Re: R: Re: Gould/Chopin

["fjlkf;dj" <jerbidoc@zianet.com>]

>hi Fminors, here again.
>i think that the same concept of romanticism is a very problematic one. Wht
>to say then about the romantic pathos in GG ?no doubt about he has one, at
>least a pathos;  but how did he serve in his music conceptions?
>If romanticism is defined like the tendency at intimacy and contemplation,
>not a desborded emotion, but  emotion it self converted in a medium of
>knoweledge,  G has the optima  qualities to make this alchemy possible.
>Exactly in the same way than Chopin when said the piano was his second ego,
>or the mirror in what to glimpse the abys of own soul and life. The
>distance beetwen G. and Ch. is more a question of geometry of emotions and
>nature; but always we can get a tangent on it, possible the Bminor sonata.
>Best regard,
>Marcos

Sorry Marcos, I meant to send this only to the group.

In my opinion, to fairly access Chopin aesthetically, one must:

1.  At least, be able to play-thru (a technical term, heh) some of Freddy's
larger works.  So much of Chopin's enduring contribution can only be
appreciated by players.  This is high praise in deed!, but it's also very
sad for OUR time, in which few people have the time for an unadulterated
exposure to The Piano.  GG was unique in that he seems to have had a
musical brain which could find in most scores what us other mere pianists
only catch a glimpse of in mature Chopin.

2.  Know something about the fundamentals of our human affinity for music,
and know something of the development of Western Music, from a little
before Bach - up until LvB's irresistible impact upon the Middle Romantics.
Chopin certainly did, in fact it was a little overwhelming for him..

3.  Ignore what Chopin's critics still muddy the waters with.  To my mind,
the points made about Chopin's orchestral prowess are no more relevant than
a comparison of the young Schubert's dabblings for his imagined orchestra
alongside the symphonic successes of Late Beethoven.  If you insist upon
comparing the skill in the scores of Ravel and Chopin, you're merely
wasting your time..

Glenn was helpful, back then, when he emphasized the 'goals' of JSB (as we
imagine them today) over Chopin's "only-mortal attempts at communication".
I'm sure that GG wouldn't have preferred that Chopin (and Scriabin) crank
out heavy Busonian and Brahmsian fugues, but he was making a point.  We
must remember that during Glenn's formative years, as they say, Chopin was
'high' in public awareness and Bach was 'low'.

Whether the single-mindedness of Gould's brain was organically seated or
not, he did seem to want to help in his own way his fellow music admirers
as much as any other artist I can think of.  His comments (from his words
and his playing) are positive in his Gibbons, Byrd, JSB, CPE Bach and Haydn
(I haven't decided about his Scarlatti recordings, heh..).  Many of his
Mozart, Beethoven and Chopin interpretations are intended to be critical,
but not destructive, IMO.  And Glenn was correct to point out what he did,
but I think that he also knew that many other conclusions would be nearly
as valid.  After all, humans invented music for the artistically
constrained Ambiguity it unthreateningly informs our lives with.

Chopin's personal nature was remarkably reserve for a composer, and he
intentionally and continuously limited his vision for his output.  This
approach and style might have been intuitively incomprehensible to Glenn
Gould.

Jerry