<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [f_minor] Gould on Richter and other
pianists</title></head><body>
<div>Hello everybody.</div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab>In
fact, Gould seemingly strongly appreciated Richter's playing and
honesty: listen to his illuminating comments on Richter's
interpretation of Schubert's last sonata, available on youtube
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1iUdM5k5Hc).</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Best wishes for the new year</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Marco</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Hello all,<br>
<br>
I think that Gould appreciated Richter's serious attitude towards
music, i.e. his disinclination to make a purely virtuoso performance.
Differently put, Gould appreciated and found a kindred spirit in
Richter's more classical "clean" approach than the
distinctly romatic playing of Horowitz. Also Rubinstein, whom Gould
had the highest regard for (see the interview Gould did with AR,
published in the GG Reader; his satire of Rubinstein's writing in the
same volume has I think more to do with the lifestyle of the pianist
than his actual performance), played -- despite his preference for
Chopin -- in a less subjective virtuoso manner.<br>
<br>
The fact the Horowitz is by far the most contrapuntally inclined
player of all three doesn't seem to interest Gould. That Gould felt
inclined to comment Horowitz' return to the stage in "The
Hysteric Return" have, I would suggest, more complex reasons than
just a distaste for concert performance. [The charaterizations are of
course simplified; there are many examples of Horowitz being
classically refined and even more Richter performances with an
intensely virirtoso-romantic approach.]<br>
<br>
Gould's own performances are rather often closer to the romantic
approach, at least as far as "straying" from the notation is
concerned. One mustn't forget that he is quite often less consistent
than his written and spoken comments might suggest.<br>
<br>
"The Enigma" is a true documentary masterpiece -- anyone not
having seen it should do so! The success of this film is largely due
to the interviews with Richter himself. And these were difficult to
orchestrate since Richter was a very difficult person to deal with.
Monsaingeons best films about GG are those were Gould took part
himself. It seems Monsaingeon needs the input of and the problems
dealing with the subject-matter in the flesh to make a truly inspired
documentary.<br>
<br>
All the best for 2012!<br>
<br>
/Jorgen<br>
<br>
Ps. Let's hope these artists have put all the differences aside and
together "joined the choir invisible".<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Mary, yep, we do indeed. Alas, that
parrot is dead. Gone to meet its maker, bereft of life and off to join
the choir invisible and I doubt we will see something that brilliant
ever again.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Now for summet completely
different:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>How come Richter The Enigma is rather
enjoyable while Hereafter is such a horrible piece of drivel ? Mind
you, both were made by the very same director (Bruno Monstagenon)
!</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Maybe I am a bit thick but I find it
strange for someone like GG to praise Richter. Apart from his
technique Richter represented everything GG despised about "beingg a
pianist". Tours, audiences, concerts, doing routine pieces, the
works.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>And while pianists who were playing in
the same league as Richter in terms of being "classic" concert
pianists (i.e. Horowitz, Rubinstein) , GG praised Richter for his
playing and poured mild sarcasm over the likes of the previously
mentioned. Call me thick, but I fail to see any logic here. Is this a
Pianist Thing we non-pianists don't get ?</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Pat</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><b>From:</b> <a
href="mailto:maryellenjensen28@hotmail.com">maryellen
jensen</a></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 02, 2012
1:51 AM</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:f_minor@glenngould.org">f_minor@glenngould.org</a></blockquote
>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><b>Subject:</b> [f_minor] Richter and
Rita</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="+1">Oooo we do miss The
Python desperately.<br>
<br>
Strange thing Pat, our GG imagined himself the pianist in the
contortionist's sack<br>
(metaphorically) while on the other hand Richter wanted to be
driven<br>
all over the USSR in the back of a truck with any old piano to
perform<br>
in any and every little hamlet...<br>
<br>
Mary</font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div>Prof. Marco D. Poli<br>
<br>
Università di Milano<br>
Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Biomediche</div>
<div>Sezione di Psicologia<br>
LITA<br>
via F.lli Cervi 93<br>
20090 Segrate - MI<br>
ITALY<br>
phone +39 02 5033 0348<br>
Fax +39 02 5033 0384</div>
</body>
</html>