Re: GG: from my report

[Cynthia K Harris <ckh0003@jove.acs.unt.edu>]

Your remark at the end of the article, that Takahashi's criticism against
Gould's approach is a manifestation to dismiss "metaphysical" music-making
which both Gould and Takahashi might have had in common" makes me curious.
 
Takahashi said, in what appears to be a NEGATIVE remark about Gould that
his "performance ... achieved by excessive control at the sacrifice of
physical mechanism, is the one where "every note on the score is visible"
(BTW, I guess I don't understand the meaning of "physical mechanism" here
-- because, to me the greater the control, the greater the physical
mechanism.)

Anyway... Then you wrote that Takashashi "is now seeking for
non-homogeneous fingering on the keyboard to revive the character of each
finger,  which makes music a "physical" achievement."
 
You seem to be saying that Takahashi is trying to do what Gould achieved.
 
So, in your comment about the "metaphysical" music making that Gould and
Takahasi might have in common, are you trying to say that maybe Takahashi,
in his review of the Goldberg Variations, was trying to dispell the idea
that he and Gould might have something in common?

Also, I'm curious about the "self-oppressive stoicism of North American  
intelligentsia before the Vietnam War, who believed in technology."
 
Where did that come from? As a child of the sixties, I think of that time
as least self-oppressive and least stoic period in our history. And what
does that have do Gould?  Was Takahashi saying that Gould's playing was
self-oppressive and stoic?  

BTW, you write English well for someone who is not a native speaker of
English. Did you study here or in the UK?

Cyndie...