I honestly cannot decide what I like more - the way Glenn plays or the way he talks. He was one great intellectual and deeply moral leader of his time, and I feel privileged to be able to listen to his interviews and recordings. Such a remarkable caliber of mind and talent!
Neither artist is right or wrong. Glenn Gould lived and breathed music within himself and saw it in such a personal and intellectual manner and therefore detested large audiences influencing his style like a "mob" and preventing repetition or perfection and relying on "live" experience. Mehta is like many other performers including myself who love to communicate through art and through music. To play music is to speak to someone not just to study and therefore we love having someone to communicate to rather than ourselves. Some artists are in between. Chopin hated large audiences and the mob mentality but loved smaller more personal audiences in salons. He loved nothing more than playing for friends, family or other small groups in any situation. No one is right or wrong here. Yet it's fascinating to see just how different opinions are regarding any aspect of art considering how personal it is
As someone who's lives in a time where all you hear is "I wrote that song in ten minutes" this gives hope. Glenn wasn't only a genius on the keys but a genius of the purpose
Glenn's world was a special one. For most seek stimulation from the outside world. Glenn found his from within. An audience represented everything he loathed about society. He didn't perform for others to feel validated like most do. He performed so that he could express his feelings to the music as if the notes themselves nurtured him and he wished to reciprocate thus becoming part of the music itself both emotionally and intellectually when he played. As you can see him so intimately do every time he sits down on that old rickety chair.
But even the process of recording is designated to the listener so he is in fact performing, just under control. Gould had immense anxiety and this is well documented stemming back to his childhood. The need for control took center stage that even future interviews were choreographed and pre written by Gould. He wanted the public to adore him as an introverted recluse. He was brilliant but in his own way did need adoration just on his own terms
@@MrDcseltzer Need for control over ones expression ? Yes that's why he's right on what he demands .Should he play the way the audience demands he would have had the worst critisizm ,according to this interview. He loved variations that appealed to his individuality and not of the audiences .You wish to attribute that to his "well documented " childhood, right! as if you knew the man.He was unconventional and people like you don't like that .No the process of recording is not designated to the listener ,it is designated to who ever wants to listen to him.If you find that narcissistic or anything i think there is something wrong with you not him.
@@MrDcseltzer "He wanted the public to adore him as an introverted recluse." Is that what you draw from it? What a retarded conclusion... To me, that's like saying Michelangelo needed adoration from blind people. Gould didn't come across as to caring what ANYONE thinks, because he firmly held to higher standards than most. Who would be a better critic to judge his work than himself? Being the kind of perfectionist he was, of course he wanted control, and of course these personality traits are synonymous with anxiety. That's rather expected, and no surprise. But to say that he "did need adoration" really doesn't fit. He had his own platform, he didn't need anyone to appreciate or tell him his recordings were "good", I bet he cared as much as you would have if a blind person came up to you and said "you look good".
It is absolutely, resolutely clear, the amount of effort and care Gould took with each and every recording. He was a master. His recordings are essential and utterly perfect. We owe so much to him.
I wish the clip ended with Glenn Gould and not Zubin Mehta whose energy and mentality about audiences destroyed the quiet and introspective mood I gained through listening to Glenn Gould think and speak. But then again, it's interesting to see through Mehta that Gould was very, very special.
He has an extremely attractive and even magical speaking voice. I just listened to Goldberg variations in which there is included Glenn interviewed by Tim Paige (1981 recording). Glenn is such an artist, he is intelligent and knows the bull*** of making money out of ´the art`. He is such penetrating intelligent, he does not please people. Who sits in the audience in the fine concert halls, walls of marble? Yeah, think about it. Glenn was an animal lover. He made a will in which at least half of his worth was to be given for the local animal rescue center and the samaritans. Think about that what it tells about a person. Glenn was my kind of a human being.
I agree with him! I live in Vienna and get to see a lot of concerts but I must say listening to a good quality recording in the comfort of my own home makes me feel much more connected to the artist than it does seeing a tiny blob in the distance in a concert hall!
I understand Gould in that how audiences take away a lot of( or interrupted) the art of piano playing. Piano playing is a very personal thing. Turning it into a performance is traumatizing and actually quite violent for an artist. It demands totally different kind of skill than playing itself. Some great pianists choose not to face that. It is completely understandable. Depending on individual personality, one may feel either energized or depleted by the presence of audiencesl
Introvert vs extrovert. One is totally dedicated to the music and its own connection with it - and the other to the emotional mood that can be carried into the direction of the public.
@@lotharlamurtra7924 back then that was less diagnosed but many years later there was speculation. Gould was functioning as I do not see the point of labeling him. I feel the same as well with people in our society today as well. Many diagnosed seem quite normal to me....
I can understand his point of view. I've always thought "applause" is odd, simiam. That people increase or decrease their level of applause, in judgment of the performer, makes me as an audience member uncomfortable, especially when one feels compelled to stand only because others in the audience decides that a performer "deserves" a standing ovation. All of it is rather an odd social phenomenon, and one that makes concerts feel like athletic events.
Zubin was underestimating the power of recorded music and the very real connection it can offer. I appreciate his perspective because I think it makes him a better conductor, though it is difficult to argue that Glenn was a better communicator on the stage because of how discomforting 'performance' was to him. Mehta doesn't think about the concertgoer like me, who is there to be a "receiver" but ultimately connects better with music upon repeated listenings, in the comfort of my home.
Couldn't help but notice the very distinctive light fixtures in the background of Zubins interview. He was being interviewed at the Dorothy Chandler pavilion in Los Angeles longtime home of the Los Angeles philharmonic before the Walt Disney concert Hall was built.
Watching Zubin Mehta hamming it up so desperate for the attention and approval of his audiences; such a grotesque display--as a conductor he's saved over and over again by the skill and generosity of the soloists and players. Go conduct the three tenors and make that money, you hack. Why is Mehta's flippant opinion even included in this clip? Gould's works continue to fascinate me after a life of listening and making music. There is something special, something like a fingerprint, something deeply personal. Gould makes himself vulnerable and open in a way that very few performers are able to do in front of an audience or otherwise, and that feels like generosity to me. I'm so grateful for these insights into his mind.
If Mehta had anything to say, musically and otherwise, we'd know by now. (Well, that may be a bit harsh: I'm actually quite fond of his studio recording of "Turandot".)
It's a shame, though, that Richter had most of his performances recorded in rooms full of people who sounded like they were not long for this world, and not a nice quiet recording studio like Gould.
last of the bloodsports. I gotta admit, that I always and up to this day felt a certain uneasiness when attending classical performances. something can always go bloody wrong, musician's embarrassed, and you're the voyeur.
I think this is just as fascinating for having a young Alex Trebek as the interviewer. For all the millions of fans from his Jeopardy days, I doubt most of them even knew of his connection to Glenn Gould as a CBC host in the 1960s!
