After a lifetime of following Gould recordings and enjoying every work ever made by him that I came across since the sixties, how exciting to find a new submission that I have not yet heard. Glenn had a superb speaking voice, with pleasant cadences and a calming demeanor. He must have been a formidable force to engage with intellectually, although he probably never "brow beat" anyone knowingly with his quit wit. Any of you who ever met and spoke with him are undoubtedly a very few and gifted lot who were blessed with a brush with "true" artistry. He talks of "Ein Heldesleben" which he is, I believe, a true example of, for his time. I miss his earthly presence.
I think it is important to remember that at the time he recorded this program the avant garde musical world had seemingly eclipsed that of classical music in the popular consciousness. Even for many composers in the 1960's there was a feeling that "classical" music was hopelessly outdated, that it had nothing left to say of value. Boulez has endless quotes along these lines. Consider Cage's phrase "if I'm right then Beethoven is wrong" or Frank Zappa who said "classical music is for old women". It was the time of "anything is art" and the beginning of "everyone is an artist". Consider that these concepts can be as destructive as they are potentially liberating. I hypothesize that perhaps Gould was trying, to some degree at least, to defend the castle, so to speak, against the barbarian hordes that were out to saccage and burn it to the ground.
okay, but the Dadaist movement in art had done that 40 years earlier. There's the difference at this time, I guess, that recordings were so widespread and accessible, and it's not just a matter of performances at specialized concert venues, but everyday everyone listening to hi fidelity stereo music. Also, Gould suffered mental illness and was taking handfuls of psychiatric medications (i'm not exaggerating much) and trying to attenuate each individual medication so he wouldn't get side effects that might interfere with his playing. He isolated himself quite a bit and had all sorts of erratic behavior. So... okay I'll take his criticisms of Mozart with a grain of salt, and I suspect he was trolling a bit, saying things here to get a rise out of some people and have some people engage out of anger when they might not otherwise, at least to a certain degree, but, after all, he was pretty damn nutty. And I say this as someone whose dealt with mental illness my entire adult life.
Just because improvisation can’t be as refined as a composition doesn’t make it less in my opinion, just different. It is the experience of being there with the improviser, being in the same moment, what makes it a very pure form of art if done right. Knowing what you hear has never been played before and will never be played again makes it a unique experience.
Lester Brunt: “If done right.” That suggests that there is one correct way to improvise, a view that effectively erases the very possibility of improvisation.
@@ThisTrainIsLostI don’t know if there’s any “right” way to improvise as much as there is a right way to play in a particular musical style. I understand where you’re coming from but just listen to Keith Jarrett, who I believe transcends genre and style and is one of the greatest improvisers. I think it’s an interesting point you make and I’m just sharing my own. Respect ❤️
This method would also afford the daring musician a more profound understand of their “primary” instrument. An understanding that would pay dividends as the musician attempts to relate the knowledge of their “primary” instrument to the new instrument and visa versa 🤙🏾
I found this to be a very interesting discussion, much more user-friendly after I slowed down Mr. Gould's spoken barrage to .75 speed. It was a revelation that improvisation by Bach and Mozart relied upon the running of scales and arpeggios, repetitious sequences, and cliches, much as some jazz musicians use today. But Gould concludes from this that improvisation is essentially mediocre rather than considering these to be examples of mediocre improvisation. When these devices are used by jazz musicians, it's not considered good playing. Miles Davis said that when you start learning to play jazz you rely on lots of cliches, and after some years of hard work you reach a point where you get beyond that and start actually creating music. As he said, "it takes a long time to sound like yourself". Gould tosses in a brief, glancing allusion to jazz but doesn't go into any detail because, as I understand it, he had no interest in jazz other than an admiration for the playing of Bill Evans. So his experience with improvised music was with a tradition of music in which improvisation is incidental. He didn't consider that there could be good and bad improvised music, just as there is good and bad composed music.
Thanks for sharing you view on this. I find it interesting yet not surprising the Gould admired Bill Evans. Evans classical training and contrapuntal techniques likely apealed to Gould. Although I wonder if he thought Evans’ improvisation was mediocre.
@@Maniac.45 According to fine jazz pianist Fred Hersch, Evans improvised only about 15% of the time! Mostly, apparently, he memorized phrases that he had worked and then played them. This does not mean that he wrote out any of this on a music sheet. Thus, Evans perfected his work beforehand.
@@johnlindstrom9994 Largely agree with that but listen to Evans’ various recordings of How Deep Is The Ocean. He was certainly capable of playing a tune in a new way, whether he worked this out beforehand I don’t know.
I heard an interview with Gould where he said he used to have albums by Charlie Parker and Lennie Tristano. The interviewer had asked him if he ever sits down at the piano and plays his own jazz style version of say Blue Moon. Gould said he wasn’t much good at it but that he’d maybe never tried that hard. At some point he was interested in jazz. How long this lasted, I don’t know.
@@johnlindstrom9994 I read an interview with sax player Lee Konitz who said that Stan Getz did the same thing: after playing a tune for a number of times, he basically worked out the solo he would always play for that tune. On the other hand, after Miles Davis heard his sax player George Coleman practicing a solo in the dressing room, he fired him.
Although I love and respect Glen Gould's playing, here he presents a rather myopic view of improvisation; a purely theoretical one, and not at all based on personal experience with the practice of improvising, nor seemingly informed by the experiences of any improvisers. If he had wanted to truly understand what he was talking about, he could have easily found folks in Toronto, New York, or elsewhere, who were dedicated to improvisation in their own music.
I really like Glenn Gould taking on topics like this. I am not sure what he is trying to say here though. So is he down on improvising then? He doesn't come out and say it, but he seems to think that improvising comes with a cost in the overall architectural unity of the piece. He did not address the self-expression / self-realization aspect of improvisation for the performer. This is more obvious in every other genre of music, such as the "classical" traditions of India, Turkey, etc, or even jazz. When you hear Miles play the trumpet, you know it is him. I guess it depends on if we are after a piece of music that is floating in some Platonic world with no connection to performance, and we want to make it as awesome as possible, or are we trying to create something that the performers are able to express their individual self as a theater for the audience to enjoy..
In Gould's wonderful essay "How Mozart became a Bad Composer" (or some title close to that) he puts it simply, "Within every creative person there's an inventor at odds with a museum curator." I think that is his main point, boiled down. My sense is that along with his genius and perfect pitch he had an extremely expanded capacity for attention, and therefore his artistic preference is for long-term idea development and its payoff. Jazz improvisation, on the other hand, has a shorter-term goal in mind and unfolds over repeated cycles through an agreed-upon sequence of changes. His critique of late Mozart might map well onto a typical jazz solo.
Gould was an awkward self-conscious and stifled composer. In a word bad! So you want to write a Fugue? Give about 10 more tries because that's how ya do that. Improvisation is how many composers solve these problems.
I think I found a match: Richard Kinloch Anderson, harpsichord, and the Bath Festival Orchestra conducted by Yehudi Menuhin in 1960. ruclips.net/video/FLuQftz72cc/видео.html www.discogs.com/Menuhin-J-S-Bach-Bath-Festival-Orchestra-Elaine-Shaffer-The-Musical-Offering/release/6908188
improv: composition :: speaking : writing comp may have potential to be more refined and "perfect," but improv has more sincerity and authenticity as its author lacked any opportunity to revise
I have heard improvisational counterpoint played by Jazz musicians that is as exciting if not more so than works by Bach. For instance, the "Bebop" created by Warne Marsh and Lee Konitz, on tenor and alto saxes, respectively. Brubeck, who studied with Milhaud, also made similar music with Gerry Mulligan and Paul Desmond. However, they were working from chord patterns previously known; "Free Jazz" came later and got away from any preconceived chord structure. Sympathetic musicians who are very skilled and have knowledge , can interact in quite inspiring ways; this can transcend the limitations of a written score. Brilliant spontaneous interplay can result. Check out "Marshmallow" by Marsh/Konitz on You Tube.
@@dgmono could we not evaluate the Quality of a piece regardless of its improvisational character? And what if we found Gould to be correct? Is a possibility
Composition is more a muscle that one develops than some flash of devine inspiration. If you listen to Gould's compositions including "so you wanna write a fugue?" The man is no Copland or Ginestera . Regarding improvisation ask Bill Evans, Keith Jarrett, or Art Tatum.
Well, this is moderately entertaining, but ultimately it merely reveals that Gould didn’t understand improvisation at all. Improvisation isn’t inferior composition; it’s a different beast entirely.
This is an interesting example of "saying one thing, doing another." Gould was apparently a fine improvisor as far as mimicry of other composers went, and he was rather "improvisatory" with scores too! Perhaps this is just one elaborate attempt to conceal some of his methods from the public?:)
oh well... i find that it is rather tempting and almost more easy to compose as if you would be improvising, so i would think that Glenn Gould surely thinks that real composing is better then improvising, while he himself may not be able to obtain what he means by "real composing" in his compositions. I think he is not trying to conceal his methods, but rather criticising them but im not sure about that, but he is most certainly not wrong when he says, that especially contrapuntal music is better when composed and worse when improvised.
Gould certainly frequently took liberties with compositions that other musicians dared not. However they were not improvisatory. They were always carefully thought out, perhaps to enhance structure, bring out different voices, make the entirety (he thought) of a piece more unified, etc. He experimented with many things to make a piece new, but if he felt that if his experiments were not "valid", he would not keep them.
@@charlotterose6724He "improvised" in the studio, and there is a film clip where he declares that he was "improvising like mad" on the take just recorded. He memorized the scores as "raw data" and then experimented creatively with interpretive possibilities. As an improvisor myself, I can attest that one can "improvise" with the scores of others, or when purely improvising, one can play in a "structured" or "less structured" style. As a pianist for ballet, I regularly am called upon to improvise in a great variety of styles from the baroque to the late romantic and beyond. Within the ballet class context, this usually requires "square phrases" like 16/32/48 bars, so one is forced to play "in character" and "in structure." Outside of this I can allows myself much more freedom, but it simply proves the point that the idea that improvisation should by definition sound "random" or "rhapsodic" is totally erroneous..
There's an old myth that the 3-part Ricercar from Bach's Musical Offering represents a "written out improvisation." There is no evidence to suggest this at all. The legend has it that Bach Improvised a 3-part fugue for King Frederick the Great, but the idea that Bach then wrote out this improvisation to the best of his recollection when composing an entire work on the Royal Theme seems a little suspect. There are certainly moments of "caprice" to be found, and some episodes are quite free. But surely Bach is simply trying to be "modern" here? The 6-part ricercar on the other hand is much more old-fashioned in approach. One may well prefer the latter composition, but pretending that these two works demonstrate "improvisation" and "careful working out" respectively is utter nonsense. I would also like to point out that Gould seems not to have grasped the point that regular improvisers of the likes of Bach or Beethoven would not have turned out rhapsodic or disjointed improvisations. Some who heard Beethoven improvise felt this was more inspired than some of his written out compositions. Gould's only major composition, the String Quartet Op.1 sounds (as Kevin Bozanna observes) like a piece stitched together in bits. Perhaps this is how Gould thought others composed? No wonder he was suspicious of improvisation! Perhaps if Gould had been a regular improviser like Bach/Mozart/Beethoven/Listz he would have had greater insight..
I thought I had heard most of Glenn Gould's recorded discussions, but this one was new to me. I've read most of the books about Gould and have many of his recordings. This discussion annoyed me. I realize Gould was a brilliant musical thinker and pianist, but he sometimes comes across as a pompous snob who likes to hear himself talk. This is unfortunate, because he has a lot to say, and he is trying to say it with precision, but he also needlessly complicates his own efforts.
He was an exquisitely brilliant man, and yes, at times also a "pompous snob"--as he is here, I'm afraid. He throws a tiny bone at jazz but otherwise totally ignores the genre of which improvisation is such an important and highly esthetic part.
After a lifetime of following Gould recordings and enjoying every work ever made by him that I came across since the sixties, how exciting to find a new submission that I have not yet heard. Glenn had a superb speaking voice, with pleasant cadences and a calming demeanor. He must have been a formidable force to engage with intellectually, although he probably never "brow beat" anyone knowingly with his quit wit. Any of you who ever met and spoke with him are undoubtedly a very few and gifted lot who were blessed with a brush with "true" artistry. He talks of "Ein Heldesleben" which he is, I believe, a true example of, for his time. I miss his earthly presence.
I think it is important to remember that at the time he recorded this program the avant garde musical world had seemingly eclipsed that of classical music in the popular consciousness. Even for many composers in the 1960's there was a feeling that "classical" music was hopelessly outdated, that it had nothing left to say of value. Boulez has endless quotes along these lines. Consider Cage's phrase "if I'm right then Beethoven is wrong" or Frank Zappa who said "classical music is for old women". It was the time of "anything is art" and the beginning of "everyone is an artist". Consider that these concepts can be as destructive as they are potentially liberating. I hypothesize that perhaps Gould was trying, to some degree at least, to defend the castle, so to speak, against the barbarian hordes that were out to saccage and burn it to the ground.
okay, but the Dadaist movement in art had done that 40 years earlier. There's the difference at this time, I guess, that recordings were so widespread and accessible, and it's not just a matter of performances at specialized concert venues, but everyday everyone listening to hi fidelity stereo music. Also, Gould suffered mental illness and was taking handfuls of psychiatric medications (i'm not exaggerating much) and trying to attenuate each individual medication so he wouldn't get side effects that might interfere with his playing. He isolated himself quite a bit and had all sorts of erratic behavior. So... okay I'll take his criticisms of Mozart with a grain of salt, and I suspect he was trolling a bit, saying things here to get a rise out of some people and have some people engage out of anger when they might not otherwise, at least to a certain degree, but, after all, he was pretty damn nutty. And I say this as someone whose dealt with mental illness my entire adult life.
@@squirlmy
Do you really know that Glenn was prescribed psychotropic medication and has been fighting the side effects? Really or fake news?
Avant garde music is intolerable
We may call that Cage's modus tollens
@@laucha490 Cage was right : he was wrong and beethoven is eternally right.
Truly a great video. Thank you
Very very interesting. Thanks
So many great points made in this talk.
Just because improvisation can’t be as refined as a composition doesn’t make it less in my opinion, just different. It is the experience of being there with the improviser, being in the same moment, what makes it a very pure form of art if done right. Knowing what you hear has never been played before and will never be played again makes it a unique experience.
Lester Brunt: “If done right.” That suggests that there is one correct way to improvise, a view that effectively erases the very possibility of improvisation.
@@ThisTrainIsLostI don’t know if there’s any “right” way to improvise as much as there is a right way to play in a particular musical style. I understand where you’re coming from but just listen to Keith Jarrett, who I believe transcends genre and style and is one of the greatest improvisers. I think it’s an interesting point you make and I’m just sharing my own. Respect ❤️
He was a speedtrain of comic genius as well.
If one does truly wish to improvise sequences of sounds, one way to approach the task is to employ an instrument which one has never learned to play.
😂 You might be right!
This method would also afford the daring musician a more profound understand of their “primary” instrument. An understanding that would pay dividends as the musician attempts to relate the knowledge of their “primary” instrument to the new instrument and visa versa 🤙🏾
@@johntravena119 That is the basis of Eno’s Portsmouth Symphonia (if I got the spelling right).
I like you Glenn Gould.
That strings fugue was a delight to listen to.
So very true
I found this to be a very interesting discussion, much more user-friendly after I slowed down Mr. Gould's spoken barrage to .75 speed. It was a revelation that improvisation by Bach and Mozart relied upon the running of scales and arpeggios, repetitious sequences, and cliches, much as some jazz musicians use today. But Gould concludes from this that improvisation is essentially mediocre rather than considering these to be examples of mediocre improvisation. When these devices are used by jazz musicians, it's not considered good playing. Miles Davis said that when you start learning to play jazz you rely on lots of cliches, and after some years of hard work you reach a point where you get beyond that and start actually creating music. As he said, "it takes a long time to sound like yourself". Gould tosses in a brief, glancing allusion to jazz but doesn't go into any detail because, as I understand it, he had no interest in jazz other than an admiration for the playing of Bill Evans. So his experience with improvised music was with a tradition of music in which improvisation is incidental. He didn't consider that there could be good and bad improvised music, just as there is good and bad composed music.
Thanks for sharing you view on this. I find it interesting yet not surprising the Gould admired Bill Evans. Evans classical training and contrapuntal techniques likely apealed to Gould. Although I wonder if he thought Evans’ improvisation was mediocre.
@@Maniac.45 According to fine jazz pianist Fred Hersch, Evans improvised only about 15% of the time! Mostly, apparently, he memorized phrases that he had worked and then played them. This does not mean that he wrote out any of this on a music sheet. Thus, Evans perfected his work beforehand.
@@johnlindstrom9994 Largely agree with that but listen to Evans’ various recordings of How Deep Is The Ocean. He was certainly capable of playing a tune in a new way, whether he worked this out beforehand I don’t know.
