Glenn Gould Plays Beethoven

[PDG]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear PDG,

Perhaps you are looking in the wrong place.

Thanks, Robert. No, I didn't search at all - my inherent laziness always hopes the link itself will be posted! I mean, pushing these keys is hard work, especially when trapped in a coal cellar.....

[PDG]

Originally posted by Nightklavier:
Here you go, PDG.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PqgD05AwTg

Thank you NK! This is what I mean, Rob!!

[Chaszz]

The Furtwangler clips on Youtube are very good. Just do a search on Furtwangler. He conducts with his whole body, a very loose and free expression of the music, which is picked up by the orchestra. He looks like a dancer from the 60s dancing to rock and roll. Amazing clips.

[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 09-08-2006).]

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Athea:

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear PDG,

Perhaps you are looking in the wrong place.

First, go to the website youtube.com

Second, after you have the page notice there is a bar called 'Search For'. Type into that box (which is perhaps 2 inches long and 1/3rd inch height) the following -

'Glenn Gould Plays Beethoven (part 1 of 2)

Then, click the button to the right called 'Search'

Wait

This will (I trust) bring up the video. You then click the video and wait.

The same for 'Glen Gould Plays Beethoven (part 2 of 2) etc.

It's a black and white film.

Regards

Robert

If I always had such an instruction, I would be so happy...

See, Professor Newman, you REALLY are a professor!

[Frankli]

Originally posted by robert newman:
[B]To me, it is astounding, revolutionary, amazing etc. Gould justifies his approach to this sonata early in the film by saying there is no point merely replicating what has been done before.
B]

Sure, and this implies a carte blanche for the performer to mess with the composer's score?
Glenn Gould is a fascinating pianist, for sure. Most of his recordings are in my collection. The interesting thing is that he thinks about the music that he plays. But that doesn't always mean that he makes the right decisions.
The problem with his recording of the last 3 sonatas by Beethoven is that he ignores the many directions by the composer concerning articulation, dynamics and tempo, which make these works so great in subtlety. Besides, he kills the music's soul by ignoring the natural rubato which is needed to make it all sound logical. "Recomposing" is what Gould calls it. If you see the autograph of op. 109, you can see that recomposing is exactly that what Beethoven tried to prevent.
Nevertheless: thanks for bringing this up. I still prefer a performer with ideas that I don't share than a performer with no ideas at all.

[robert newman]

Dear Frankli,

Are you saying that, for example, Shakespeare is desecrated if actors adapt his Elizabethan language to modern times - (only, of course, where they think it helps appreciate what the poet meant). Surely, artistic licence is a good thing. If it works, fine. If it does not, that is fine also. But an artist must be consistent. Beethoven's original version is wonderfully consistent. I think Glenn Gould's interpretation of Beethoven is remarkably consistent also.

Are we saying that, for example, Beethoven's metronome markings MUST be followed, and that phrasing or emphasis MUST always be slavishly followed by a Beethoven performer or conductor to the letter of the law ? Glenn Gould was one of the great artists of our time in making us realise these are issues we must face as musicians and as music lovers.

[Rod]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Frankli,

Are you saying that, for example, Shakespeare is desecrated if actors adapt his Elizabethan language to modern times - (only, of course, where they think it helps appreciate what the poet meant). Surely, artistic licence is a good thing. If it works, fine. If it does not, that is fine also. But an artist must be consistent. Beethoven's original version is wonderfully consistent. I think Glenn Gould's interpretation of Beethoven is remarkably consistent also.

Are we saying that, for example, Beethoven's metronome markings MUST be followed, and that phrasing or emphasis MUST always be slavishly followed by a Beethoven performer or conductor to the letter of the law ? Glenn Gould was one of the great artists of our time in making us realise these are issues we must face as musicians and as music lovers.

Well he didn't leave any metronome marks for Op109, but the music speaks for itself and his Italian/German desctriptions of tempo are accurate and adequate enough in themselves, yet they are persistently ignored. It has been often been argued by performers and scholars alike that the metronome marks are too fast - consider this in the light that from contemporary performances are consistantly too slow in most cases - well, I know who I take notice of with regard to tempo...

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 09-09-2006).]

[Frankli]

Are you saying that, for example, Shakespeare is desecrated if actors adapt his Elizabethan language to modern times - (only, of course, where they think it helps appreciate what the poet meant).

Well Robert, it's hard to compare literature to music, and I would not use the word desecration. But cutting in Hamlet, changing phrases and replacing words is not what I call showing respect to Shakespeare.

Surely, artistic licence is a good thing. If it works, fine. If it does not, that is fine also. But an artist must be consistent. Beethoven's original version is wonderfully consistent. I think Glenn Gould's interpretation of Beethoven is remarkably consistent also.

For sure, but is consistency a criterium? A midi version of Beethoven's Ninth can be consistent too, but is it still Beethoven?
Or take Gould's Handel recording on harpsichord. I think that even many Gould lovers agree that the performer actually butchers the composer. But consistent it is.

Are we saying that, for example, Beethoven's metronome markings MUST be followed, and that phrasing or emphasis MUST always be slavishly followed by a Beethoven performer or conductor to the letter of the law ?

As far as it concerns me everybody is allowed to perform the music the way he or she likes. But one may wonder at what point music actually stops being a creation by the composer. How do Wagner's and Mahler's revisions affect Beethoven's Ninth? What does the neglect of the prescribed repetitions do with the music? What if the music is performed twice as slow as the metronome markings? Or if the 2nd and 3rd movements are put in a different order? What happens if a late romantic phrasing is applied?
Especially in his late works Beethoven was very fanatical in trying to prevent performers from playing his music different from how he wanted it. By adding metronome signs. By adding very precise tempi (see the way he changed an andante con moto in the Missa Solemnis into "andante con moto quasi allegretto moderato ma non troppo vivace"). By adding hundreds of signs concerning dynamics.
So it seems that Beethoven himself found it important to limit the performer's role.
Well, Gould more or less removes everything except the notes, and builds his own interpretation from what's left.
Let's say that it is not my cup of tea. And besides, I have argued above why I think it is too much Gould and not enough Beethoven. When I listen to Beethoven, I don't want to be disturbed by the performer's ego.
Do you agree that there is a point where the original creation ceases to be an original creation?

Glenn Gould was one of the great artists of our time in making us realise these are issues we must face as musicians and as music lovers.

I have always been fascinated by Gould; indeed he has posed some very good questions about the performing of music, and I like his little provocations as well. But the way he rushes through the late Beethoven (and some of the early as well) as if he doesn't know where he is going, is not to my taste. And neither to Beethoven's taste, I presume.

[Frankli]

It has been often been argued by performers and scholars alike that the metronome marks are too fast - consider this in the light that from contemporary performances are consistantly too slow in most cases - well, I know who I take notice of with regard to tempo...

Besides, now that we can play period instruments and have re-discovered how to phrase and to articulate, it has become clear that 95 percent of Beethoven's metronome marks are perfectly playable. Apart from that, we have learned that in his time they were not considered as superfast.

[Athea]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Athea,

I am a reluctant convert to modern technology. Computers are not my thing. I'm one of those analogue men in a digital age !! Ha ! But that site is great, yes ? Hope you like the Glenn Gould Beethoven.

Robert

Don't worry Robert, similarly for me, I am glad if I can switch on and switch off my computer safely (just kidding). But they are still irreplaceable, aren't they?

Thanks for reference to Glenn Gould video – hope I was able to understand Glenn's speech passably – very interesting, I think that I have seen similar (but not the same) video somewhere, but it was translated into another language.

Because I am an absolute musical beginner I haven't heard Gould as often as you have, mostly some recordings of Beethoven, so I can't go to overmuch comments of his piano playing, notwithstanding I know this man fairly well. When I first discovered him I had mixed feelings and I thought: Isn't he bizzare? Is he sane? As Nightklavier writes, his manners and typical strange "singing" when he was playing were not much convincing to me. However, he is an impressive and talented pianist and I liked him when he had played Beethoven's compositions on Tv, though his execution was sometimes a bit "mechanical".

[Rod]

Originally posted by Frankli:
[b] Besides, now that we can play period instruments and have re-discovered how to phrase and to articulate, it has become clear that 95 percent of Beethoven's metronome marks are perfectly playable. Apart from that, we have learned that in his time they were not considered as superfast.

Czerny's marks for Beethoven pieces are also on the 'fast' side, so it is clear that was the general perception of tempo at the time.

I haven't watched the Gould movies, I've read enough already here to know what he's up to. I better go, I can feel the dark thoughts comming on...

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[robert newman]

These are interesting responses. Frankli asks whether there is 'a point where an original creation ceases to be an original creation'.

Well, Frankli, it's an interesting question. Let me try to answer it by first asking you one (if that's OK ?). Do you believe in artistic licence ? What are its own limits ?

I think that, to the extent that art is a representation of reality then, it is an interpretation of reality. So a Beethoven sonata, for example, is Beethoven's view or vision - the way that he, Beethoven, saw things at the time when he wrote it. That vision was clear enough to him that he took special care to provide for it marks of expression, indications about tempo etc.etc. And these things (to Beethoven) were attempts to share his vision as accurately as possible with those who played his music.

Our attempts to follow his instructions are fine. But they are (in my view) to be understood as attempts to see things as closely as Beethoven saw them. To interpret what he saw and also to interpret how he saw them.

In much other music (take, for example, many works by Bach and others) there is no such care taken about tempo, marks of expression etc. It seems to me that Bach left us (purposely) to discover his music for ourselves, to interpret it for ourselves, and not to slavishly follow his own interpretation.

So, in answer to your question of whether and when an original creation ceases to be an original creation I must reply that a piece of music only ceases to be an original creation if its components are added to or subtracted - since they are not in themselves negotiable but are the fundamentals of musical art.

To slavishly follow Beethoven's marks of expressions or his other directions is, as already said, to interpret what is already an interpretation. Fine. But it is equally valid to interpret Beethoven according to our own individual/artistic licence, again, provided that the fundamentals of the piece are preserved and respected.