I would add to what Gould says, the music is something very delicate, it's always surrounded by the cisrcunstances. It's possible that the content of the music could vary if it's sounding in a concert hall or in your house. And of course, its easier to concentrate in the music in the commodity of your house. Perhaps it's not a matter of being easier, but i think it's the best way or the way to appreciate the music: you are in your house, alone with the music, that's how the composer was when he was working on the piece after all. Indeed, the music is something very intimate, and it touches the heart of those intimate and sensitive people. In my opinion this is what music was asking for, this way of listening to the music is what was needed. But well, okay. Once you've assimilated a particular music piece in your heart, it's always great to attend to a concert where it's being played alive. But it's for me essential to be able to previously listen to that particular music piece as much as it's needed until you assimilate it entirely in your heart, and after you're familiar with that music then it's alright for me to attend to a concert hall. After all, it's all a matter of different levels of appreciation and identification with that music, that's all. And of course, recorded music allows higher levels of appreciation and identification, no doubt.
love this but re: 1:45 -- you can absolutely enter a performance "in 16 minds" and it's quite fun. the "one mind"/cohesion can simply be to entertain options and make instant decisions based on feel of the audience in real time.
Zubin is relating the idea that "what is the point if there is no audience"? For Glenn, (and I relate to this) the audience receiving the music is *Glenn*. *And that is Enough....* Certainly, is it lovely to touch others with your art. And, it can be life transformational to connect with yourself with your art. (mostly likely a spectrum of feelings about this among artists as opposed to one or the other)
Glenn Gould here talks about architectural production and he gave this product after a very strictly and precise choise he made analogicaly to what he had in mind, how he imagined the perfection of a piece.He is far from technical achievement and closer to imaginary perfection. For the Goldberg Variations he speaks about arithmetical corespondanse between them.....It is obvious that his knowledge and comprehension of music overpasses common intelligence producing miraculous sounds and lead to deliberations hardly been imagined. We all, as his audience mentally applaud....
Mr. Gould, don't worry about us, the annoying audience. You can lock yourself with the piano, and forget about the world to play your music. Just make sure to leave a window open and we will not bother you. Thank you master.
Re Metha's "he's out of his mind" remark, the young conductor was "outspoken" and impolitic in those days. He also made a remark around that time slamming the ways of the New York Philharmonic, which required serious fence-mending. Maturity happens.
Я неоднократно встречала множество спекуляций по поводу этой фразы, обычно вырванной из контекста. Буквально, создан негативный образ музыканта-социопата, хотя это категорически неправильно и оскорбительно. И вот спустя много лет, благодаря современным цифровым технологиям, у каждого из нас есть возможность быть причастным - к акту любви!!, быть полноценным участником святой троицы "композитор-исполнитель-слушатель". В качественных беспроводных наушниках я полностью отдаюсь этой неземной музыке, а мурлыканье Гленна создает эффект его присутствия, наполняет музыку человеческим теплом. Правда, есть небольшая проблема - я не могу и не хочу слушать других исполнителей, если произведение уже исполнил Гленн 😁. Классика - это вершина музыкального искусства, а вершина классики - это Гленн Гульд. Альпинист, взобравшийся на недосягаемую высоту (он бы улыбнулся этому сравнению, как человек, искренне удивлявшийся, зачем люди ходят в горы). Даже обошел альпиниста Микеланджели 😄. Благодарю тебя, Гленн! ❤🙏 Твоя публика тебя нашла. Вместе навсегда.
This discussion recalled to mind the role that Lois Smith played in the film " Five Easy Pieces"...specifically the scenes where she is playing piano in a recording studio.
This is an interesting debate. I want to side with Mehta because I do believe that music should be received by an audience. I find it surprising and even possibly offensive that Gould would detest the idea of having an audience. There may be so much art to the recording but I think it takes much more skill to internalize the audience and make musical decisions according to their reaction or ambience.
Of course there is a great gulf between the genius of Glenn Gould and that of the talent of Zubin Mehta (who I admittedly don't know). I don't think it is a fair comparison to talk about them side by side. "Doing easily what others find difficult is talent. Doing what is impossible for talent is genius." Glenn Gould is idiosyncratic because he is a genius, and so of course Mehta would find him odd. Mehta has to climb the mountain, while Glenn Gould flies. I don't think it is productive to try to understand genius. It is simply more fun to marvel and to enjoy what comes out of it. I'm so grateful that he loved the recording studio, so that people like me can still experience his music even now.
Some performers thrive in live performances. For me, if a person walks up to the piano I’m playing, it’s like I’ve never had my hands on the keys…concert nerves. But I’m an amateur and play for the challenges and fun….
I am more on Gould's side, because I am a writer. When I write, I imagine my audience of readers. I'm sure Gould could envision his audiences in his imagination too.
When I perform I like the energy and silent communication that I receive from the audience. I don't get this same energy from a microphone - in fact, the microphone represents to me an unforgiving medium, one that necessitates countless takes to get it "perfect".
Gould's attitude toward audiences is what we tragically saw in the case of Kurt Cobain. The difference is that Kurt recognized it as a failing in himself--the failure to draw energy, inspiration and joy from the audience as his hero Freddy Mercury did. Kurt lamented that that in his note. There will always be introverted, anxious or outright misanthropic performers; it has little to do with skill and it's nobody's fault; but it's just a real shame when a performer feels attacked by the very communal feeling of joy that their performance brings others.
I'm with Glenn Gould 100%. The music is the energy surely. What's more important.. The immortal music of Bach.. Or some mere mortal onlookers at a performance of his music? They're an irrelevance in comparison
Yes. Saying that he (Mehta) couldn't play without an audience really makes you question his reasons for playing, and thereby his integrity to some extent. If there isn't a higher purpose to playing than the amusement of others, you might as well be a clown at the circus.
@Gzheffph Hchinckkle Chill, dude. I was merely making a point you didnt get, which wasn't "nonsensical" (that's just plain rude). "...always doing what I want while also thinking of what an unfamiliar listener will get out of it, and I DO let that shape my style to an extent." -That's NOT the same as saying "no point in playing without an audience." You completely misunderstood what I was saying... I understand what YOU're saying, and AGREE, I don't necessarily think those THOUGHTS are inherently wrong, depending on the context and situation they COULD be, or NOT... kind of what you're saying. What I was saying in no way contradicts that. Please read my previous post again with this in mind, and pay attention to the literal meaning of what I actually said. You seem to somehow have "interpreted" it into something different from what I actually said...
