Re: Glen Gould- Pro vs. Con

[jerry and judy <jerbidoc@zianet.com>]

In article <37B5DE4B.BB99156B@home.com>, "D. Schreiber" <dschr@home.com> wrote:

>I tried replying to this a week or so ago but it doesn't seem to have
>got posted. Oh, well. 
>
>Since then I've been thinking about what people mean when they accuse GG
>of being "mechanical". I've heard that several times, at least once in
>this discussion. It seems so extraordainry to me. Is it just the
>detached touch he often uses that gives this impression? Is it the
>regularity of, and emphasis on, rhythm? (What do his critics then make
>of the tiny hesitations he so often inserts before a note?) Do they
>truly find his Goldberg Variations "mechanical"??? Whew! there must be
>oceans more subjectivity in listening to music then I'd thought.

I think it might be his concise conception and then his precise execution
(after his pregnant pauses  heh!) that give some people the impression that he's
merely 'mechanical' in his approaches.  His striving for a kind of
perfection has been misunderstood in other aspects of his recordings
also.  His Mozart sonata recordings were an attempt to improve upon the
young Mozart and then Mozart, the obedient teacher.  His recordings of the
middle Beethoven sonatas are an attempt to 'perfect' the formative
visionary ideas of an artistic titan, to out-Beethoven Beethoven! because
he (GG) thought that was appropriate!

>As for his eccentric interpretations, I think it helps if you see some


>of the films and television documentaries showing his practising and
>recording. You can see so clearly what he meant when he said he's only
>interested in playing if he can find something fresh and new in a piece.
>That has led him astray more than once, even his greatest fans will
>probably concede.

Yes, but he felt that he had to do it!

>But because he possessed a truly extraordinary
>musicality, usually it meant his playing was full of insight and
>originality, sometimes downright revelatory. I hear so many performances
>of the standard repertoire that add nothing to my understanding of the
>music, that seem just another performance, skilful and accomplished and
>all that, but ultimately dull, that I have little time for complaints
>about how GG breaks the mould.

We agree totally!  What good is an HIP if it doesn't have the 'nimbleness'
and the strength to fully explore, and even exaggerate, the scores of the
greats?  Aren't we grownups after all!!?!

Jerry