Re: GG: Great Genius etc.; new "wish list" game

[Bradley P Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>]

The list seems quiet again this week...how about a new game?  (See below.)

On Sat, 27 Sep 1997, Andrew J Hrycyna wrote as part of a long and
well-reasoned posting: 

(...)
> Maybe if we didn't know so much about GG's personality we wouldn't be
> talking so much about the way his personality reveals itself in his
> performance, any more than we do about Maurizio Pollini or Gustav
> Leonhardt. Of course, their personalities *do* come through, too, in the
> musical choices they make, in the musical gestures they make because they
> are second nature to them now, part of their musical style, as well as in
> the more self-conscious choices they make about how to present a piece
> every time they perform.

Definitely, and well said.

> To me, the "criticism" that "the performance is distorted; Gould imposes
> too much of his personality" reduces completely to the claim that the
> "performance is distorted" and is therefore still in need of argument. 
> The appeal to the Personality Argument adds nothing.  It's just something
> you say when you don't like the performance. 

Fair enough; but some personalities consistently distort the performance
more than others.  It's part of the interpretive choice.  With many
performers one knows pretty well what to expect, even before hearing the
performance.  (Don't worry, I *will* get back to the subject of GG below.)
For example, when I see that Harnoncourt is in charge of something, I know
that I will definitely want to hear what he comes up with, because I
generally like his rhetorical expression, visceral rhythm, clarity of
musical vision, and boldness.  Harnoncourt brings out *enough* of the
musical rhetoric where many others downplay it.  That doesn't mean I'll
love every H'court performance, but I bring the expectation that in the
repertoire I choose to listen to, I will more likely resonate with
H'court's work than with that of someone more typically mainstream in
approach, say, Levine or Abbado. 

It's even clearer with singers: if I like their approach and sound and
personal involvement in the previous times I've heard them, I want to hear
them again in other repertoire.  If I've found them unappealing, I don't
as assertively invest my time and money in hearing them again. 

> 
> A timid, imitative original instrument performance that conformed to all
> the de rigeur "authentic" academic requirements of ornamentation and
> articulation that also did what BL says GG does--dissipate energy when it
> should build, etc.-- would also reveal a lot about the timid, conformist
> personality of the performer.  But the fact that his personality came
> through would not be what's wrong with the performance. What would be
> wrong with the performance is that the music dissipates energy where it
> should build, that the music is timid, and making that charge stick would
> require arguments about the music itself and the details of the playing. 

Yup.  In fact, I heard one yesterday on the radio, a recording from about
15 years ago by one of the most famous "authenticist" conductors, of a
Vivaldi concerto.  This conductor is also a keyboard player, and I think
his keyboard performances are also singularly dull.  The problem for me
with his work has nothing to do with his use of period instruments (which
I actually prefer), but with the interpretive choices he makes.  In
general, he gets all the notes in place, beautifully and cleanly played,
with a surface sound in textbook style appropriate to the music,
everything well-researched musicologically, more reliably than many other
performers, those are all Good Things in my opinion...but the fatal flaw
is that there is apparently *nothing* else going on.  The pieces don't go
anywhere.  It's all accurate surface.  The "personality profile" of his
performances seems to be the Null Interpretation.  I've heard at least 40
or 50 of his recordings, of all sorts of repertoire, and have found only a
few exceptions to this profoundly dull approach.  'Tis a pity.  "The
performance is distorted" by being *too straightforward*...now there's an
oxymoron for ye to chew on, something pseudo-objective being thereby
distorted.  I'd much rather hear performances that more subjectively let
the music go somewhere, that give some sense of hierarchy about what's on
the page. 

> 
> Now, I actually don't think that BL disagrees with this at some deep level
> (he can correct me).  He actually gives arguments based on the music and
> based (importantly) on an alternative, competing musical vision of the
> piece.  But after giving those arguments he tries to forestall further
> debate by appealing to this idea of personality (or its mirror image: the
> idea that the text, the "music itself", or "Bach's thought" transparently
> announce how the music should be played).  I think he wants to set up this
> principle--that playing which imposes personality is illicit in the first
> place--to trump all other arguments and prevent response (after all, who
> among us would deny that GG's personality comes through his
> performances?).  I am arguing that not only does the Personality Argument
> not trump other responses, it adds nothing substantive.  We're back to
> arguing about the details of the music and what kinds of interpretations
> are better than others.  As we should be. 

Maybe as an argument the personality discussion isn't as substantive, I'll
grant you that.  It probably wasn't a good rhetorical device on my part, 
and you're right to object to it. 

But I'd be the last person to say that "playing which imposes personality
is illicit in the first place."  If there's no personality in an
interpretation, I don't enjoy listening to it at all; I can get a more
enjoyable experience of the music by going to the library, sitting down at
a desk with a score, and hearing it in my head.  If the performer isn't
bringing out something else that's not immediately apparent on the page,
something hidden in the white space between the notes, something perhaps
even a bit irrational, there's no life in that performance for me as a
listener. 

So I'll have nothing to do with a principle that the performer should
impose no personality whatsoever.  A good performer makes the music (any
type of music) sound like a breathing, physically present, natural and
*alive* entity, existing in time.  