I heard an interview with Gould where he said he used to have albums by Charlie Parker and Lennie Tristano. The interviewer had asked him if he ever sits down at the piano and plays his own jazz style version of say Blue Moon. Gould said he wasn’t much good at it but that he’d maybe never tried that hard. At some point he was interested in jazz. How long this lasted, I don’t know.
@@johnlindstrom9994 I read an interview with sax player Lee Konitz who said that Stan Getz did the same thing: after playing a tune for a number of times, he basically worked out the solo he would always play for that tune. On the other hand, after Miles Davis heard his sax player George Coleman practicing a solo in the dressing room, he fired him.
Although I love and respect Glen Gould's playing, here he presents a rather myopic view of improvisation; a purely theoretical one, and not at all based on personal experience with the practice of improvising, nor seemingly informed by the experiences of any improvisers. If he had wanted to truly understand what he was talking about, he could have easily found folks in Toronto, New York, or elsewhere, who were dedicated to improvisation in their own music.
If you take an improvised part and transcribe it...it becomes a composition.
a poor one probably
I really like Glenn Gould taking on topics like this. I am not sure what he is trying to say here though. So is he down on improvising then? He doesn't come out and say it, but he seems to think that improvising comes with a cost in the overall architectural unity of the piece. He did not address the self-expression / self-realization aspect of improvisation for the performer. This is more obvious in every other genre of music, such as the "classical" traditions of India, Turkey, etc, or even jazz. When you hear Miles play the trumpet, you know it is him. I guess it depends on if we are after a piece of music that is floating in some Platonic world with no connection to performance, and we want to make it as awesome as possible, or are we trying to create something that the performers are able to express their individual self as a theater for the audience to enjoy..
The Gould problem in a nutshell! The pay off of fact as against sheer verbiage. But he is (often) fun, and interesting and unique - so, forgiven!
musical improvisation is an oxymoron?
In Gould's wonderful essay "How Mozart became a Bad Composer" (or some title close to that) he puts it simply, "Within every creative person there's an inventor at odds with a museum curator." I think that is his main point, boiled down. My sense is that along with his genius and perfect pitch he had an extremely expanded capacity for attention, and therefore his artistic preference is for long-term idea development and its payoff. Jazz improvisation, on the other hand, has a shorter-term goal in mind and unfolds over repeated cycles through an agreed-upon sequence of changes. His critique of late Mozart might map well onto a typical jazz solo.
Gould was an awkward self-conscious and stifled composer. In a word bad! So you want to write a Fugue? Give about 10 more tries because that's how ya do that. Improvisation is how many composers solve these problems.
Is that Gould playing the Musical Offering? I don't think he ever recorded it.
No, I don't think so. But the YT copyright machine didn't come up with a claim, so I'm not sure who it is.
I think I found a match: Richard Kinloch Anderson, harpsichord, and the Bath Festival Orchestra conducted by Yehudi Menuhin in 1960.
ruclips.net/video/FLuQftz72cc/видео.html
www.discogs.com/Menuhin-J-S-Bach-Bath-Festival-Orchestra-Elaine-Shaffer-The-Musical-Offering/release/6908188
Some of the examples Glen was providing, sounded as if they could have been found on "Beatles" recordings!
grazie
improv: composition :: speaking : writing
comp may have potential to be more refined and "perfect," but improv has more sincerity and authenticity as its author lacked any opportunity to revise
🙏🌷🌺🌺⚘🌹❤❤❤Genius
I have heard improvisational counterpoint played by Jazz musicians that is as exciting if not more so than works by Bach. For instance, the "Bebop" created by Warne Marsh and Lee Konitz, on tenor and alto saxes, respectively. Brubeck, who studied with Milhaud, also made similar music with Gerry Mulligan and Paul Desmond. However, they were working from chord patterns previously known; "Free Jazz" came later and got away from any preconceived chord structure. Sympathetic musicians who are very skilled and have knowledge , can interact in quite inspiring ways; this can transcend the limitations of a written score. Brilliant spontaneous interplay can result. Check out "Marshmallow" by Marsh/Konitz on You Tube.
Exactly! To think that Gould constantly approaches musical topics through the highly limited lens of classical is frustrating!
@@dgmono But he isn't exempting improvisation in classical music either. He was equally critical of Mozart and even Bach.
