I'm thinking Gould was a better pianist than writer. Why didn't he just ask why we value innovation? It's what he seems to be saying. If we don't put a piece in historical perspective how can we tell if it is innovative or imitative? Yes, to an extent all pieces are both innovative and imitative, else they would be near rubbish, but I think a bit of innovation and understanding the context of the innovation does add value to the listening experience.

Of course I could have misunderstood his point entirely. I've often found Gould's comments --let's just say they might score low on the Flesch reading ease test. Is he playing the Devil's Advocate here?

 

As a painter as well as pianist, for me the work needs to stand on its own. Perhaps the historical context may add to my appreciation, but the work of art -- painting, music, sculpture, tapestry, dance -- requires its own beauty, and needs to move me emotionally in some way.

My interest is in the power of art to uplift, inspire, challenge, and transform, and transcend time and space.

 

The full article is available online:
http://kunsthistorie.kunstakademiet.dk/mortlake/pdf/2011/gould1994a.pdf

 

Every time I hear the name "Glenn Gould", George Szell's quote immediately comes to mind:

"That nut's a genius!"

 

That's Leonard Bernstein's quote, I'm pretty sure. Anyways, I think calling him a 'genius' simply trivializes the word.

 

A work of art must certainly "stand on its own," in the sense that it must have inherent qualities that cause us to pay attention to it, and can give us enjoyment regardless of what we know of its origins or the intention behind it. I think Gould is right in implying that a piece of music appraised as good if it's assumed to be by Dittersdorf ought still to be considered good if it later turns out to be by Fritz Kreisler. But I disagree that knowledge of a work's origin is, or ought be, irrelevant to the quality of our enjoyment. If such knowledge were unattainable the question would not arise; but the possession of that knowledge unavoidably affects what emotions and meanings are communicated to us when we hear the piece.

A work of music does not have a fixed meaning; it has neither a meaning which is the same for all listeners nor one which remains unchanging for a particular listener over time. The meaning of a work - what we experience when we listen to it - will inevitably undergo some change when what we know about the work changes; and "what we know" may include, among other things, who wrote the work and when it was composed. The change in authorship and period of origin from Dittersdorf in the 18th century to Kreisler in the 20th doesn't change the notes we hear, but it definitely changes what they say to us - indeed, what they have the potential to say to us. This is true whether or not accurate identification of a work's origins brings us any true knowledge of those origins. I do not have to possess, in Gould's words, "accurate" impressions of Dittersdorf's or Kreisler's culture, or of the composers themselves, in order for my perception of the music to change when I discover its true author. Any degree or presumption of knowledge will precipitate such a change.

A completely ahistorical approach to appreciating art may have value as a discipline and a tool of analysis, but it seems to me not merely pointless but impoverishing as an ultimate goal.

 

I think Gould is being consistent, i.e. provoking to near inflammatory, and certainly a playful duplicitous devil's advocate.

Most salient from that quote for me is his remark on the "pathetic duplicity" in the reception of high-quality forgeries by Han van Meegeren of new paintings attributed to Dutch Golden Age master Vermeer, before and after the forgery was known.

First, the rather delightful aspect of Han van Meegeren's career, though he was a brilliant forger who did burn a lot of art dealers and their clients, is that his works also burned a lot of Nazi higher up art collectors -- Ergo: van Meegeren was a true criminal, but for the Dutch he is still a super anti-hero

As a master forger, he used antique wood panels, and all the right elements in reproducing the pigments so works would be accepted as genuine, i.e. he was meticulous. Masterly forging includes creating works which are not replicates, but as if genuinely of the time and from the particular artist being forged.

What finally led to the detection of these otherwise flawless fakes was something highly salient to the argument against replicating period work, and it is the point about music attempting to 'forge' the sound and soul of another era. If you have seen any Vermeers, they are all relatively small. In those paintings of scenes with people which are not the larger portraits, small figures are rendered with but a few small strokes, literally with but a dot for eyes and a tiny stroke for a mouth: from those, the big tipoff that these paintings were not from that period was the expressions these tiny faces had... there was something about them which was 'modern,' i.e. they expressed neither the psyche of what people of the period knew, or from a modern perspective what seems to us like a naivete of a world culture they could not have known.

Translate, then, expert art forger to expert musical forger, add expert musician who deeply knows period style and applies that to performing the musical forgery, and you have an excellent pastiche rendered with as much "authenticity" as possible, but a work which still does not smile or frown at us with the persona of the age it imitates.

If anyone has a familiarity with works of a period, without all the historical trappings, the lack of the genuine ethos of the era and the writer / painter just may show through. If it does not show through, it is still possible, like those expressions which seemed 'out of place,' 'not right,' that a musical forgery may seem very like, while it still does not quite "ring true."

Love ya, Glen... will always prefer listening to your recordings than reading the verbiage. You're in good company, though, a more interesting writer than the seriously pretentious and whacky Wagner, and at the least, compared to Wagner as a writer, you are far more fun and playful

 

I think Gould is being consistent, i.e. provoking to near inflammatory, and certainly a playful duplicitous devil's advocate.

Most salient from that quote for me is his remark on the "pathetic duplicity" in the reception of high-quality forgeries by Han van Meegeren of new paintings attributed to Dutch Golden Age master Vermeer, before and after the forgery was known.

