Re: A question for all you Gouldians

[Bradley P Lehman <bpl@UMICH.EDU>]

Patti, thanks for mentioning my "Decoro, Sprezzatura, Grazia" essay with
such enthusiasm...it's nice to know my work is being read somewhere.  :)

Actually, I have three relevant essays there at the site:

What does a musical performer think about?
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/performance-preparation.htm

My performance goals and preparation methods... illustrated in Purcell's
Chacony
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/purc.htm

Decoro, sprezzatura, grazia
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/sprezza.htm


Cristalle, I agree with your words here too.  Technique and mere
brilliance are different things.  (And I would rather hear Fischer or
Gieseking or Cortot hit "wrong" notes with fantastic musicality than hear
somebody boring play a piece flawlessly.  Artistic quality is not
equivalent to an absence of flaws!)


Some food for thought: an oyster wouldn't make a pearl at all unless there
is some dirt or grit to make it do so.  And the word "Baroque" derives
from the Portuguese word for an oddly shaped pearl.

And if anybody thinks some pianist has "wonderful technique," lead that
pianist to a clavichord and ask for a perfectly-voiced rendition of
Contrapunctus 11 from the Art of Fugue....or, for that matter, something
much easier (physically) such as a Froberger toccata or suite.
Clavichord will show the holes in anyone's physical keyboard technique far
more clearly than a work of Liszt would do.  There are different kinds of
virtuosity beyond playing loud and fast octaves.  Many pianists are very
good at controlling the big muscles; a clavichord taxes the equally
difficult control of the smallest motions, and the interpretive
imagination.  (No, I can't play Cp 11 on clavichord either...too
difficult...already it takes some luck to get through it accurately on
harpsichord!)

Bradley Lehman

=====

Patti Loach wrote:

>Cristalle,
>
>There is an excellent essay about "Decora, Sprezzatura, Grazia" on the
>website below. It discusses the exact issues you mentioned about that
>Schubert performance, Cristalle, - brilliance, technique, and what
>matters
>in performance - and it is succinct in its definitions.
>
>
>The Website is Dr. Bradley Lehman's site, I think you all would enjoy
>that
>particular essay.
>
>http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/


-----Original Message-----
From: Mailing list devoted to the discussion of Glenn Gould's work and
life. [mailto:F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU]On Behalf Of Cristalle Watson
Sent: November 6, 2002 11:32 AM
To: F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: Re: A question for all you Gouldians



>From: Juozas Rimas <JuozasRimas@TAKAS.LT>
>Reply-To: Juozas Rimas <JuozasRimas@TAKAS.LT>
>To: F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU
>Subject: Re: A question for all you Gouldians
>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 17:50:21 +0200
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "l.caprotti@libero.it" <l.caprotti@LIBERO.IT>
>To: <F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:38 AM
>Subject: Re: A question for all you Gouldians
>
>===
>But I can tell you more! Have you (or somebody else) a recording of
>something really difficult played by Gould?


It really depends on how you define "technique." Far too often technique
is
seen as mere brilliance, an ability to perform runs and arpeggios and
trills
at top speed and without stumbling. Much of Chopin (especially the etudes
and the Fantasie-Impromptu) demonstrates this side of technique.


But that's only one side of technique. There are many other aspects to
having a good technique. The ability to voice, for instance, to bring out
individual lines in a multi-part piece. Playing effectively with different
articulations. Using fine shadings of dynamics. Using pedal effectively
(this is often most difficult of all!) And endurance -- the ability to get
through a long piece in performance without utterly exhausting yourself
halfway through.


The pianist Fisher, for instance, was often criticized for "lacking
technique," especially in later years. It's true that his fingers ran away
with him sometimes. But he had an amazing ability to bring out individual
lines in Bach and an incredible subtlety in his dynamic shadings
(particularly in pianissimo passages.) The overall effect was a warm,
sensitive sound, and one I would vastly prefer over an technically perfect
yet expressionless performance.


I heard two performances of the Schubert A Major sonata at the Music
School
at my university last year. The first was played by a brilliant pianist,
the
top student of his year. As far as I can tell, he didn't make a single
mistake. Yet I felt that his performance was lacking in emotion. It didn't
feel like he really cared about the music. For all his technical
brilliance,
the performance did nothing for me emotionally. The second was played by a
pianist who was not as technically brilliant. She made a few mistakes here
and there. Yet she played the piece with an incredible sensitivity. She
really loved the music. And I felt deeply touched by her performance,
where
the first performance had caused me to feel nothing.


The moral of the story:
Technique does not equal brilliance.
And brilliance isn't everything.


Cristalle Watson