In this sense I think Glenn Gould represents something very healthy for music. And there is no doubt in my mind that he loved Beethoven, Bach etc. as much as you and I.

(Thanks too Athea - yes, I am so clumsy with computers).

Regards

[Nightklavier]

Do you have any medication for those dark thoughts, Rod?

[Frankli]

[QUOTE Robert]
These are interesting responses. Frankli asks whether there is 'a point where an original creation ceases to be an original creation'.
Well, Frankli, it's an interesting question. Let me try to answer it by first asking you one (if that's OK ?). Do you believe in artistic licence ? What are its own limits ?
[/QUOTE Robert]

Do you mean if there is a limit to the freedom that a performer wishes to take? No, there isn't. But a guy who plays the Appassionata backward is actually not playing the Appassionata, and a director who uses Wagner's "improvements" of the Ninth (most of them still do) do harm to Beethoven's intentions.

I think that, to the extent that art is a representation of reality then, it is an interpretation of reality. So a Beethoven sonata, for example, is Beethoven's view or vision - the way that he, Beethoven, saw things at the time when he wrote it. That vision was clear enough to him that he took special care to provide for it marks of expression, indications about tempo etc.etc. And these things (to Beethoven) were attempts to share his vision as accurately as possible with those who played his music.
Our attempts to follow his instructions are fine. But they are (in my view) to be understood as attempts to see things as closely as Beethoven saw them. To interpret what he saw and also to interpret how he saw them.

Sure; a performer is not a machine. There is also something that can be called as the soul of the music. But interpretation follows from the score; the score is the fundament.
My hypothesis is that accurately following the composer's directions and the prevalent general rules, as can be found in the many treatises of the time, is the best guarantee to reach that soul, and to come to an interpretation that comes as close to the composer's wishes as possible. Just like removing the dirty varnish from a Rembrandt painting shows us better the painter's intentions.
Reinterpreting and recomposing is a valid way to deal with the music, but I just say that the original composer often disappears during the process.

In much other music (take, for example, many works by Bach and others) there is no such care taken about tempo, marks of expression etc. It seems to me that Bach left us (purposely) to discover his music for ourselves, to interpret it for ourselves, and not to slavishly follow his own interpretation.

I do not agree with that. In High Baroque there wasn't much discussion on the right tempo. Tempi were based on heart beats etc., and tempo giusto directions were often used. It was all quite simple, also because there usually hardly weren't tempo changes within one movement. Only during Beethoven's lifetime the discussion started, because the new romantic movement tended to use slower tempi, and besides, just like Beethoven, asked for more subtlety in tempi. Apart from that, the upcoming English piano action (Broadwood etc.) asked for lower tempi.
Concerning marks and expressions in Baroque, there was also a great common sense. There were not so many of them, because they weren't needed on every note. But as a musician one had to learn the theoretical books about matters of expression, phrasing, etc.
There was some freedom in the playing of basso continuo, but even this freedom was limited by rules and by habit.

So, in answer to your question of whether and when an original creation ceases to be an original creation I must reply that a piece of music only ceases to be an original creation if its components are added to or subtracted - since they are not in themselves negotiable but are the fundamentals of musical art.

Aren't articulation marks, tempi and their complicated interrelationships (like in Beethoven's late works), dynamic marks, etc. components that cannot be negotiated with?

To slavishly follow Beethoven's marks of expressions or his other directions is, as already said, to interpret what is already an interpretation. Fine. But it is equally valid to interpret Beethoven according to our own individual/artistic licence, again, provided that the fundamentals of the piece are preserved and respected.

Well, again: the last sonatas, especially from op. 78 on, are so full of all kinds of marks, and Beethoven spent so much energy on getting them right, that in my view they belong to these fundamentals. Of course there is a small problem when one plays these works on a modern piano. The whole piece, including the marks, has to be reinterpreted, in order to make it all sound logical. But that is something else than recomposing the piece.

In this sense I think Glenn Gould represents something very healthy for music. And there is no doubt in my mind that he loved Beethoven, Bach etc. as much as you and I.

I even believe that he secretly loved Mozart, though he always said he didn't, and his perfomances of the sonatas are a bit bland. Gould is healthy for music because his name always leads to discussion. And discussion is healthy. Well, at least it is for me.
But still: my definition of a good performance is one that makes me forget the performer. It means that the performer is "merely" the intermediary between me and the composer's work. Glenn Gould doesn't make me forget the performer, though his way of playing certainly is intriguing.
And here is another performer, that almost makes me forget the composer! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xa2wVBza98

[robert newman]

Dear Frankli,

I respect everything you say. Must quote the end where you say -

'My definition of a good performance is one that makes me forget the performer. It means that the performer is "merely" the intermediary between me and the composer's work. Glenn Gould doesn't make me forget the performer, though his way of playing certainly is intriguing'.

Fine, and how about this ? My definition of a good performance is one that makes me forget the composer. It means the composer AND the performer are merely intermediaries between me and that which the composer was first trying to express.

Ha !!!!! Radical, right !!!

Thanks for the great 'Mozart 40' Great !!!

R