First, the rather delightful aspect of Han van Meegeren's career, though he was a brilliant forger who did burn a lot of art dealers and their clients, is that his works also burned a lot of Nazi higher up art collectors -- Ergo: van Meegeren is was a true criminal, but for the Dutch he is still a super anti-hero

As a master forger, he used antique wood panels, and all the right elements in reproducing the pigments so works would be accepted as genuine, i.e. he was meticulous. Masterly forging includes creating works which are not replicates, but as if genuinely of the time and from the particular artist being forged.

What finally led to the detection of these otherwise flawless fakes was something highly salient to the argument against replicating period work, and it is the point about music attempting to 'forge' the sound and soul of another era. If you have seen any Vermeers, they are all relatively small. In those paintings of scenes with people which are not the larger portraits, small figures are rendered with but a few small strokes, literally with but a dot for eyes and a tiny stroke for a mouth: from those, the big tipoff that these paintings were not from that period was the expressions these tiny faces had... there was something about them which was 'modern,' i.e. they expressed neither the psyche of what people of the period knew, or from a modern perspective what seems to us like a naivete of a world culture they could not have known.

Translate, then, expert art forger to expert musical forger, add expert musician who deeply knows period style and applies that to performing the musical forgery, and you have an excellent pastiche rendered with as much "authenticity" as possible, but a work which still does not smile or frown at us with the persona of the age it imitates.

If anyone has a familiarity with works of a period, without all the historical trappings, the lack of the genuine ethos of the era and the writer / painter just may show through. If it does not show through, it is still possible, like those expressions which seemed 'out of place,' 'not right,' a musical forgery may seem very like, while it still does not quite "ring true."

Love ya, Glen... will always prefer listening to your recordings than reading the verbiage. You're in good company, though, a more interesting writer than the seriously pretentious and whacky Wagner, and at the least, compared to Wagner as a writer, you are far more fun and playful

I agree with your major point, but you give Van Meegeren and the suckers of the art establishment too much credit. His "Vermeers" are light years from the real thing, and the critics had to postulate an early "religious phase" in Vermeer's career (based solely on Vermeer's Christ in the House of Mary and Martha, which looks nothing like a Van Meegeren) to hypnotize themselves into such gullibility and lack of discernment. You're certainly right about the spirit communicated by the faces, but the figures and compositions as well are, compared to the real thing, as clunky and arid as Bauhaus architecture. Not only are these not good Vermeer imitations; they are not even very good paintings. However, there have been far better art forgeries, and no one doubts that many of them still hang in major collections.

As for music: is the Toccata and Fugue in d-minor really by J.S.Bach, and the Piano Trio in A, Op. posth., really by Brahms?
I think they probably are - or am I, too, undiscerning and gullible? Time does have a way of changing the look and sound of reality.

 

Gould wax a great pianist but he had the misconception that he was good at other things like writing and radio producing. In these he certainly was far less successful. Pity he didn't stick to what he was good at.

 

Gould was certainly a good writer. The Glenn Gould Reader is very much a fun book. And his comedy routines, poking fun at certain other composers, are a hoot. They can be found on YouTube. Those looking for grave profundities may be disappointed, of course.

 

http://video.mit.edu/watch/looking-at-20th-century-art-through-the-eyes-of-a-physicist-9611/

 

Gould was a really smart guy. He's on to something here… I don't know what it is yet, but it's something.

 

Interesting replies in this older thread! Gould explained and explained.. Do other pianists?

Here's a Gould sampler I hadn't found before, there's many more on this YouTube channel;

"It has been a long wait, but we now have reasonable access to Gould's Columbia studio recordings, his television work, his writings, his radio documentaries, and many posthumous releases of live recordings and previously unreleased studio recordings. Only the radio broadcasts are neglected. Sony has the rights, but tends not to release anything that duplicates a studio recording. None of the commentary has ever been released, as far as I know. Here, on Boxing Day of 1968, we have Gould discussing and playing works of Haydn, Gibbons, and Hindemith. The Haydn sonata was recorded again in 1982: the tempos are similar, but GG takes more repeats in this earlier radio broadcast. The Gibbons Pavanne and Galliard were in Gould's repertoire as early as a 1956 radio broadcast. They were eventually recorded for Columbia and released in 1971. The Fantasia in C presented here is not the same item as the Fantasy in C on the LP, and so is a considerable rarity. (Canning's catalogue overlooks that these are different pieces, and if Sony had noticed, they might have released it, I suppose). The Hindemith Sonata was also recorded for Columbia in 1966. A quicker performance of the Fugue only was on the television in 1963. As usual, the 'interview' is scripted by GG."

0:00 Haydn Sonata 62 in Eb Hob.XVI/52 I Allegro 7:11 Haydn Sonata 62 in Eb Hob.XVI/52 II Adagio 13:38 Haydn Sonata 62 in Eb Hob.XVI/52 III Presto 18:30 Harry Freedman introduces GG and James Kent discussing Gibbons 20:22 Gibbons The Lord Of Salisbury His Pavin 27:18 GG and James Kent discussing Gibbons 28:28 Gibbons The Lord Of Salisbury The Galliard 30:09 GG and James Kent discussing Gibbons 30:50 Gibbons Italian Ground 33:04 GG and James Kent discussing Gibbons 34:02 Gibbons Fantasia in C 36:07 GG and James Kent discussing Hindemith. GG refers to his experience with this recording: "I flipped!" 40:12 Hindemith Sonata 3 I Ruhig bewegt 44:30 Hindemith Sonata 3 II Sehr lebhaft 47:12 Hindemith Sonata 3 III Massig schnell 53:07 Hindemith Sonata 3 IV Fuge: Lebhaft 58:02 Conclusion by Harry Freedman