Re: GG and Mozart

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

On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Kristen Immoor wrote:

> At 2:15 PM -0400 9/4/97, Greg Romero wrote:
> >     Gould disliked Mozart simply because he wasn't able to form a mature
> >interpretation of Mozart's works for piano.  Instead he resorted to
> >self-conscious hectoring of Mozart and a refusal to take any but the least
> >important of Mozart's work for the keyboard seriously.  Gould rarely took
> >on established pieces, other than Bach's, in the repertoire because he
> >felt that unless he played them in an obviously tongue-in-cheek or
> >eccentric manner, he wouldn't be able to compete with other more
> >main-stream pianists.
> 
>     Nope, I really have to just plain disagree with this one. Although I
> can definitely sypmathise with the critics who find Gould's interpretations
> of Mozart and the Romantic composers (what few interpretations he made of
> the Romantics) to be the ravings of a madman, I really don't think the
> argument can be made that Gould "couldn't keep up" with the more
> main-stream pianists.
     
     The thing is, though, that I don't consider Gould's recordings of the
Romantics, Mozart, and late Beethoven to be the ravings of a madman.  I
see them merely as intentionally bad recordings that distract the listener
from a single question, and that question is, "Is this a good
interpretation?"     
    

>     In interpretation Gould may very well have been a freak, I can't argue
> with authority either way on that, but in pure technical skill GG was one
> hell of a pianist, beyond question. His finger speed was astounding, his
> technical accuracy was reported to have been near perfection, and he could
> wring from a piece so much pure emotion and depth, I have no reason to
> believe he couldn't have schmaltzed through a Chopin or bounced through a
> Mozart like the best of them. (Studio techs have noted that his jocular
> attempts at mock Mozart & Chopin were quite lovely.) I readily admit that
> much of what Gould said on record about "the only reason to record a work
> is to provide a new and intriguing interpretation of the piece" (my
> paraphrasing) smacks of falsity, but I am more inclined to believe that it
> was because he rehearsed his interviews so many times that his words lost
> sincerity rather than because his principle wasn't valid.

    My problem with this part of the argument is that it implies that the
emotion required to bring music to life is the same for all genres.  Since
Gould had the ability to play such a convincing Bach, he could then apply
this to every type of music.  But I think that all pianists, to some
extent, have areas that they specialize in.  Alfred Brendel talked at one
point about becoming either a Chopin specialist or a Viennese
classical specialist. He obviously chose to be a Viennese specialist and
has had some success.  If anyone has heard his early recording of Chopin
polonaises, they might understand why he chose this route.  Glenn Gould
was a tremendously talented pianist (I believe his technique to be the
greatest in the history of the instrument, with the possible exception of
Marc-Andre Hamelin, who is an entirely different kind of pianist), yet why
is it that he has to be judged according to different standards just
because of the fussily eccentric comments he made about the music he
played badly.  Why is it that when Alfred Brendel plays strange, awful
Chopin, it is merely strange, awful Chopin, but when Gould plays it and
justifies it with nonsense comments ("Chopin did not have a command of
larger scale forms"  - too bad GG couldn't have read Charles Rosens 'The
Romantic Generation'), it is a new look at the music.  It seems to
me more a mattre of intellectual posturing on Gould's part, rather
than a true attempt at showing something new.
Brendel played Chopin in the
technically inferior, intellectual German way that he plays Beethoven and
Schubert, and there was a stylistic mismatch.  Gould plays Mozart and
Chopin in a stylistically mismatched way.  Why is Gould so clever for
playing this music in such a way, whereas Brendel is a fool for doing so?


 >     Assuming that Gould accepted the scholarly importance of the
> Beeth/Mozart sonatas but genuinely did not subscribe to the exalted
> position they hold in classical music, it would be natural for him to want
> to go against the grain in his recordings, if not out of rebellion (which
> we knew he occasionally felt the need for) then out of the pure desire to
> provide the alternative to the traditional (another hallmark of Glenn.)
> It's almost as if he were saying to the audience "I know how *you* hear
> Mozart, but here's how *I* hear Mozart..." It's like another language.
>     Regardless of his intentions, I cannot deny that there is most
> definitely an audience for his recordings of these composers, foolish as
> those recordings may seem to the average classical listener. Personally, I
> am one who enjoys GG's Beethoven and Mozart, and it is the precisely
> selfish audacity of it all that I love. I respect the brain that I hear
> behind the music on those GG Beeth/Mozart sonatas; the playfully arrogant,
> genuinely pedagoguish pianist who was determined to leave his mark, by hook
> or by crook. The way I see it, if I want to hear Mozart or Beethoven I'll
> listen to Perahia or Kentner. If I want to hear Glenn Gould play Mozart or
> Beethoven, I'll listen to... well, you know. Something tells me that's
> exactly the result he was after. I enjoy the personality that is present in
> Gould's recordings, mainly because he is not trying to channel the spirit
> of a dead composer; instead, he is imbuing the recording with his own
> personality. I respect that, there's something very human about it. (Gould?
> Human? Impossible! ;-)
    As a side note, I too agree with Ostwald's assertion that Flora Gould's
> distaste for the 'Mozart complex' may have played a significant role in
> shaping Glenn's attitudes toward the composer. I can easily see that Glenn
> the adult would find the "performing monkey" aspects of Mozart's prodigious
> childhood offensive, and would want to disassociate himself from the role
> completely, if only by belittling or significantly altering the composer's
> works. Further along the path of the armchair psychiatrist, I also agree
> with Tim (but I *always* agree with Tim ;-) that Gould may have had beef
> with Mozart because he resented Mozart's use of shiny happy major keys.
> That really seems to fit in with the curmudgeonly Gould personae.
>    Bottom line, I enjoy the Gould Beethoven & Mozart sonatas, even though
> every time I hear him play the Beeth. Bagatelle 5 in C Maj. I picture
> Victor Borge running his hands to the end of the keyboard and then falling
> off the piano bench...
> 
     As a pianist I think Glenn Gould is the greatest, but there is so
rarely anything substantive about his criticism of the great composers
that I wonder why so much weight was put on his opinion of the classics.
Certainly I take Gould seriously on the modern composers that he devoted
so much time to, because there is an aura of respect around them; I expect
Gould to know a lot about the music he loves.  But where is the substance
in his Mozart arguments?  THere is no substance.  He calls things
crowd-pleasers or self-important pieces, yet doesn't bother to explain why
he says these things.  I have read with interest his silly liner-notes to
the Beethoven Opus 57 and I still don't understand what it is he dislikes
aboout that particular piano sonata.  At least he attempts to musically
justify his dislike for the piece rather than merely hurling insults, as
he does at Mozart.  

> 
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 
> "There must be room for mess, for vulgarity. Sometimes, we have to touch
> people."
> 
>                                   -- Bruce Charlton, writing as Glenn Gould
> 
>