Why Glenn Gould dived into late Beethoven
Newsby Daniel Poulin:
The fall of 1952 was to be a major period of Gould’s life. First, he decided it was time to leave his teacher Alberto Guerrero. It was a difficult but inevitable decision that had to be taken sooner or later. Gould was torn between performing and composing. He then made another crucial decision: moving out of his parents home. Taking along books, music, a tape recorder and his dog, Gould ensconced himself at the cottage with his beloved Chickering piano to find out if he really had it in him to become a pianist of worth. This period of introspection lasted for over two years, allowing him little opportunity for public performace. From September to December he gave only radio recitals the first one 3 days after his 20th b/day. The Beethoven Bagatelles op.126 were part of the concert.
G’ recording of the three late Beethoven sonatas are very frustrating: beautiful piano playing but full of distortions of the music – deviations from the text, as if he knew better than the composer.
One just hopes that more people would be CAPABLE of “distorting” music that convincingly, competently and clearly as Gould did!! We have no idea what Beethoven “KNEW” and “THOUGHT” when composing that, and even less we can suppose what would have Beethoven said listening to Gould playing his music!!
Sorry, but I have to seriously correct you…..
Ready?
The works of classical music consist of scores, meticulously notated by the author, as best as is possible, to indicate which notes to be played in which combination and with which dynamics, tempo and articulation. Notation is an art in itself, which has developed over the ages. Not everything can be notated, and thus the performer should inject the instructions with his/her subjective interpretation, filling it with life. The BASIS of any interpretation is following the indications which are there in the score, upon which the interpretation rests. Changing the basis is definitely not allowed, it is a direct intervention into the work, it is unprofessional. There is something thoroughly amateurish to players like Gould, Pogorelich, and quite some ‘oldies’ of the early 20th century, who simply treat a score as a vehicle for ‘their own vision’ of a piece.
It is like a gallery owner changing the paintings on his own accord because he likes them better that way – adding a bit of colour, brushing away details he disapproves of, painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa to give it a more interesting look, etc. If a gallery owner has such strong opinions about the paintings he is only supposed to show, then he should become a painter himself.
Thinking that Beethoven did not know what he wanted, is suggesting that Gould knew better, as if G could simply replace Beethoven to decide what has been meant. This is the moment to allow oneself to laugh loudly and disparagingly, but I will refrain.
But, one would say, what about the insecurities which can be found sometimes in scores, also by Beethoven? The ambiguities about the meaning of some notational details? That is a quite different matter; only here the performer is allowed to try to make best as he can, in the context of all the other indications which are not ambiguous. This has nothing to do with willfully change things which are clearly in the score, like playing a diminuendo where a crescendo is notated, or a ritardando where none is written, or a forte where a piano is indicated, etc. etc.
Beethoven’s sketches are an impossible mess, but his final scores are remarkably clear. Why would he put so much effort in his scores if he did not care too much about how it is to be played?
The art of interpretation is a combination of objective and subjective components and a theme under continuous discussion. In this area the objective material: the score, is the basis of any discussion about interpretation; take it away and the whole discussion turns into nonsense.
Agree with all that John Borstlap writes. All of it is common sense if one is a musician. Glen Gould was a self-serving show-off. Many who had to work with him as producers or sound technicians can attest to that.
Art is based on what the previous people have done, but if we are to only repeat almost exactly what our predecessors have done and not add our own changes to it would the artform have any progress? Many renaissance artists took stories from the bible or Greek mythology and made their own interpretation of them. Many
great artists of the past shocked people of their time by challenging traditional views of what is acceptable in art. Building on the ideas of our ancestors and changing them or reinterpreting them is how human civilization progress and how new styles of music or art develop. If everyone has to worship the dead, hold their writings and works on a pedestal, and follow exactly what they did in the past, then humans would still be living in caves.
What an idiotic comment!!
Bortslap The Magnificent chides again.
(BTW, Norman: “dived”?)
Such accolades get on my nerves because they only add to my work load here! It’s stupid.