@Gzheffph Hchinckkle Listen to what Mehta said... "I think he's (Gould) out of his mind. I couldn't perform if there was not three people sitting out there. I couldn't do that. I think every performer NEEDS this STIMULUS. -(Well, that's obviously WRONG, as at least Mr Gould certainly DOESN'T need it, or want it) That's why I'm not very comfortable in recording studios, which Mr Gould IS... Not ONLY do we NEED the stimulus, but we need somebody to RECEIVE what we're doing. There HAS to be somebody who is RECEIVING from us. -(Uh... just NO) This is very important, I think, to anybody that steps foot on the stage..." But YOU're talking about when COMPOSING... some differences right there you know... "the typical quasi-religious judging crap" You have got to be kidding! "Your kind of folks are the same who downgrade Horowitz" Say what? Who's actually JUDGING "quasi-religiously" here anyway? Have a look in the mirror, before judging others! And lastly, again... CHILL, DUDE!
@Gzheffph Hchinckkle "You said he might as well be a clown at the circus" No, I DID NOT! Learn how to read. But please quote me on it... BTW, ever heard of FIGURATIVE speech, to MAKE A POINT? "I expect you to be the sort who will go to the concert hall for "difficult" works and BOO when you hear a common triad LOL" Yeah, I'm not at all surprised you do expect such stupid things, as you seem to project a lot, nor am I surprised how far off you are. You didn't get ONE thing right... Too bad. And what judgmental douche attitude. Who said something about "quasi-religious judging crap" again? Have a look in the mirror, man! That was ALL. Carry on. Or get bent. I'm out. Feel free to have the "last word", my treat! Bye
@Charlemagne "Chopin was a fascinating composer, I don’t think however that he was a great composer. In the bigger things of music… in the real organisational attempts … he failed almost all together. As a miniaturist he was superb, a setter of moods unparalleled, as someone who understood the piano, certainly unprecedented. But he is not a composer I rest easy with. " "....I have always felt that the whole centre core of the (early 19th century) piano repertoire is a colossal waste of time... This generalization includes Chopin, Liszt, Schumann... I don't think any of the early Romantic composers knew how to write for the piano... The music of that era is full of empty theatrical gestures, full of exhibitionism, and it has a worldly, hedonistic quality that simply turns me off. "
@@IgnacioClerici-mp5cy This is just a guess, I have no idea what Gould actually meant, but I think he was referring to the general theme of the Romantic period and of Chopin and Liszt and what they actually tried to do at the piano. The romantics generally used the piano as a medium to convey both human emotion and the beauty of human emotion, as opposed to Bach, of whom it could be argued tried to convey the beauty of God, life and the world through the clavier. I believe Bach chose music as a medium to express both his devotion to God and to express his humility. I don't necessarily agree with Gould because I think it's valid to use the piano as an instrument to convey something as fundamental and important as emotions, although generally I prefer Bach's music because the underlying themes themselves feel much more humbling, they give a feeling of the music conveying something much bigger.
Is that a coliseum in the part when Zubin talks? Yes, anyway, coliseums are a good example of how stupiditly people act when it is in groups or big groups. Look at the famous armies of the films, yes so cool films about armies and blood, that's another example.
I find it so interesting that Mehta denounces Gould’s approach entirely, while Gould simply states his strong, individual preference without judging anyone else! And it shows that Mehta’s true consideration is to “perform” to receive the good opinion of people he doesn’t know and will never meet, while this artificial environment of pandering, really, the way Mehta describes it, is exactly what Gould detested. And Gould only rarely had cameras filming him in the studio, as Mehta asserts; he was filmed only on a few occasions, for documentaries. There’s a huge narcissistic element in every person who feels s/he needs the approval of strangers, whether it’s acting in films, or any other kind of spectacle, and classical musicians who have the need for that kind of approval and “love” are the very ones I instinctively can’t stand to listen to! I want to hear musicians who _WANT TO COMMUNICATE WHAT THEY BELIEVE THE COMPOSER WAS THINKING, THE COMPOSER’S PROCESS,_ the artists who would play just as ardently whether anybody ever listened, or not, and they are the only ones worth listening to, in my opinion! The most incredible things happen, musically, when an artist loses him/herself in the music and seems to become a pure conduit for the composers’ intentions, and I’m thinking of Jacqueline de Pré, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Itzhak Perlman, Arthur Rubinstein, and Glenn Gould, just to name a very few. And you can hear it in their recordings, as well. And I’m so very glad that Gould left us an amazing body of his work, especially his Bach recordings, bc I never would have seen him perform in person, anyway!
It worked for Gould and temperamentally I'm with him, but his example isn't compelling--after all, any worthwhile performer-in-front-of-a-public presumably spends many hours by his or herself determining which of their 60 (to use his number) interpretations works best before going out in front of an audience. So that doesn't really clinch his case. Fortunately it doesn't need to be clinched--you do what works for you, and as he notes he's fortunate that (economically, although he doesn't say that outright) he can eschew live performance.
He said it outright elsewhere. He literally stated that he kept performing in concert only till he had enough money on the side to be financially secure. Then he immediately stopped giving live performances and focussed on what he really enjoyed: experimenting with sounds and words in the studio.
Audiences are “a force of evil”…his paranoia was peeking through this interview. A genius, yet unable to ever develop a happy personal life, he speaks of 16 minds as he works in the studio. Glen was not of this world.
I absolutely love Glenn Gould, and respect his opinions. But drugs have a way of twisting your ego and make what you do seem more important to yourself. Music is for the people, yes even the uneducated masses. To say you detest them is a bit extreme, especially when they are the ones supporting you. Again I respect his opinion, but I don’t agree with how he expressed it. And to anyone saying he “didn’t perform for others/it was only for the music” is being overly romantic and probably isn’t a musician. A huge part of being a musician is having your work heard by others, whether live or in recordings. Regardless of your opinion of said audience, real-world feedback is necessary for an artist to grow & mature.
Exactly. Glenn goes against public opinion. He doesn't care what anybody else thinks. I'm not saying Mehta is wrong. Mehta is just a more conventional thinker about music.
Jacob Opper the thing is Metha is a conductor , he doesn't have the burden to practice an instrument . The conductor rehersing with it's orchestra it's what would a recording session looks like. So at the end if Metha is conducting in a studio , it would be like a rehersal with machines . The instrumentist of the orchestra on the other hand are the ones practicing their instruments . So it's not the same burden . They are the ones who feel most of the stress , because they have more responsibilities , like playing together and in tune while the conductor is just a bit more of an observer when he is performing live on stage.
As an artist you can put all the focus on attention to details, which is of utmost importance if you want to give it the love and care that the interpretation deserves. You also have to be considerate to the audience, but for classical music and less show business-centric performances, that audience can be, as J.D. Salinger puts it, the fat lady. It can be anyone, and that fat lady may well be Jesus Christ. The audience member can be just one person of many able to connect to your interpretation of the music, and being able to provide that profound emotional experience is not without meaning. That said, when you are actually performing, the audience should not need to figure into your thoughts unless you're purposefully interacting with them in some fashion. It is sufficient to know that perhaps you're able to reach out to someone out there and to bring that person closer to the divine.... just as you have once been by another artist.
