Re: [F_minor] (no subject)

[aboikov@nd.edu]

I'm not sure that I can quite agree with the notion that Gould's playing (to him
at the time,
at least) was anything short of perfect.  We're all familiar with his legendary
obsession with having complete control over all aspects of his life--his genius
made this somewhat fantastic desire more or less reality.  However, when that
perfect
control could not be achieved--in the realm of composing, for instance--Gould
quit.  In another example, his inability to exact complete reign over the
concert platform led him
to retreat to the recording studio where he could in fact attain perfection.
However, one can argue that Gould's ability to achieve perfection was limited by
technology, not his musical abilities.  Notice that for every hour of piano
practice, he spent so many more hours writing about and investigating new
prospects for recording technology.  What's most telling about Glenn Gould's
perspectives on a musical ideal may be his dream of allowing the listener the
ability to create a particular version of a performance that suited that
listener's particular preferences.  The closest Gould was able to get to that
perfect notion was to realize a work as perfect in his perspective--how he
actually did realize that end result is another matter of debate.

Quoting Chester Singh <k_dawg71@hotmail.com>:

> A good point, and well made. Although perhaps it was not Glenn Gould's
> willpower that stopped him from playing a perfect Bach, but the fact that
> perfection cannot be created? Perhaps even his technique had limits, and it
> is in this way that I see musical notation as well. A very innacurate art.
> Singh
>
> >From: paul wiener <pwiener@ms.cc.sunysb.edu>
> >To: aboikov@nd.edu, Randy Walld <Randy_Walld@cpe.umanitoba.ca>
> >CC: michael macelletti <MMacelletti@msn.com>,F_MINOR
> ><F_MINOR@email.rutgers.edu>
> >Subject: Re: [F_minor] (no subject)
> >Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:43:06 -0400
> >
> >That's a very good point you make. The "dry, intimate sound" is how most of
> >us got to know Gould on record, and we have tuned our inner ears to it.
> >Anyone who can't mentally extract  perfect sound from the 1955 recording
> >(or, for that matter,  from a 1936 Szigeti recording) just doesn't know how
> >to listen.
> >
> >Nevertheless, the clean, driving, immediate sound of the Zenph deserves a
> >place in the subjective world of sonic perfectability.
> >
> >It may be that Gould felt that no matter how well he played Bach it could
> >never sound the way he heard it in his head - it always came out filtered
> >through his willpower - a power he couldn't put aside.
> >
> >
> >At 01:44 PM 6/4/2007, aboikov@nd.edu wrote:
> >>In my opinion, no, the Zenph re-performance is not 24k Gould--closer to
> >>10k
> >>perhaps.  Yes, the notes are all in place and the unsuspecting would have
> >>a
> >>hard time believing it's not an actual person at the piano, but the
> >>Gouldian
> >>sound is nonexistant, and for me, that is half of the equation.  I miss
> >>the
> >>dry, intimate sound of Gould's recordings.  That "head-inside-the-piano"
> >>intensity I experience with the other recordings is nowhere to be found.
> >>Even
> >>when compared to the 1981 Goldbergs, it is easy to see how simply having a
> >>Yamaha will hardly reproduce the laser-like timbre we're so used to.  It
> >>seems
> >>that having the same tuner, sound engineer (or whatever other authorities
> >>helped in making the re-performance) was not enough to acheive that unique
> >>sound.  But I am relieved to know that GG's physical presence--the most
> >>important ingrediant--did indeed seem to be this project's only
> >>shortcoming.
> >>
> >>I believe that the new recording surpasses the 1955, where most elements
> >>I've
> >>mentioned were lost in the horrible attempts to suppress singing,
> >>squeaking,
> >>etc.  However, the new recording does not live up to the sound standards
> >>that
> >>are the hallmark of Gould's stereo recordings.  I enjoyed listening to it,
> >>for
> >>it made me better understand and appreciate the 1955 recording.  If for no
> >>other reason than that, this CD should be in any Gould fan's music
> >>library.
> >>
> >>Quoting Randy Walld <Randy_Walld@cpe.umanitoba.ca>:
> >>
> >> > The fact that you noticed 'nothing unusual' is itself amazing!
> >>Comparing it
> >> > to a 'repressing' misses the point entirely.  Is this 24k Gould or
> >>not??
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: paul wiener <pwiener@ms.cc.sunysb.edu>
> >> > Date: Monday, June 4, 2007 10:49 am
> >> > Subject: Re: [F_minor] (no subject)
> >> >
> >> > > I got a copy. I have a reasonably excellent, if normal sound
> >> > > system - several.
> >> > >
> >> > > Other than perfect clarity, I  didn't notice anything unusual
> >> > > about
> >> > > the recording.  Of course, it's far, far better than any of the
> >> > > conventional repressings of the 1955 version. The jacket info with
> >> > > the disc says it should optimally be played on special equipment
> >> > > or
> >> > > headphones; perhaps I'm an atypical listener - I still depend a
> >> > > lot
> >> > > on my ears, speakers and amplifier. And on Gould's musicianship.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > >so, what's the word. it that new reproduced, or should I say
> >> > > >resurrected, 55 goldberg any good.      ?
> >> > > >_______________________________________________
> >> > > >F_minor mailing list
> >> > > >F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> >> > > >https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > F_minor mailing list
> >> > > F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> >> > > https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > F_minor mailing list
> >> > F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> >> > https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor
> >> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >F_minor mailing list
> >F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> >https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live Hotmail. Now with better security, storage and features.
> www.newhotmail.ca?icid=WLHMENCA149
>
>





_______________________________________________
F_minor mailing list
F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor