Re: [F_MINOR] Brahms #1

[barbara stagno <bstagno@OPTONLINE.NET>]

I was not aware of the BBC music mag aspect but it doesn't surprise me, much
as it does dismay me. The media has always liked to type-cast people and
once done, they keep at it .. apparently ad infinitum. It seems Glenn has
become sort of the whipping boy for unconventional artist personas. It's
still fashionable to tear apart his interpretations, along with his personal
qualities.

Fragile as Glenn was, we have to give him credit for sticking to his ideas
and his ideals because he paid a high price for that. I believe that was the
cause of his departure into seclusion for the second half of his life. The
only way he could continue to do what he wanted, and survive, was to
construct a wall of protection around himself and his art. It's a shame,
really.

That doesn't say much for our societal conception of art. There should be
room for an artist to deviate from the norm without being shredded to bits.


----- Original Message -----
From: <fred.houpt@rbc.com>
To: <bstagno@optonline.net>; <F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 2:47 PM
Subject: RE: [F_MINOR] Brahms #1


> You know Barbara,
>
> Glenn still gets treated with disdain by journalists.  I read the BBC
music
> mag each month and it's a good deal with the CD they provide as well.  On
> each occasion that one of their writers refers to Gould it's like they
were
> talking about a freak.  I hate it and have complained in letters to them.
> It is unfair and snotty and snobby.  I agree with your impressions.  Gould
> approached the somewhat stiff nature in Brahms with a loving but strongly
> probing mind.  He certainly knew full well the depth of Brahms technical
> prowess, being only second to Bach or Beethoven in architectural acumen
and
> ability.  He loved the depth of Brahms musical lines and similar to his
> approach to Bach, he dug  out the inner textures, no matter that his
> approach was new.  Gould took too many lumps for his musical excavations
> (and extravagances) and received far too few plaudits for his discoveries.
> I have argued before that Gould is easily misunderstood as a crank or
maybe
> a nut.  In judging his interpretive foibles we miss his inner targets and
> these shed light and insights far beyond the scope of any contemporary.
It
> is here that I still revere his towering intellect and I forgive and allow
> his foibles in style.
>
> regards,
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not
waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying
of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended
recipient is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please
advise me (by return e-mail or otherwise) immediately.
>
> Ce courrier électronique est confidentiel et protégé. L'expéditeur ne
renonce pas aux droits et obligations qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion,
utilisation ou copie de ce message ou des renseignements qu'il contient par
une personne autre que le (les) destinataire(s) désigné(s) est interdite. Si
vous recevez ce courrier électronique par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser
immédiatement, par retour de courrier électronique ou par un autre moyen.
>
> ============================================================
>

**************************************************
Signoff instructions, and user preference interface:
http://email.rutgers.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=f_minor&A=1

F_minor Website (with early archive):
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mwatts/glenn
**************************************************