Sally
It’s wonderful to hear interpretations of a master like Beethoven made by a genius like Gould. Unconventional, unusual, fresh — just as Gould intended.
ABSOLUTELY 100% true. We should cherish the fact being part of the same species as Glenn Gould!!
No, it’s wonderful to hear what Beethoven could have written if he had heard the playing of a genius like Gould – unconventional, unusual, fresh – just as Beethoven would have intended if he knew better.
Ha-ha, Mr Borstlap.
You can enjoy and admire a performance and still admit that it probably isnt accurate by the performance standards of the day. For one, until his last instrument which he recieved late in his life, the piano Beethoven played upon was quite different than what we had today. It’s funny that so many in classical music discussions hold everything to such vigorous standards. Yet, the great composers were often mavericks of their own. They were phenomenal improvisers. They bent every rule there was. And, often it was only long after they died that they were put on these gigantic pedestals.
Beethoven took the classical standards of what was accepted as a sonata by Mozart and Hayden and got adventurous with it. Did modern genius stop with Beethoven? Certainly his place at the top is well deserved. But how would a Gould or Kissin or a Hamelin be received if one could go back in time. I’d love to imagine with what JS Bach would have done with modern keyboards and synthesizers.
At 20 Gould played as if he were 70 years old: maturity of thought and understanding. As if his whole life was already behind him and everything was lived through!! Nothing short of amazing! And he, poor soul R.I.P., was not even given more than 50!!!
Gould was clever, no doubt about it. But the phrase “maturity of thought and understanding” is laughable when applied to him.
Mr. Borstlap is entirely correct and worshiping Glenn Gould as if this reverence for him is by itself a refutation of all criticism is childish. Gould was extraordinarily gifted, as Borstlap’s comment acknowledges, and some of the playing of the last three sonatas is breathtaking. But Beethoven marked his scores very carefully and it is easy to see that Gould often willfully ignored those markings. To ignore tempo and dynamic indications is as irresponsible as to play wrong pitches.
It is pure sentimentality and romanticism to give a pianist like Gould a blank check to do anything at all and call it “genius.” He was preternaturally brilliant but idiosyncratic and highly narcissistic, and Borstlap’s comment goes to the heart of the matter: he really did think he knew better than the composer. This was illustrated literally by his ignoring the pedaling written in to the score by a fellow Canadian composer, in the very presence of the composer, and telling him that the music had to go the way he was playing it.
Gould had the right to offer his sometimes eccentric interpretations to the public and the public has the right to point out where he violated the clear instructions of the score. I say this as someone who cherishes the best of Gould’s recordings: they sound like no one else’s and are often transcendently beautiful. He was unique. But he was not infallible.
As a lucky man -to have met and spend hours with Gould either ‘live’ in his studio or on the phone -at all hours of the day/night- I can assure you that he never claimed to be right in his choices often different from the composer’s own markings. His answer was that he simply was experimenting and when he chose a final version it was just that he felt it was the correct one: “It works” was his favourite reply when he put a definite ‘yes’ to a take (it could very well be take 1 as well as take 23). Also, as reference to the title ‘genius’ Gould clearly said the word should be used with very prudent care. He himself never used it, not even once, and certainly not applying to himself.
Thank you with something from the horse’s mouth, albeit indirectly.
It proves my point: If GG felt it would ‘work’, he apparently felt justified to change the text. This is amateurish and unprofessional. His feeling was then wrong, the argument that it ‘worked’ for him is nonsensical, entirely invalid and intellectually dishonest.
Imagine a Mozart string quartet with an added electric guitar part, to make it ‘work’ for a special adolescent and ignorant audience. Surely most people present, especially the guitar player, would feel it ‘worked’ but that says nothing about the rightness of such choice.
My PA loves to play her Boulez and Xenakis recordings after work to relax, ‘it works’ she says, but I’m sure the Klangkünstler concerned would wholeheartedly disapprove of such attitude.
Etc. etc….
Thank you, Daniel, for setting the record straight (so to speak).
And I certainly do envy you for the time you were gifted being with Gould.
Am I wrong to think that”dived” is not the correct word for the title.