Vous etes le plus grand pianiste, pour moi, aussi Leonard Berstein, vous etes mort, je pense souvant á vous et j'aime souvant vous ecouter... donc, par votre musique vous etes vivant!✌🎗💛🌼🎗💛🎗🌼🎗🌼🇺🇲
I'm not entirely sure "ego trip" is the right word as both of them have similar ideas in mind; take what you're creating and present it through a medium. For Mehta, that medium is a concert hall with people that give him energy and a sense of purpose. For Gould, that medium is the recording studio where he can focus with intense concentration and not be distracted by the audience.
@@matthewdustin7353 the music is the energy surely. What's more important.. The immortal music of Bach .. Or some mere mortal onlookers at a performance of his music?
@@pobinr I think a question like that is a bit silly don't you think? If the music exists and nobody is around to hear it, then there surely is no purpose to the music whatsoever. Music needs an audience to be listened to, whether that audience be listening through headphones at home or in a concert hall. There is more than 1 type of musician in this world. I'm sure Lang Lang would probably agree with Mehta in this case.
curestruck I doubt its only social anxiety. There is also those well known stupid rituals and senseless ovations to the interpreter, as if he would have been some kind of messias or The Elected One . Not to mention all the people that goes to the concert hall mainly as a pastime and time killer and don't give a fuck to the music, because they are just a bunch of snobs
skan8 Except that Shostakovich performed extensively before audiences, for a time contemplated pursuing a career as pianist over composer, had a very different way of playing, and generally held aesthetic views sharply divergent from Gould’s. But, uh, yeah aside from that quite similar...
He's very disrespectful when he says "I detest audiences," and "I think they're a force of evil." It shows insecurity. I think this is apparent as he actually had a very limited output compared to other world-class musicians like him.That is why he preferred the solitude of the recording studio where he could manipulate ad nauseam the final product. The live performance in front of an audience must be terrifying if you're not self-assured. There's always the fear of a mistake or the fear of criticism. But the artist should be able to control his fears and perform. Miles Davis had a lot of resentment for his white audiences to the point where he would turn his back at them. But that was different; that wasn't out of performance anxiety.
He is negative of the idea to respond to the audience "field". It is not more disrespectful - to the way audiences respond disrespectful to many genius artists "field" through the ages. It is obvious he's grounds are philosophical as much if not more as performer one's. And it is ancient philosophical theme (apparent Classical Greece too) that identify the audiences as "Demonic"and "Orgiastic" - a way one to loose its own mind and/or to gain control over the masses. Glenn sure may as well "ride on" the wave of this demonic properties of the masses - but he is too conscious of it to do it - not insecure by the plain manual control over its own performance!!!
danielsh1015 I don’t find his honesty disrespectful. He’s quite right. One only has to hear how the trajectory of contemporary music has been blunted because of this exaggerated awareness of and concern for audiences. Musical performance, too, has suffered because of this.
You obviously know nothing about Gould. His recorded output was as large as any other world class pianists', and his repertoire was remarkably large, including chamber music and lieder no one else played at his time (like the complete Schoenberg songs or Hindemiths sonatas with brass instruments, to name just two of many examples). Gould wasn't afraid of making mistakes, his recorded live performances, of which there are quite many, only contain few wrong notes and muddled passages. He was afraid however, as he stated himself, that playing in front of audiences would drag him down. When on tour, he felt he was starting to do things to please the crowds. He would do the easy, impressive, predictable thing. He'd give up what he considered to be his integrity: his curiosity, his nonconformism. He'd turn into a Mehta.
I love the way Glenn Gould speaks. He truly had a way with words.
Glenn Gould has horrible face when playing, I lose concentration
@@kinuux so close your eyes then and just listen.
He speaks naturally as if a learned person writing elegant prose.
He speaks like he's composing a score. Carefully chooses his words
Alma Deutscher seems to have the EXACT same type of speaking, no matter what she talks about. Check out her RUclips channel
He speaks so beautifully and he plays so elegantly. Dazzling. ❤️
I honestly cannot decide what I like more - the way Glenn plays or the way he talks. He was one great intellectual and deeply moral leader of his time, and I feel privileged to be able to listen to his interviews and recordings. Such a remarkable caliber of mind and talent!
I like the way he hummed the most, but I listen for it on all his pieces !!
Neither artist is right or wrong. Glenn Gould lived and breathed music within himself and saw it in such a personal and intellectual manner and therefore detested large audiences influencing his style like a "mob" and preventing repetition or perfection and relying on "live" experience. Mehta is like many other performers including myself who love to communicate through art and through music. To play music is to speak to someone not just to study and therefore we love having someone to communicate to rather than ourselves. Some artists are in between. Chopin hated large audiences and the mob mentality but loved smaller more personal audiences in salons. He loved nothing more than playing for friends, family or other small groups in any situation. No one is right or wrong here. Yet it's fascinating to see just how different opinions are regarding any aspect of art considering how personal it is
"Sorry, Glenn, but you didn't phrase your answer in the form of a question."
Cute, but, true.
As someone who's lives in a time where all you hear is "I wrote that song in ten minutes" this gives hope. Glenn wasn't only a genius on the keys but a genius of the purpose
curestruck [o o I 8
Such an elegant way to describe the primal feeling of introversion.
No, I agree w you. An arrogant introvert.
He is just so articulated. No wonder his playing is so crystal clear.
Glenn's world was a special one. For most seek stimulation from the outside world. Glenn found his from within. An audience represented everything he loathed about society. He didn't perform for others to feel validated like most do. He performed so that he could express his feelings to the music as if the notes themselves nurtured him and he wished to reciprocate thus becoming part of the music itself both emotionally and intellectually when he played. As you can see him so intimately do every time he sits down on that old rickety chair.
Yes. Thank you.
But even the process of recording is designated to the listener so he is in fact performing, just under control. Gould had immense anxiety and this is well documented stemming back to his childhood. The need for control took center stage that even future interviews were choreographed and pre written by Gould. He wanted the public to adore him as an introverted recluse. He was brilliant but in his own way did need adoration just on his own terms
@@MrDcseltzer Need for control over ones expression ? Yes that's why he's right on what he demands .Should he play the way the audience demands he would have had the worst critisizm ,according to this interview. He loved variations that appealed to his individuality and not of the audiences .You wish to attribute that to his "well documented " childhood, right! as if you knew the man.He was unconventional and people like you don't like that .No the process of recording is not designated to the listener ,it is designated to who ever wants to listen to him.If you find that narcissistic or anything i think there is something wrong with you not him.
@@MrDcseltzer "He wanted the public to adore him as an introverted recluse." Is that what you draw from it? What a retarded conclusion... To me, that's like saying Michelangelo needed adoration from blind people. Gould didn't come across as to caring what ANYONE thinks, because he firmly held to higher standards than most. Who would be a better critic to judge his work than himself? Being the kind of perfectionist he was, of course he wanted control, and of course these personality traits are synonymous with anxiety. That's rather expected, and no surprise. But to say that he "did need adoration" really doesn't fit. He had his own platform, he didn't need anyone to appreciate or tell him his recordings were "good", I bet he cared as much as you would have if a blind person came up to you and said "you look good".
I worked with Glenn on many of his recordings and your observations are very true
It is absolutely, resolutely clear, the amount of effort and care Gould took with each and every recording. He was a master. His recordings are essential and utterly perfect. We owe so much to him.
Yes, except I have yet to see a score of any piece he played that said the performer is to hum along.
I wish the clip ended with Glenn Gould and not Zubin Mehta whose energy and mentality about audiences destroyed the quiet and introspective mood I gained through listening to Glenn Gould think and speak. But then again, it's interesting to see through Mehta that Gould was very, very special.
One of the greatest musical intellects of our time.
Jacob Opper
Of all time!
He has an extremely attractive and even magical speaking voice. I just listened to Goldberg variations in which there is included Glenn interviewed by Tim Paige (1981 recording). Glenn is such an artist, he is intelligent and knows the bull*** of making money out of ´the art`. He is such penetrating intelligent, he does not please people. Who sits in the audience in the fine concert halls, walls of marble? Yeah, think about it. Glenn was an animal lover. He made a will in which at least half of his worth was to be given for the local animal rescue center and the samaritans. Think about that what it tells about a person. Glenn was my kind of a human being.
He is SO REAL about recordings and choosing variants!! Glad i can do it with just my phone!!!!!
I agree with him! I live in Vienna and get to see a lot of concerts but I must say listening to a good quality recording in the comfort of my own home makes me feel much more connected to the artist than it does seeing a tiny blob in the distance in a concert hall!
I love this man so much bless you and RIP darling genius on this 35th anniversary of your passing
I understand Gould in that how audiences take away a lot of( or interrupted) the art of piano playing. Piano playing is a very personal thing. Turning it into a performance is traumatizing and actually quite violent for an artist. It demands totally different kind of skill than playing itself. Some great pianists choose not to face that. It is completely understandable. Depending on individual personality, one may feel either energized or depleted by the presence of audiencesl
Chopin probably would’ve agreed with him lol
If he wants to play in studio more power to him and if someone likes an audience that's great too. I like your comments. Now I understand better.
Introvert vs extrovert. One is totally dedicated to the music and its own connection with it - and the other to the emotional mood that can be carried into the direction of the public.
actually Glenn Gould had asperger syndrome, it wasn't just a question of introversion :)
Hanna de Bonneval did you see the medical diagnosis or is it an opinion you have?
@@hannadb5686 someone with aspergers can be extroverted as well....
@@lotharlamurtra7924 back then that was less diagnosed but many years later there was speculation. Gould was functioning as I do not see the point of labeling him. I feel the same as well with people in our society today as well. Many diagnosed seem quite normal to me....
@@samanthab6642
Correct. Source: ENTJ with Autism here.
Being a die hard fan of Gould, I must say I need the audience. They expand my awareness of what I'm doing.
RIP to these two legendary icons, each exquisite in their own way.
RIP indeed to the great Glenn Gould but as of March 2021 maestro Zubin Mehta was still very much with us at age 84
Also Mehta is anything but an icon.
I can understand his point of view. I've always thought "applause" is odd, simiam. That people increase or decrease their level of applause, in judgment of the performer, makes me as an audience member uncomfortable, especially when one feels compelled to stand only because others in the audience decides that a performer "deserves" a standing ovation. All of it is rather an odd social phenomenon, and one that makes concerts feel like athletic events.
Zubin was underestimating the power of recorded music and the very real connection it can offer. I appreciate his perspective because I think it makes him a better conductor, though it is difficult to argue that Glenn was a better communicator on the stage because of how discomforting 'performance' was to him. Mehta doesn't think about the concertgoer like me, who is there to be a "receiver" but ultimately connects better with music upon repeated listenings, in the comfort of my home.
Couldn't help but notice the very distinctive light fixtures in the background of Zubins interview. He was being interviewed at the Dorothy Chandler pavilion in Los Angeles longtime home of the Los Angeles philharmonic before the Walt Disney concert Hall was built.
Watching Zubin Mehta hamming it up so desperate for the attention and approval of his audiences; such a grotesque display--as a conductor he's saved over and over again by the skill and generosity of the soloists and players. Go conduct the three tenors and make that money, you hack. Why is Mehta's flippant opinion even included in this clip?
Gould's works continue to fascinate me after a life of listening and making music. There is something special, something like a fingerprint, something deeply personal. Gould makes himself vulnerable and open in a way that very few performers are able to do in front of an audience or otherwise, and that feels like generosity to me. I'm so grateful for these insights into his mind.
I totally agree with you!
If Mehta had anything to say, musically and otherwise, we'd know by now.
(Well, that may be a bit harsh: I'm actually quite fond of his studio recording of "Turandot".)
Mehta needs to know his place..he's a band leader, nothing more
There is something very magical and profound about sitting in an audience at a concert.
It's a shame, though, that Richter had most of his performances recorded in rooms full of people who sounded like they were not long for this world, and not a nice quiet recording studio like Gould.
_"I'll take Bach for $1000, Alex."_
Glenn experienced the concert circuit. He played with Karajan in Berlin, in Israel, Belgium,and Russia. It was physically too demanding.
Marvelous! Glenn, of course.
last of the bloodsports. I gotta admit, that I always and up to this day felt a certain uneasiness when attending classical performances. something can always go bloody wrong, musician's embarrassed, and you're the voyeur.
That was Gould's point and it's hard to argue with it...there is a NASCAR element to attending live performance.
I think this is just as fascinating for having a young Alex Trebek as the interviewer. For all the millions of fans from his Jeopardy days, I doubt most of them even knew of his connection to Glenn Gould as a CBC host in the 1960s!
ruclips.net/video/hVdGygqhez4/видео.html😍
Gould's decision to stop doing live concerts reminds me of the same decision The Beatles made at the height of their fame.
I would add to what Gould says,
the music is something very delicate, it's always surrounded by the cisrcunstances. It's possible that the content of the music could vary if it's sounding in a concert hall or in your house. And of course, its easier to concentrate in the music in the commodity of your house. Perhaps it's not a matter of being easier, but i think it's the best way or the way to appreciate the music: you are in your house, alone with the music, that's how the composer was when he was working on the piece after all. Indeed, the music is something very intimate, and it touches the heart of those intimate and sensitive people. In my opinion this is what music was asking for, this way of listening to the music is what was needed.
But well, okay. Once you've assimilated a particular music piece in your heart, it's always great to attend to a concert where it's being played alive. But it's for me essential to be able to previously listen to that particular music piece as much as it's needed until you assimilate it entirely in your heart, and after you're familiar with that music then it's alright for me to attend to a concert hall. After all, it's all a matter of different levels of appreciation and identification with that music, that's all. And of course, recorded music allows higher levels of appreciation and identification, no doubt.
JulianJules pm km l
That's all very interesting, Mr. Gould, but could you say it again in the form of a question?
I have come to accept his attitude on live performances. It stands in contrast (in so many ways) to another one of my heroes, Keith Jarrett.
It's amazing to me that Alex Trebek from Jeopardy and Glenn Gould knew each other so long ago.
I agree. I would never connect the two on my own! Seem like they belonged to such different, far-apart eras!
@@teresal5174 They were both in the CBC world in the 1960s, probably saw each other in passing quite often at the Toronto Jarvis St. studios.
@@secordman Thank you. That would make sense.
He was an extraordinary pianist of course, but I have never heard a more articulate person in my entire life.
love this but re: 1:45 -- you can absolutely enter a performance "in 16 minds" and it's quite fun. the "one mind"/cohesion can simply be to entertain options and make instant decisions based on feel of the audience in real time.
Zubin Mehta COMPLETELY misunderstood what GG was all about. Rarely have I ever seen anyone miss the point so absolutely.
I mean, Mehta's not on the brightest side. He has the makings of a tenor... 🤪
Incredibly deep. Love it
Genius.
Absolutely fascinating
Zubin is relating the idea that "what is the point if there is no audience"? For Glenn, (and I relate to this) the audience receiving the music is *Glenn*. *And that is Enough....* Certainly, is it lovely to touch others with your art. And, it can be life transformational to connect with yourself with your art. (mostly likely a spectrum of feelings about this among artists as opposed to one or the other)
Glenn Gould here talks about architectural production and he gave this product after a very strictly and precise choise he made analogicaly to what he had in mind, how he imagined the perfection of a piece.He is far from technical achievement and closer to imaginary perfection. For the Goldberg Variations he speaks about arithmetical corespondanse between them.....It is obvious that his knowledge and comprehension of music overpasses common intelligence producing miraculous sounds and lead to deliberations hardly been imagined. We all, as his audience mentally applaud....
Mr. Gould, don't worry about us, the annoying audience. You can lock yourself with the piano, and forget about the world to play your music. Just make sure to leave a window open and we will not bother you. Thank you master.
I always see this comment when I pass for this video. It is beautiful.
Re Metha's "he's out of his mind" remark, the young conductor was "outspoken" and impolitic in those days. He also made a remark around that time slamming the ways of the New York Philharmonic, which required serious fence-mending. Maturity happens.
To me, it’s cocky and flippant.
I love him
anyone would love you , with such a photo ,,xo
Someone lo fi this
Я неоднократно встречала множество спекуляций по поводу этой фразы, обычно вырванной из контекста. Буквально, создан негативный образ музыканта-социопата, хотя это категорически неправильно и оскорбительно. И вот спустя много лет, благодаря современным цифровым технологиям, у каждого из нас есть возможность быть причастным - к акту любви!!, быть полноценным участником святой троицы "композитор-исполнитель-слушатель". В качественных беспроводных наушниках я полностью отдаюсь этой неземной музыке, а мурлыканье Гленна создает эффект его присутствия, наполняет музыку человеческим теплом. Правда, есть небольшая проблема - я не могу и не хочу слушать других исполнителей, если произведение уже исполнил Гленн 😁. Классика - это вершина музыкального искусства, а вершина классики - это Гленн Гульд. Альпинист, взобравшийся на недосягаемую высоту (он бы улыбнулся этому сравнению, как человек, искренне удивлявшийся, зачем люди ходят в горы). Даже обошел альпиниста Микеланджели 😄. Благодарю тебя, Гленн! ❤🙏 Твоя публика тебя нашла. Вместе навсегда.
This discussion recalled to mind the role that Lois Smith played in the film " Five Easy Pieces"...specifically the scenes where she is playing piano in a recording studio.
This is an interesting debate. I want to side with Mehta because I do believe that music should be received by an audience. I find it surprising and even possibly offensive that Gould would detest the idea of having an audience. There may be so much art to the recording but I think it takes much more skill to internalize the audience and make musical decisions according to their reaction or ambience.
Although, I am biased because I do enjoy jazz.
Of course there is a great gulf between the genius of Glenn Gould and that of the talent of Zubin Mehta (who I admittedly don't know). I don't think it is a fair comparison to talk about them side by side. "Doing easily what others find difficult is talent. Doing what is impossible for talent is genius." Glenn Gould is idiosyncratic because he is a genius, and so of course Mehta would find him odd. Mehta has to climb the mountain, while Glenn Gould flies. I don't think it is productive to try to understand genius. It is simply more fun to marvel and to enjoy what comes out of it.
I'm so grateful that he loved the recording studio, so that people like me can still experience his music even now.
Some performers thrive in live performances. For me, if a person walks up to the piano I’m playing, it’s like I’ve never had my hands on the keys…concert nerves. But I’m an amateur and play for the challenges and fun….
A piano artist doesn't need and audience, a piano player does, perhaps
Gould’s manner of speech reminds me of James Baldwin’s, both are uniquely rhythmic and soothing.
Is that Lee J. Cobb playing Mehta?
Odd ducks call him an odd duck. But there is no questioning his genius. And yeah...Mehta seems a bit harsh in his criticism.
💙💙💙
After all, he's not so crazy as he looks in his piano performances
I am more on Gould's side, because I am a writer. When I write, I imagine my audience of readers. I'm sure Gould could envision his audiences in his imagination too.
When I perform I like the energy and silent communication that I receive from the audience. I don't get this same energy from a microphone - in fact, the microphone represents to me an unforgiving medium, one that necessitates countless takes to get it "perfect".
in other words, an extreme introvert.
Спасибо огромное! С любовью из России!
Glenn Gould is a legend ♥
Both have valid points
❤️
Gould's attitude toward audiences is what we tragically saw in the case of Kurt Cobain. The difference is that Kurt recognized it as a failing in himself--the failure to draw energy, inspiration and joy from the audience as his hero Freddy Mercury did. Kurt lamented that that in his note. There will always be introverted, anxious or outright misanthropic performers; it has little to do with skill and it's nobody's fault; but it's just a real shame when a performer feels attacked by the very communal feeling of joy that their performance brings others.
That's the jerpody guy?!
Alex Trebek just passed away!
grazie
After Gould speaking, Mehta really comes across as shallow. (“Out of his mind”? That’s totally uncalled for.)
I'm with Glenn Gould 100%. The music is the energy surely. What's more important.. The immortal music of Bach.. Or some mere mortal onlookers at a performance of his music?
