Re: [F_minor] (no subject)

["Chester Singh" <k_dawg71@hotmail.com>]

I think that the greatest point that Glenn Gould tried to make through his 
music, particularly through his non-Bach recordings, was one of being 
unorthodox, yet still intelligent. I think the biggest question that posed 
was, who desided things should played like this? If I want to play them my 
way, who can say that I am wrong? What makes me wrong and them right? Isn't 
my interpretation as valid as theirs? This I think is the light with which 
all his recordings should be seen; in the service of a higher purpose. The 
end result is, for me at least, un-matchable, something greater than even 
perfection, because I discover something new every time I listen. A harmony 
that is brought out when I am sad is not necessarily brought out when I am 
happy, and yet they are both within the same recording.
Singh



> From: paul wiener <pwiener@ms.cc.sunysb.edu>
> To: "Chester Singh" <k_dawg71@hotmail.com>, aboikov@nd.edu
> CC: Randy_Walld@cpe.umanitoba.ca, MMacelletti@msn.com,        
> F_MINOR@email.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Re: [F_minor] (no subject)
> Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:15:56 -0400
>
> Very well put.
>
> Your observations make a great sense when we consider them in light of his 
> Bach recordings, but they are more troublesome when applied to his Mozart, 
> Beethoven or even Schonberg recordings. In those he seems to be going after 
> something other than perfection (though it's hard to tell with the 
> Schonberg), which leads me to think that perhaps Gould was trying to match 
> Bach's perfection, rather than meet an ideal of perfect performance. 
> Gould's Goldberg may not be perfection, but who would deny that Bach's 
> Goldberg was?
>
>
> At 04:08 PM 6/5/2007, Chester Singh wrote:
> > Did he rarely re-record pieces because he felt they could not be improved 
> > on, or was it just a way to protect himself from chasing perfection. As an 
> > example of this, I will give an example extra-Gould, in that it was not 
> > him, but another perfectionist whom I witnessed do the following: there 
> > was an essay to write, and it's deadline was the next day. This man sat on 
> > his computer, and wrote the first sentence; he thought he could do better, 
> > so he re-wrote it. Three hours later, I visited him again, and he still 
> > hadn't proceeded past the first sentence. I suggested that he shut off his 
> > monitor, so that he couldn't re-read his sentences. After, this, he got 
> > along very well, and had the 2000 word essay finished in half an hour. If 
> > each of the sentences he wrote could be compared to each recording of 
> > Glenn Gould's, this examples applies itself very neatly. It is not a 
> > question whether or not he listened to his old recordings; I have no doubt 
> > that he did. But by shutting off his mental "monitor" he could create a 
> > mental cocoon (to use his own terminology) to protect himself from the 
> > chase of perfection. I am certain that his interpretations stemmed from 
> > tangible thoughts, yet how tangible were they a few minutes after the 
> > recording was finished?
> > What is tangible, is that Glenn Gould knew how much work he wanted to do, 
> > and he knew that his whole life was needed to do it. In order to protect 
> > himself from dwelling too long on a task, and thereby reducing the amount 
> > of work he could do, he did not re-record too often.
> > I have no doubt that he was completely satisfied with his recordings, but 
> > it cannot be said that he thought them perfect.
> > I still seem to be at variance with some opinions, but am still enjoying 
> > this discussion immensly,
> > Singh
> >
> >
> > > From: aboikov@nd.edu
> > > To: Chester Singh <k_dawg71@hotmail.com>
> > > CC: pwiener@ms.cc.sunysb.edu, Randy_Walld@cpe.umanitoba.ca,
> > > MMacelletti@msn.com, F_MINOR@email.rutgers.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [F_minor] (no subject)
> > > Date: Tue,  5 Jun 2007 14:12:21 -0400
> > >
> > > A human?s inability to possess absolute motor control is a given, and I 
> > > cannot
> > > imagine what 100% control would exactly entail (maybe he/she would sound 
> > > like a
