[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: _A_question_for_all_you_Gouldians
No, he wasn't a god.
But there really isn't a rational
explanation for what he was.
No matter how hard we try, human beings
can't create or design or educate someone like Gould. The best the best of us
can do is nurture and encourage a child whom we recognize has that kind of
talent and gift.
If there is a God, and a God who cares
about communicating with us through the gifts of beauty, then Gould was one of
those once-in-a-lifetime people whom God "touched" with very special,
extra-human gifts.
I suppose you can be just as
comfortable explaining such people as entirely mathematical random mutations --
a crap shoot, the equivalent of a car accident.
I find that enormously unsatisfying,
intellectually and emotionally. How many car accidents end up improving your
health, improving your car, improving your finances, and introducing you to the
true love of your life?
The "point" of Shaffer's
"Amadeus" was just this point of view -- that God, for reasons forever
kept a mystery to us, "touches" the rare artist and elevates his/her
gifts far beyond what mere practice, study, ambition and dedication can ever
hope to produce. (Poor Solieri, it drove him insane.)
I can't begin to explain anything about
this phenomenon, but I do find it very satisfying. I can't explain 16-year-old
Billie Holiday's magical, deeply moving, almost entirely untutored, untrained
gifts any other way. (Her brutal father, whom she loathed, was a very talented
jazz guitarist.) I can't explain GG any other way. God wants to tell us that
life is not all horror and meaninglessness and ugliness and fear; he has special
gifts for us, gifts of extraordinary, magical beauty that come to us through a
very special few of our relatives and neighbors.
Bob / Elmer
>--- "l.caprotti@libero.it" <l.caprotti@LIBERO.IT>
>wrote:
>>
Hello Michael,
>> I would like just to give you a suggestion
about
>> your "...he is
>> practically a god to
me..." and other.
>> You have to be very very careful.
>>
Glenn Gould was a very great pianist, I think the
>> greatest of
the
>> history (maybe with V.Horowitz and Arthur
>>
Rubinstein). But I'm sure not
>> the "greatest
man...".
>> I'm a piano master (from Milano Conservatory) and
I
>> can tell you that
>> Gould was truly a phenomenon of the
piano, a very
>> sensitive pianist
>> (and man).
>>
But I can tell you more! Have you (or somebody else)
>> a recording
of
>> something really difficult played by Gould? I mean,
>>
the Emperor
>> Concerto is difficult enough, Bach is always
very
>> difficult for the
>> control of multiple voices. But
have you played Bach
>> and also the
>> Wanderer Fantasy for
exemple? Or the Chopin's
>> Studies? I have a friend
>> (he's
piano master he too, in the Cremona
>> Conservatory) and he tell
me
>> that Gould had not demonstrated his capacity to play
>>
the piano. And
>> he's not completely wrong.
>> However I
played his cadenza on 1st Beethoven piano
>> concerto. Very
good
>> music. And quite complicated. But it shows that
>>
Gould was a greatest
>> pianist. But very careful: not a god or
greatest
>> man!
>>
>> Ciao
>>
Lorenzo
>
>Hi Lorenzo,
>
>Yes, I think GG himself would
certainly have
>difficulty accepting himself as a god, or
even
>god-like!
>
>I'm sure this has been talked about before
in this
>group, but I see distinct differences between
the
>"young Gould" and the "old
Gould".
>
>The young Gould of the 50's and 60's is a pianist
with
>phenomenal technique, but I often struggle to hear any
>depth
to the music. Take for example the D Major
>prelude from the WTK Book I;
this piece is played in a
>horribly aggressive and entirely inappropriate
manner
>- I cannot stand to listen to it. I think his
>recording of
the WTK as a whole is a rather bitter
>pill to swallow; and to a lesser
degree, the same goes
>for the '55 GV. There is always something to be
said
>for controversial interpretations - but thankfully,
it
>doesn't mean we have to listen to them. As such, in
>his youth,
I think his greatest achievement was not in
>his recordings or his
particular approach to music,
>but rather the part he played in keeping
alive a
>rather neglected repertoire.
>
>The old Gould (within
a few years of his death) is a
>pianist with the same phenomenal
technique, but he
>imparts a depth to the music that far
surpasses
>anything the young Gould did; the re-recording
of
>"Goldberg Variations" and his piano performances
of
>"The Art of Fugue" spring to mind. The latter
in
>particular - here is a man who appears to be playing
>as if
nothing else matters, literally.
>
>In terms of defining GG's
greatness as a musician; I
>think it is undeniable. Musically, the young
Gould was
>brilliant, impetuous and a little immature - but he
>made
a lot of people sit up and take notice. The old
>Gould was a unique
pianist and, in Bach, of the very
>highest
calibre.
>
>Regards,
>
>David Lodge