They're an irrelevance in comparison
I didn't realize Alex Trebek existed in the 1960s.
He would have been in his 20s, but he was a host for CBC programs at the time.
High school quiz show Reach For The Top, Alex was a household name then. 9
Both are right. Still, of the two, Mehta is the sham.
Yes. Saying that he (Mehta) couldn't play without an audience really makes you question his reasons for playing, and thereby his integrity to some extent. If there isn't a higher purpose to playing than the amusement of others, you might as well be a clown at the circus.
That's unjust and uncalled for.
@Gzheffph Hchinckkle Chill, dude. I was merely making a point you didnt get, which wasn't "nonsensical" (that's just plain rude).
"...always doing what I want while also thinking of what an unfamiliar listener will get out of it, and I DO let that shape my style to an extent."
-That's NOT the same as saying "no point in playing without an audience." You completely misunderstood what I was saying...
I understand what YOU're saying, and AGREE, I don't necessarily think those THOUGHTS are inherently wrong, depending on the context and situation they COULD be, or NOT... kind of what you're saying.
What I was saying in no way contradicts that. Please read my previous post again with this in mind, and pay attention to the literal meaning of what I actually said. You seem to somehow have "interpreted" it into something different from what I actually said...
@Gzheffph Hchinckkle Listen to what Mehta said...
"I think he's (Gould) out of his mind. I couldn't perform if there was not three people sitting out there. I couldn't do that. I think every performer NEEDS this STIMULUS.
-(Well, that's obviously WRONG, as at least Mr Gould certainly DOESN'T need it, or want it)
That's why I'm not very comfortable in recording studios, which Mr Gould IS... Not ONLY do we NEED the stimulus, but we need somebody to RECEIVE what we're doing. There HAS to be somebody who is RECEIVING from us. -(Uh... just NO) This is very important, I think, to anybody that steps foot on the stage..."
But YOU're talking about when COMPOSING... some differences right there you know...
"the typical quasi-religious judging crap" You have got to be kidding! "Your kind of folks are the same who downgrade Horowitz" Say what? Who's actually JUDGING "quasi-religiously" here anyway? Have a look in the mirror, before judging others!
And lastly, again... CHILL, DUDE!
@Gzheffph Hchinckkle "You said he might as well be a clown at the circus"
No, I DID NOT! Learn how to read. But please quote me on it... BTW, ever heard of FIGURATIVE speech, to MAKE A POINT?
"I expect you to be the sort who will go to the concert hall for "difficult" works and BOO when you hear a common triad LOL"
Yeah, I'm not at all surprised you do expect such stupid things, as you seem to project a lot, nor am I surprised how far off you are. You didn't get ONE thing right... Too bad. And what judgmental douche attitude.
Who said something about "quasi-religious judging crap" again? Have a look in the mirror, man!
That was ALL. Carry on. Or get bent. I'm out. Feel free to have the "last word", my treat! Bye
Rest in Power, Alex Trebex
Audiences always vote for the wrong guy & they only come to impress someone else rather than for their own entertainment.
F. Chopin wasn't very fond of crowds either.
Gould wasn't very fond of F. Chopin.
@Charlemagne "Chopin was a fascinating composer, I don’t think however that he was a great composer. In the bigger things of music… in the real organisational attempts … he failed almost all together. As a miniaturist he was superb, a setter of moods unparalleled, as someone who understood the piano, certainly unprecedented. But he is not a composer I rest easy with.
"
"....I have always felt that the whole centre core of the (early 19th century) piano repertoire is a colossal waste of time... This generalization includes Chopin, Liszt, Schumann... I don't think any of the early Romantic composers knew how to write for the piano... The music of that era is full of empty theatrical gestures, full of exhibitionism, and it has a worldly, hedonistic quality that simply turns me off.
"
@Charlemagne me neither, that sounds more applyable to Liszt and a few other romantics, not chopin
@@IgnacioClerici-mp5cy This is just a guess, I have no idea what Gould actually meant, but I think he was referring to the general theme of the Romantic period and of Chopin and Liszt and what they actually tried to do at the piano. The romantics generally used the piano as a medium to convey both human emotion and the beauty of human emotion, as opposed to Bach, of whom it could be argued tried to convey the beauty of God, life and the world through the clavier. I believe Bach chose music as a medium to express both his devotion to God and to express his humility.
I don't necessarily agree with Gould because I think it's valid to use the piano as an instrument to convey something as fundamental and important as emotions, although generally I prefer Bach's music because the underlying themes themselves feel much more humbling, they give a feeling of the music conveying something much bigger.
Alex Trebek did the interview.
How about that.
RIP ALEX TREBEK
Is that a coliseum in the part when Zubin talks? Yes, anyway, coliseums are a good example of how stupiditly people act when it is in groups or big groups. Look at the famous armies of the films, yes so cool films about armies and blood, that's another example.
Julian No, it’s the old Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, former home of the Los Angeles Philharmonic. I recognize those chandeliers.
I find it so interesting that Mehta denounces Gould’s approach entirely, while Gould simply states his strong, individual preference without judging anyone else! And it shows that Mehta’s true consideration is to “perform” to receive the good opinion of people he doesn’t know and will never meet, while this artificial environment of pandering, really, the way Mehta describes it, is exactly what Gould detested. And Gould only rarely had cameras filming him in the studio, as Mehta asserts; he was filmed only on a few occasions, for documentaries. There’s a huge narcissistic element in every person who feels s/he needs the approval of strangers, whether it’s acting in films, or any other kind of spectacle, and classical musicians who have the need for that kind of approval and “love” are the very ones I instinctively can’t stand to listen to! I want to hear musicians who _WANT TO COMMUNICATE WHAT THEY BELIEVE THE COMPOSER WAS THINKING, THE COMPOSER’S PROCESS,_ the artists who would play just as ardently whether anybody ever listened, or not, and they are the only ones worth listening to, in my opinion! The most incredible things happen, musically, when an artist loses him/herself in the music and seems to become a pure conduit for the composers’ intentions, and I’m thinking of Jacqueline de Pré, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Itzhak Perlman, Arthur Rubinstein, and Glenn Gould, just to name a very few. And you can hear it in their recordings, as well. And I’m so very glad that Gould left us an amazing body of his work, especially his Bach recordings, bc I never would have seen him perform in person, anyway!
Lightning round!
It worked for Gould and temperamentally I'm with him, but his example isn't compelling--after all, any worthwhile performer-in-front-of-a-public presumably spends many hours by his or herself determining which of their 60 (to use his number) interpretations works best before going out in front of an audience. So that doesn't really clinch his case. Fortunately it doesn't need to be clinched--you do what works for you, and as he notes he's fortunate that (economically, although he doesn't say that outright) he can eschew live performance.
