument.  A lot of
> people have come to feel that they *know* David Helfgott as a result of
> the movie Shine, and so his performances have an emotional resonance for
> them much greater than some perfect but anonymous performance by a master
> musician.
> 
> 	I don't think that we can deny the legitimacy of that response,
> even if we do not share it.  Ask yourself which performance would touch
> you more: a brilliant Scarlatti sonata played by a supremely-gifted
> virtuoso, or a substandard performance by a good friend whom you never
> thought would play the piano again.  I don't expect that there's much
> comparison!  (Though I would be happy to admit that the latter case is
> more an emotional than a musical experience).
> 
> 	And, at least for me, similar considerations apply to GG.  I think
> I have learned enough over the last 15 years of listening to him to
> appreciate that he is a brilliant pianist.  But what touches me most about
> many of his performances is my sense of how the music he plays expresses
> who he was.  I have friends who tell me that Gould's Bach is willful and
> inauthentic, and my response is that I don't really care.  There are more
> than enough outstanding musicians who play Bach "authentically," and I'm
> happy to own some of their recordings.  But I love listening to Gould's
> Bach, and as much for what I learn about Gould as what I learn about Bach.
> I can well understand how people who feel a connection to David Helfgott
> don't really care whether it's objectively "good" Rachmaninoff or not:
> when you feel that you know and like a person, and know that he had to
> fight for every note he plays, it's not so important that all the notes be
> right.
> 
> 	All the best,
> 
> 	Robert