Re: GG...and that harpsichord

["Anne M. Marble" <amarble@sff.net>]

From: John Hill <jphill@HOME.COM>


> Kate, one of the great things about music and aesthetics
> is that, at the end of the day, you get to enjoy whatever the **** you
want
> and proclaim it to be the best thing ever.   And, y'know what?  There is
> no effective counter-argument to anybody who says,
> "I *LOVE* ..............".  I might try to convince you of why I feel
> otherwise, but I can't change the fact that you like something.
> And really, should I?

A couple of years ago, I had a great moment when glancing through one of
those "best classical CDs" books. You know, the type where the guy "rates"
various classical CDs according to which one he thinks is best. (I know,
Glenn Gould would hate the "blood sport" of it all -- but at the same time,
he'd get a kick out of the number of times he gets high rankings.)

This particular author wrote mixed things about the GG version of the
Well-Tempered Clavier. Then waxed poetic about various versions of the
Well-Tempered Clavier. But at the end of the entry, he admitted that he
always went back to the Glenn Gould version whenever he wanted the one that
was the most exciting. Should've bought that book on the spot. :-> After
all, most of those compilations of classic CD reviews praise the Goldbergs
but ignore many of GG's other Bach recordings. Even the really thick books
give those recordings short shrift.

> This comes up routinely in my Critical Listening class, where I train
young
> perspective engineers and producers to try to understand why at least
> half of the CDs they really love sound like crap.  Then, they have the
rest
> of their lives to come back to playing those CDs (which *do* sound like
> crap) and just enjoy them for the music and the inspiration that is
encoded
> (often poorly) in the ones and zeros.



> Becoming an "expert" in a field leads to one becoming really
discriminating
> and preferences change during that journey.  But none of that needs to
> change the viscerally positive feeling one gets from listening to
> music that somehow connects or resonates within you.  That "goosebump"
> sensation that one gets is very significant and it's important not to
lose
> sight of that as one learns all kinds of other interesting things.

Editors and proofreaders often find it hard to read books that haven't gone
through a good editing process. But if the book is really good, I find that
the "editing" part of my brain turns off for a while.

> Bradley, for example, is still a list member here!  When he carries on
about
> GG's approach to the hrschd. or some really *wacko* interpretive thing
> that GG did, he is arguing from a very informed position.  But that
*doesn't*
> mean that he is trying to instruct you on how *you* should feel when
listening
> to the same piece.   [as an aside, Bradley and I are pretty diametrically
> opposite in our feelings about early GG vs. late GG.  I just know I'm
right
> about this, but....]

Sometimes I feel like Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart from England's "Dr. Who"
TV series. When asked which incarnation of the Doctor he preferred, he
said, "Splendid chap, all of them." I feel the same about Glenn Gould's
phases. (Hmm, that doesn't sound like the right word. "Don't worry,
Florence. He's just going through a phase." How about ... "Glenn Gould's
stages"?)

> Most of us who have known GG's work for some time would admit that what
> initially drew us to those recordings was something very different from
what
> sustains our interest now.

I still don't know what initially drew me to those recordings. Maybe I was
just sick of listening to romantic composers all the time.

> Another example would be GG arguing strenuously with Bruno M. about
middle-
> period Beethoven or trying to convince Yehudi M. about why Schoenberg's
> music was truly great.  It could have easily descended into a SNL parody
of
> the old CBS Point-Counterpoint debate.  (GG:  "Yehudi, you ignorant ****
!!)

Wow! That's even cooler than the image than the one of Glenn Gould
appearing on The Muppet Show. After watching that clip of GG and YM arguing
about Schoenberg, I can really see this happening...

(That's somewhere in the F-Minor archives. Let's see,
http://www.tug.org/mail-archives/f_minor/msg01986.html and
http://www.tug.org/mail-archives/f_minor/msg01987.html and
http://www.tug.org/mail-archives/f_minor/msg01992.html)

> > I expect this has probably been asked before (that is, before I
subscribed
> > to F_minor): What other Gould recordings do people actually like,  even
> > though  they reduced the critics to stunned disbelief?
>
> I don't know about "stunned disbelief", but I've always really liked the
> INVENTIONS & SINFONIAS album, despite the fact that folks carry on
endlessly
> about the "hiccup" effect and the vocal humming problem (I think this was
right
> in the middle of the gas mask experiment phase at the 30th St. studios).
> I think it's a great album and GG's enthusiasm for the modified action of
318
> shines through in his playing, which I find truly inspired.

I love that one, too. Tics and hiccups and hums and all.

> Then there's that Enoch Arden album.  Don't know how the critics felt,
> but GG certainly sounds like he's having a great time on that one.

I heartily approve of anything that combines Glenn Gould _and_ Claude
Rains. (Hint: I once dressed as the Phantom of the Opera one Halloween --
and that was years before the musical version.)

> cheers (and go for the goosebumps!)

Yes!