GG: 'historical' performance

["T W" <WaverijnConcerts@hetnet.nl>]

	I believe it's not important wether or not Bach, Beethoven or Haydn would
have approved Gould's playing; they're dead. Besides that I believe it's
the composer's job to create a piece and the performer's job to
're-recreate' it. It's quite clear that without a person performing his
work, the composer can't earn his bread. Therefore he has to allow the
performer to play the music his own way. In this way there's a kind of
evolution in a particular piece, which I think is very natural and healthy.
Only precondition is that the notes remain the same. 

	Of course this doesn't imply that all interpretations are well. A composer
like Van Beethoven did write dynamic changes and legato bows etc. Often
they are essential to the music, in a way that they indicate musical
phrases. 
'Rephrase' music, without changing the notes, would give a strange sound.
Compare it to a book in which you change the interpuntion. 

	Gould didn't change the phrase-structure of bach's music. What he did was
changing the articulation and dynamics. Since Bach didn't write the
articulation or the dynamics with the notes, I believe that the performer
must feel free to 'compose' the articulation himself.

And now it's time for lunch. 
 
---from Maarssen, Holland: T W 

Again: are there any piano students among you, who play Bach's music
themselves?

Mailto: WaverijnConcerts@hetnet.nl
----------
> Van: Roderick A. Carder-Russell <rodc@shore.net>
> Aan: f_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> Onderwerp: Re: GG: And Historical Performance
> Datum: dinsdag 6 oktober 1998 5:27
> 
> On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Robert C. Kunath wrote:
> 
> > 	Finally, while I quite agree that today's HIP musicologists hate
Gould, I
> > think the question is very open as to how Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, etc.
> > would have reacted if they could have heard Gould play their music. 
> 
> 	Indeed, the question *is* very open.  I believe, however, that we
> can infer the reaction of at least J.S. Bach here.  As another member of
> the list commented, Bach would quite possibly have wrote a "blank check,
> happily", had the two ever met.  
> 	It is in the spirit of J.S. in particular to be very innovative
> and creative.  Most of his works are "clavier" works, in the broadest and
> most general sense.  I can see no reason why a composer that writes for
> the "clavier" (in the broad sense), would have any objection to highly
> varied interpretations of his work, if he himself was admitting an
immense
> amount of variety.
> 	However, the question still remains, are we debating HIP and the
> correct interpretation of Bach, or are we trying to justify subjective
> aesthetic opinion, of which there can be no objective truth?
> 
> ------------
> Roderick A. Carder-Russell
> rodc@shore.net
> ------------
>