Re: GG and Mozart

[Greg Romero <gregory.romero@yale.edu>]

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Michael D. Benedetti wrote:

> Greg Romero wrote:
> >	Gould was afraid that serious recordings of these literatures
> >would have paled when compared to the recordings of others, so he
> >chickened out and played them like a fool intentionally, leaving his
> >serious interpretations for those works that did not yet have benchmarks.  
> 
> I think of it more like this: Gould didn't understand Mozart. He seems
> to have had a great feeling of how Bach (for example) thought and worked,
> but I don't think he was able to feel a similar "empathy" with the works
> of Mozart. I don't understand what's to like about cottage cheese,
> therefore I characterize it as a bland, inferior food. GG didn't understand
> what Mozart was trying to do, therefore he characterized him as a bland,
> inferior composer.
> 
> Your argument of "Gould didn't 'get' Mozart because he was immature"
> is a little hard to swallow. I could just as easily claim that "Greg
> Romero only 'gets' Mozart because Greg is too immature to see Wolfie's
> flaws." I'd like to believe that catholic tastes are a sign of superiority
> (for my tastes are as catholic as anyone's), but I see no reason to think
> that.

     This is a misrepresentation of my argument.  I never said Gould
didn't get Mozart, nor did I say that Gould was immature.  I think that
Gould did "get" Mozart and this may have been why he chose not to pursue
the Mozart repertoire seriously.  There are certain instances in Gould's
Mozart playing that show something quite special, such as his early
recording of K. 330 and even parts of his K. 491 (which I still perceive
as a rather tongue-in-cheek rendition), yet in his sonata cycle, his
playing is pure trash.  I have never heard a recording as outrightly
stupid as Gould's recording of K. 310, the incredible a-minor sonata.  I
agree with you that Gould didn't have an empathy with Mozart, but I think
he resented this lack of empathy.  I think Mozart's genius was somewhat
menacing for Gould, and rather than just admit he didn't have a flair for
it, he attempted, and failed miserably, to destroy these works.  Yes, I
agree he played the efforts from Mozart's teen years with aplomb, but
where is the emotional content that is so necessary in Mozart's later
sonatas?  I don't think Gould had it.  
   I also don't buy the idea that Gould didn't like teh sentimental
sweetness of Mozart and eschewed this type of emotion in his playing.
Listen to his performance of the slow movement of the Strauss sonata.
Certainly here, Gould is wearing his heart on his sleeve.  Folks, Gould's
Mozart playing is just a big cop-out.



> 
> I recall a few anecdotes from the various GG books in which he played
> Mozart pieces or improvised in the style of WAM in informal settings
> (between takes, etc.) in the accepted fashion, and the anecdotists
> invariably described the playing as "wonderful." So I doubt that he was
> incapable of turning out a good performance of the pieces.
> 
   I think he was capable of turning out a good performance of the pieces,
but I do have doubts as to whether he could turn out a "great" performance
of these pieces.  I think the prospect of taking on the Mozart concerto
literature,  a literature embraced by so many great pianists intimidated
Gould.  I doubt the prospect of competing with the likes of Robert
Casadesus, Artur Schnabel, Rudolf Serkin, et al. was terribly attractive
to Gould, just as the prospect of competing with Horowitz in the Romantic
repertoire caused him to avoid it.  




> If GG was so afraid of failing at Mozart, how does doing a bizarre
> recording remedy that? It would seem to draw attention to his supposed
> inability, rather than hide it. If you challenged me to write a program in
> some language I don't know, and I wanted to hide my ignorance, I'd rather
> say "that's a stupid language, I won't use it" than give you a bad program
> and say "I tried to do that."

     Well, for me, it does draw attention to his inability, but a lot of
people see Gould only as an eccentric genius who can do no wrong.  If he
plays a piece of work badly and says thats how it ought to be played, so
be it.  But I don't see that in Gould.  Certainly he had limitations, and
I see his limitations as being rather broad, which, after listening to the
works for which he did have a true talent, doesn't seem to be such a bad
thing to say after all. 
  


> > Obviously, my arguments against your claim depend on Occam's Razor--"the
> best answer is the simplest one." And this may not hold in Gould's case.
> It's quite possible that GG came up with an arcane scheme to hide his
> musical immaturity by playing bizarre interpretations of composers
> whose work was beyond him.
> 
> But I don't think it's likely.
> 
    I do.
  

> Mike Benedetti
> 
     Greg Romero