@@dgmono could we not evaluate the Quality of a piece regardless of its improvisational character? And what if we found Gould to be correct? Is a possibility
Composition is more a muscle that one develops than some flash of devine inspiration. If you listen to Gould's compositions including "so you wanna write a fugue?" The man is no Copland or Ginestera . Regarding improvisation ask Bill Evans, Keith Jarrett, or Art Tatum.
look up Derek Bailey's documentary about improvisation. And does not Glenn Gould sound like Mr. Peabody of Rocky and Bullwinkle fame?
Well, this is moderately entertaining, but ultimately it merely reveals that Gould didn’t understand improvisation at all. Improvisation isn’t inferior composition; it’s a different beast entirely.
Yeah you seem to be on to something here.
So we shouldn't compare... But is music. So we can compare.
did he say or even imply that?
Looking for Order in Chaos ???
Yes. Looking order in chaos. That's life indeed.
This is an interesting example of "saying one thing, doing another." Gould was apparently a fine improvisor as far as mimicry of other composers went, and he was rather "improvisatory" with scores too! Perhaps this is just one elaborate attempt to conceal some of his methods from the public?:)
oh well... i find that it is rather tempting and almost more easy to compose as if you would be improvising, so i would think that Glenn Gould surely thinks that real composing is better then improvising, while he himself may not be able to obtain what he means by "real composing" in his compositions. I think he is not trying to conceal his methods, but rather criticising them but im not sure about that, but he is most certainly not wrong when he says, that especially contrapuntal music is better when composed and worse when improvised.
Gould certainly frequently took liberties with compositions that other musicians dared not. However they were not improvisatory. They were always carefully thought out, perhaps to enhance structure, bring out different voices, make the entirety (he thought) of a piece more unified, etc. He experimented with many things to make a piece new, but if he felt that if his experiments were not "valid", he would not keep them.
@@charlotterose6724He "improvised" in the studio, and there is a film clip where he declares that he was "improvising like mad" on the take just recorded. He memorized the scores as "raw data" and then experimented creatively with interpretive possibilities. As an improvisor myself, I can attest that one can "improvise" with the scores of others, or when purely improvising, one can play in a "structured" or "less structured" style. As a pianist for ballet, I regularly am called upon to improvise in a great variety of styles from the baroque to the late romantic and beyond. Within the ballet class context, this usually requires "square phrases" like 16/32/48 bars, so one is forced to play "in character" and "in structure." Outside of this I can allows myself much more freedom, but it simply proves the point that the idea that improvisation should by definition sound "random" or "rhapsodic" is totally erroneous..
There's an old myth that the 3-part Ricercar from Bach's Musical Offering represents a "written out improvisation." There is no evidence to suggest this at all. The legend has it that Bach Improvised a 3-part fugue for King Frederick the Great, but the idea that Bach then wrote out this improvisation to the best of his recollection when composing an entire work on the Royal Theme seems a little suspect. There are certainly moments of "caprice" to be found, and some episodes are quite free. But surely Bach is simply trying to be "modern" here? The 6-part ricercar on the other hand is much more old-fashioned in approach. One may well prefer the latter composition, but pretending that these two works demonstrate "improvisation" and "careful working out" respectively is utter nonsense. I would also like to point out that Gould seems not to have grasped the point that regular improvisers of the likes of Bach or Beethoven would not have turned out rhapsodic or disjointed improvisations. Some who heard Beethoven improvise felt this was more inspired than some of his written out compositions. Gould's only major composition, the String Quartet Op.1 sounds (as Kevin Bozanna observes) like a piece stitched together in bits. Perhaps this is how Gould thought others composed? No wonder he was suspicious of improvisation! Perhaps if Gould had been a regular improviser like Bach/Mozart/Beethoven/Listz he would have had greater insight..
Have spent evenings with Monk,Powell ,max Roach .chris Connor ,abbey ,sarah ,Mahalia ,Aretha Mingus Ruth ?Brown .Ray charles #al green ?
I thought I had heard most of Glenn Gould's recorded discussions, but this one was new to me. I've read most of the books about Gould and have many of his recordings. This discussion annoyed me. I realize Gould was a brilliant musical thinker and pianist, but he sometimes comes across as a pompous snob who likes to hear himself talk. This is unfortunate, because he has a lot to say, and he is trying to say it with precision, but he also needlessly complicates his own efforts.
He was an exquisitely brilliant man, and yes, at times also a "pompous snob"--as he is here, I'm afraid. He throws a tiny bone at jazz but otherwise totally ignores the genre of which improvisation is such an important and highly esthetic part.
If he’d said “improvisatory” one more time I’d have shat.