Re: A question for all you Gouldians

["l.caprotti@libero.it" <l.caprotti@LIBERO.IT>]

Dear Cristalle,

as I said in my latest mail, I'm a very fan of Gould. I really love his 
performance on Bach pieces. As I wrote, his technique was very very 
good. I know very well the difficulty of playing the differents voices 
of a Bach piece as well as the difficulty of playing the octaves of the 
Wanderer Fantasie.
The technique is different but in the two cases difficult.
Arthur Rubinstein was completely able to play both. I'm sure of this. 
All the people is sure, because we have some recordings. I know people 
that heard Rubinstein play piano live. Absolutely great. And not 
because he had only one or two mistake. Because he was very sensitive.
Gould do not played this kind of piece (or better: we don't have this 
kind of recordings). Simply this.
As I said in the last mail, I played his cadenza of 1st of Beethoven. 
Really great. And really difficult because of the differents voices. I 
like it very much.
But as I wrote: for me Gould is on of the greatest pianist of the 
history. But there are also other great pianists, for example 
Rubinstein.And not a god...carefully.

Lorenzo


> It really depends on how you define "technique." Far too often techniq
ue 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 etu
des
> 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 effectivel
y
> (this is often most difficult of all!) And endurance --
 the ability to get
> through a long piece in performance without utterly exhausting yoursel
f
> halfway through.
> 
> The pianist Fisher, for instance, was often criticized for "lacking
> technique," especially in later years.

away
> with him sometimes. But he had an amazing ability to bring out individ
ual
> 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 per
fect
> yet expressionless performance.
> 
> I heard two performances of the Schubert A Major sonata at the Music S
chool
> at my university last year. The first was played by a brilliant pianis
t, 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 di
dn't
> feel like he really cared about the music. For all his technical brill
iance,
> 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. Sh
e
> 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
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>