Human composers and performers and listeners are all analog devices.  What
makes a composition (and a performance) sound natural and alive?  It's the
infinitely complex array of irregularities as humans deal with structure:
notes, phrases, sections, spaces, dynamic balances, speed fluctuations,
intonation, hierarchy of strong and weak notes, etc.  A good performance
is a convincing balance of all these variables, in such a way as to bring
a listener along for an interesting experience.  There has to be some
melding of the composer's personality and the performer's personality,
*and* accessible points where the listener can also add his/her own
personality to it, willingly, during the experience.  That's all part of
the music.  All those pieces of personality (composer/performer/listener)
have to be there in an appropriate balance, else we might as well be
machines.  And all those pieces of personality are irrational, analog,
temperamental, complex, somewhat unpredictable. 

Because it's so delicate, the balance can be off, easily: 

- A performer might contribute so little personality that the listener
isn't invited into the experience; all we hear are the composer's notes,
big deal.  If the performer isn't committed to what's going on, why 
should I as a listener join in?

- A composer might contribute so little of interest that no matter how
hard the performer tries, there isn't enough there to bring the listener
in, why bother? 

- A composer might put so much into it that the listener is overwhelmed,
or the performer can't handle all of it adequately, and again the listener
doesn't come in. 

- A performer might contribute so much personality that the composer's
personality gets subsumed: so much is changed in the translation that the
composer's personality is no longer relevant.  (This approach is expected
in jazz or pop; not so much in "classical" music.  The piece ends up
belonging to the performer as surrogate composer, which can be fine in its
own way, as long as the listener understands what's going on.) *

- A performer might choose a piece that simply doesn't fit well with
his/her own personality and abilities; the performer and composer are so
much at odds that the listener doesn't want to enter the brawl. *

- A performer might play so much for himself/herself that the listener
feels like an uncomfortable intruder on a private intimate experience; the
listener's presence is not welcome or needed. *

- A listener might contribute a considerable amount of prejudice toward
certain types of compositions or interpretations, unable to hear other
approaches for their own merits (or unable to listen objectively enough to
favorite approaches). #

- A listener might be inattentive for other reasons, or unwilling to hear
his/her own personality during the musical experience.  This might be
partially the composer's or performer's fault, simply making the piece not
accessible/inviting enough. 

- A listener might simply not resonate at all with what the composer and
performer have to say, and go elsewhere. *

- Any or all of the three (composer/performer/listener) might be having an
off day, or deliberately withholding full participation, or unable to deal
with the musical material. 

In all of these cases, the musical experience isn't completely successful
for that listener: the music doesn't live. 

...Which brings us back to Mr. Gould.  In the list above, I've marked with
* the points in which (for me as a listener/performer/composer) GG
sometimes pushes the limits too far.  In some of his performances I
perceive something out of balance, according to that intuitive theory I
have about the participation of composer, performer, and listener.  If he
offends me in any particular case, it might be that he goes against my
needs as a listener, or I as a fellow performer might disagree with his
projection of the music, or I as a composer might disagree with his
philosophical choice of how much to meddle with a composer's work.  If a 
GG performance doesn't work for me, that's not to say that it wouldn't 
work well for someone else whose personality as a listener, performer, or 
composer is different from mine.

And GG doesn't offend me all that often.  Typically, when I put on a GG
recording, it's because I'm in a mood to hear what he uniquely has to say
about something, and it stimulates me intellectually.  I'm listening to
"GG playing a piece," more than "listening to the piece" in some more
objective or normal (consensus-tradition) manner.  It's that Apollonian
thing GG writes about.  I do it for the express purpose of hearing GG's
contribution, teasing that out of the mix, and part of the fun of the
performance is exploring the things I'd do differently.  If I'm not in the
mood for that sort of stimulation, if I want some other experience with
that same piece, I go listen to someone else's performance which doesn't
have GG's personality stamped on it.  That someone else might have just as
much personality, in a different way, or might be more transparent.  It
all depends on what I as a listener want out of that particular listening
experience.  Others can draw me in at different points than GG does, and I
wouldn't want a GG version of anything to be the only available option. 

If I had to, I could place the *'s in similar or different places on that
list for any other performer or composer.  Everybody emphasizes different
things.  Sometimes those choices work for me, sometimes they don't. 

# I must say, I also used to be more prejudiced in favor of GG's
interpretations than I am now, and unwilling/unable to listen critically
to them...I simply took them as wonderful in their own right, which some
of them are.  Either I have a broader perspective about them now, with a
larger range of contextual experience in those pieces, or (as some of you
might think) I've developed some counter-prejudices against them. 
Probably some of each, but I think much more the former than the latter. 

-----

This all suggests a new game or survey, trying to spark some traffic
here.... 

*** This is a wish list game.  What pieces which GG did not play would
have been particularly receptive to his approaches?  Either musically
stunning, or at least highly interesting and thought-provoking? ***

I'll start by suggesting Schubert's Sonata in A, D959, especially the 
slow movement.

And Busoni's "Fantasia contrappuntistica," a piece made for GG if ever
there was one.  (A stunningly complex elaboration of the big KdF
unfinished fugue, and other things, requiring great intellectual and
physical control.  And wasn't young GG compared with Busoni?) Both the
solo and the duo versions, GG overdubbing himself.  c30 minutes each,
sharing an album. 

Nelson Jenks pipes up 'n' sez: betcha he coulda done a kickin' job with
Stravinsky.  How 'bout them three "Petrouchka" ekcerpt piana pieces? 

(And someone else has already suggested the Shostakovich preludes and
fugues....)

Bradley Lehman ~ Harrisonburg VA, USA ~ 38.44N+78.87W
bpl@umich.edu ~ http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/