> > > Disklavier Pro?).  Regardless, no one doubts that GG understood this as 
> > > well,
> > > but how then does one separate musical conception apart from execution?
> > > Surely, Gould?s musical ideas sprang from something tangible.  Much like 
> > > my
> > > conception of Bach on piano has become over the years inextricably tied 
> > > to
> > > Gould?s recordings, I suppose that Gould?s own conceptions of Bach were
> > > likewise rooted somewhere.  However, unlike my personal desire to realize 
> > > the
> > > Gouldian Bach in my personal playing (influenced by my own ideas as 
> > > well), it
> > > never appeared that GG was chasing any other ideal apart from his own.  
> > > His
> > > habit of rarely visiting pieces after recording them can be taken as 
> > > evidence
> > > that he was generally content with his results?and the rare occasion of 
> > > his
> > > having to re-record a piece presents us with an instance where his new
> > > performance actually reflects a shift in paradigm (in the case of the
> > > Goldbergs, something not unexpected since the two versions were 26 years
> > > apart).  One of Gould?s greatest eccentricities was his remarkable 
> > > rigidity?his
> > > resistance to change.  I speculate that re-recording the Goldbergs must 
> > > have
> > > been a tormenting decision to make, for it may have been equivalent to a
> > > confession of being wrong.  As irrelevant as I believe this hypothetical 
> > > to be,
> > > I?d like to propose that if Gould were around today, he?d likely have no 
> > > part in
> > > even touching the 1955 Goldbergs.  If he had, it would have served only 
> > > to
> > > affirm the legitimacy of that recording, a legitimacy that he voided (to
> > > himself, at least) in 1981.
> > > I realize that this last position is rather extreme, but it?s nonetheless
> > > interesting to think about.
> > >
> > >
> > > Quoting Chester Singh <k_dawg71@hotmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Another very good point, and one that is probably correct. However, in 
> > > my
> > > > own defense, I present one last point. It is impossible to say what 
> > > the
> > > > human mind (particularly a mind such as Gould's) can think up. It is 
> > > also
> > > > known that scientifically, a human CANNOT completely control his 
> > > muscle
> > > > movements. Some are better than others at it, but 100% can never be 
> > > achieved
> > > > for the simple reason that our bodies do not work that way. Therefore, 
> > > I can
> > > > still doubt that ths subtleties and extreme nuances that the human 
> > > mind can
> > > > concoct could be reproduced by Glenn Gould, although I am sure he came
> > > > close. Also, and more abstractly, in order for his music to have been
> > > > perfect, Glenn Gould would have wanted that the listener felt what he 
> > > did.
> > > > After all, music IS emotions. Not only because of technological
> > > > shortcomings, but also because of the intellectual short-comings of 
> > > us, the
> > > > listeners, this side of perfection was never achieved by Glenn Gould,
> > > > although it may very well happen in the future.
> > > > I am enjoying this exchange, let us continue it,
> > > > Singh
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: aboikov@nd.edu
> > > > >To: Chester Singh <k_dawg71@hotmail.com>
> > > > >CC: pwiener@ms.cc.sunysb.edu, Randy_Walld@cpe.umanitoba.ca,
> > > > >MMacelletti@msn.com, F_MINOR@email.rutgers.edu
> > > > >Subject: Re: [F_minor] (no subject)
> > > > >Date: Mon,  4 Jun 2007 20:55:23 -0400
> > > > >
> > > > >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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > New Windows Live Hotmail is here. Upgrade for free and get a better 
> > > look.
> > > > www.newhotmail.ca?icid=WLHMENCA150
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Windows Live Hotmail, with safety bar colour coding, helps identify 
> > suspicious mail before it takes your daughter out on a date. Upgrade today 
> > for a better look. www.newhotmail.ca?icid=WLHMENCA152

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail. Even hotter than before. Get a better look now. 
www.newhotmail.ca?icid=WLHMENCA148

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