He said it outright elsewhere. He literally stated that he kept performing in concert only till he had enough money on the side to be financially secure. Then he immediately stopped giving live performances and focussed on what he really enjoyed: experimenting with sounds and words in the studio.
Audiences are “a force of evil”…his paranoia was peeking through this interview. A genius, yet unable to ever develop a happy personal life, he speaks of 16 minds as he works in the studio. Glen was not of this world.
He is a genius on many levels
I absolutely love Glenn Gould, and respect his opinions. But drugs have a way of twisting your ego and make what you do seem more important to yourself. Music is for the people, yes even the uneducated masses. To say you detest them is a bit extreme, especially when they are the ones supporting you. Again I respect his opinion, but I don’t agree with how he expressed it.
And to anyone saying he “didn’t perform for others/it was only for the music” is being overly romantic and probably isn’t a musician. A huge part of being a musician is having your work heard by others, whether live or in recordings. Regardless of your opinion of said audience, real-world feedback is necessary for an artist to grow & mature.
Glenn is an independent thinker. Zubin is not.
Exactly. Glenn goes against public opinion. He doesn't care what anybody else thinks. I'm not saying Mehta is wrong. Mehta is just a more conventional thinker about music.
Jacob Opper the thing is Metha is a conductor , he doesn't have the burden to practice an instrument . The conductor rehersing with it's orchestra it's what would a recording session looks like. So at the end if Metha is conducting in a studio , it would be like a rehersal with machines .
The instrumentist of the orchestra on the other hand are the ones practicing their instruments . So it's not the same burden . They are the ones who feel most of the stress , because they have more responsibilities , like playing together and in tune while the conductor is just a bit more of an observer when he is performing live on stage.
Mehta is not a thinker. Period.
As an artist you can put all the focus on attention to details, which is of utmost importance if you want to give it the love and care that the interpretation deserves. You also have to be considerate to the audience, but for classical music and less show business-centric performances, that audience can be, as J.D. Salinger puts it, the fat lady. It can be anyone, and that fat lady may well be Jesus Christ. The audience member can be just one person of many able to connect to your interpretation of the music, and being able to provide that profound emotional experience is not without meaning. That said, when you are actually performing, the audience should not need to figure into your thoughts unless you're purposefully interacting with them in some fashion. It is sufficient to know that perhaps you're able to reach out to someone out there and to bring that person closer to the divine.... just as you have once been by another artist.
Vous etes le plus grand pianiste, pour moi, aussi Leonard Berstein, vous etes mort, je pense souvant á vous et j'aime souvant vous ecouter... donc, par votre musique vous etes vivant!✌🎗💛🌼🎗💛🎗🌼🎗🌼🇺🇲
S/o to
Damn straight I detest audiences!
🎹
What is the rule of mah blah? is it something similar to "blah blah"
Mob Law
JulianJules
Hahaha
yet what would the rule of mob law mean?
JulianJules o
I read this comment before I heard it in the video. Then I heard it, and bust out laughing
Zubin Mehta needed the ego trip i guess
Zubin came off as quite the ass
I'm not entirely sure "ego trip" is the right word as both of them have similar ideas in mind; take what you're creating and present it through a medium. For Mehta, that medium is a concert hall with people that give him energy and a sense of purpose. For Gould, that medium is the recording studio where he can focus with intense concentration and not be distracted by the audience.
Yeah - something strange going on with Mehta here.
@@matthewdustin7353 the music is the energy surely. What's more important.. The immortal music of Bach .. Or some mere mortal onlookers at a performance of his music?
@@pobinr I think a question like that is a bit silly don't you think? If the music exists and nobody is around to hear it, then there surely is no purpose to the music whatsoever. Music needs an audience to be listened to, whether that audience be listening through headphones at home or in a concert hall. There is more than 1 type of musician in this world. I'm sure Lang Lang would probably agree with Mehta in this case.
Jesus christ, a lot of people really interpreted Mehta in the most uncharitable way possible when they saw this
Right? One opinion doesn't negate the other..... two different perspectives.
I can only handle the rule of mob law under the counsel of Bob Loblaw's law blog.
I remember the day I read about Mob Law on Bob Oblaw's Law Blog. Good times!
Hmm.. A musical genius has social anxiety... Shocker!
curestruck in NH Un
curestruck I doubt its only social anxiety. There is also those well known stupid rituals and senseless ovations to the interpreter, as if he would have been some kind of messias or The Elected One . Not to mention all the people that goes to the concert hall mainly as a pastime and time killer and don't give a fuck to the music, because they are just a bunch of snobs
He was most likely high functioning autistic. It and anxiety go hand in hand.
Yeah, the audience just gets in the way.
His personality reminds me of Dmitri Shostakovich .
skan8 Except that Shostakovich performed extensively before audiences, for a time contemplated pursuing a career as pianist over composer, had a very different way of playing, and generally held aesthetic views sharply divergent from Gould’s. But, uh, yeah aside from that quite similar...
He's very disrespectful when he says "I detest audiences," and "I think they're a force of evil." It shows insecurity. I think this is apparent as he actually had a very limited output compared to other world-class musicians like him.That is why he preferred the solitude of the recording studio where he could manipulate ad nauseam the final product. The live performance in front of an audience must be terrifying if you're not self-assured. There's always the fear of a mistake or the fear of criticism. But the artist should be able to control his fears and perform. Miles Davis had a lot of resentment for his white audiences to the point where he would turn his back at them. But that was different; that wasn't out of performance anxiety.
He is negative of the idea to respond to the audience "field". It is not more disrespectful - to the way audiences respond disrespectful to many genius artists "field" through the ages. It is obvious he's grounds are philosophical as much if not more as performer one's. And it is ancient philosophical theme (apparent Classical Greece too) that identify the audiences as "Demonic"and "Orgiastic" - a way one to loose its own mind and/or to gain control over the masses. Glenn sure may as well "ride on" the wave of this demonic properties of the masses - but he is too conscious of it to do it - not insecure by the plain manual control over its own performance!!!
danielsh1015 I don’t find his honesty disrespectful. He’s quite right. One only has to hear how the trajectory of contemporary music has been blunted because of this exaggerated awareness of and concern for audiences. Musical performance, too, has suffered because of this.
You obviously know nothing about Gould. His recorded output was as large as any other world class pianists', and his repertoire was remarkably large, including chamber music and lieder no one else played at his time (like the complete Schoenberg songs or Hindemiths sonatas with brass instruments, to name just two of many examples).
Gould wasn't afraid of making mistakes, his recorded live performances, of which there are quite many, only contain few wrong notes and muddled passages. He was afraid however, as he stated himself, that playing in front of audiences would drag him down. When on tour, he felt he was starting to do things to please the crowds. He would do the easy, impressive, predictable thing. He'd give up what he considered to be his integrity: his curiosity, his nonconformism. He'd turn into a Mehta.