Ha ha hawww. that is right, I thimk it is all done, however, in fun. I did object to Gould's characterization of Liszt's piano concerto--yes, certainly it is bombastic, and I feel sorry for him not being able to get any pleasure out of listening to it (but we ARE all individuals afterr all--I don't like squid, for instance), as I believe Liszt's piece is a stroke of genius, bomasticity and all.
@@dikhed1639 But even if there is humor here (which I think you exaggerate), there is “truth in jest.” Gould probably would be classified as classic neurotic one OCD for obviously “empirical” (leaving underlying matters aside); he was notoriously plagued by various kinds of hangups obviously rooted in some underlying matters we can speculate about: the exact nature of the guilt feelings he bandies over with this psychiatrist and elsewhere. It is obvious that he is deeply ambivalent about piano performance in general, directly connected to clearly explicit religious concerns and sensibilities. Quite simply and frankly, he considers self-display and showing off skills very unseemly. Bach and his music are deeply religiously devout, and using religious material for secular self/aggrandizement through displaying technical prowess on a keyboard is inherently suspect for anyone even superficially attentive to Bach, let alone someone of Gould’s intimate and deep convection and identification. Once this premise is accepted, music more overtly or flagrantly focused on self-display, showing off (“exhibitionism” in Gould’s word) is all the more deplorable and morally tainted, especially Liszt. But the E-flat concerto of Liszt is a unique case in American music performance history, concerning Gould. This is famously the concerto Gould was to perform with Bernstein in a televised concert, and when Gould backed out, Andre Watts was invited by Bernstein to fill in, launching Watts’ blockbuster career focusing heavily on virtuoso showman concertos like the Liszt, Emperor, Brahms #2, Saint-Saens” and several others now all over RUclips with Mr. Watts....
5:40 onwards: This is a great argument (by Gould himself) against people who thought Gould was an egotistical show-off. He passionately believed the performer was subservient to the music, and from this perspective created unique interpretations that sometimes seems incomprehensible to the casual listener. He is motivated by something that is so removed from his personal ego that ironically, by the sheer originality of the results, it is perceived as self-seeking.
The curious thing is, while he might have thought the performer should be subordinate to the music, he certainly didn't think the performer should be subordinate to the composer and/or the score. He believed, not just in theory but in actual practice, that performers can and sometimes should directly violate clear instructions from the composer, based on their understanding of the music. This notion was by no means unique to Gould, but he was much more straightforward about it than most. While many musicians would first try to convince themselves that the composer would have approved of what they're doing, Gould quite openly admitted that he's concerned with that.
a lot going on here, but one big take-away: gould's retreat to the studio was a retreat to the "inside" of music, vs. the "externalization" of music, represented by the bombast of concertos in the concert hall. (i had always understood his move away from the stage, to the solitary studio, was to avoid something else they talk about: that the audience only comes for the potential of a disaster.) and now, in the time of covid and empty halls, but orchestras performing just the same, we can now see the effect of the concerto without an audience: is it the same? does the concerto lose something without the presence of the egos in the audience? (paul lewis recently performed B's 4th concerto to an empty hall, you can find it here on youtube.) in any case, timeless musings, never uninteresting
Gould is a purist--if it does not contribute to a meaningful musical idea qua music, then it should be disposed of. Show-off passages in concertos are definitely in this category. so Gould takes aim. It is good to have people like him around because, while we are sometimes mesmerized at the technical wizardry of some performances we hear, it is always good to remember what is really important.
The way we connect through social media is inherently performative and lends people to great deal of narcissism if not careful. Most people could benefit from his desire to be a humble performer.
I have not listened to Beethoven's Emperor for years and consciously so. I just got sick of hearing it way too many times on the radio. I probably heard Gould and Stokowski's version years ago. This recording now is fresh and as clear as if recorded yesterday. I am really enjoying it. Glenn's tempo is not radical but a bit sublimated as he indicated in his bizarre conversation with the psychiatrist. What I like in Glenn's performance is that the musical structures and themes all shine with great clarity. There is nothing mannered and over the top like Gould and Bernstein's Brahms piano concerto. Gould's Emperor is very good and the sound is fantastic. Its as good as any I have heard before.
I'm glad you enjoyed it Fred. I have in my collection Barenboim (with Klemperer, which explains it) and Cherkassky live taking the first movement even slower. The middle movement, though, must be among the slowest on record. Gould played it in Buffalo with conventional tempi, and on television in 1970 with fast tempi, which he attributed to the dry studio acoustic.
@@brucecross1164 The second movement was a tad bit slower than most others have done it. He certainly didn't do a "Brahms" piano concerto stunt of excessively slow speeds. I don't think that Stokowski would let him get away with that; which then only makes me wonder what Bernstein was thinking? Overall I really liked Glenn's Emperor. The subdued tempi he sort of tries to explain in his conversation with the psychiatrist. But Gould was famous for bad mouthing a piece of music and then give you one of the most memorable performances. A funny guy.
pages.stolaf.edu/music242-spring2014/portfolio/piano-vs-orchestra-a-defense-of-glenn-goulds-historic-performance-of-the-brahms/ Here's an article that I believe justifies why Gould's Brahm's is fantastic as well.
Am I alone in my adoration of the Gould/Bernstein Brahms? I LOVED the tension in the first movement.... I searched and searched for someone who played it as slowly - minus the coughing.
Gould's friends often told him he spoke too fast. I had to check the speed on this video, thinking I was listening to it at a faster speed. Yet another of many reasons why Gould resorted to scripting. Though often at the expense of his gorgeous unbridled enthusiasm for his topics.
Gould is right, this modernist concerto is an assault on the inner voice that music should really cultivate. Exhibitionism has its place of course but surely Gould is trying to speak of how really the classic era perverts the Baroque era. Just listen to the virtuosity of Weiss or Bach and you will see the difference, everything is directed inward and although surely they had competition on stage back in those days, the music itself is just a completely different creation and steers the listeners heart and mind rather than exciting it
Psychiatrist: "The musical interest maybe is completely lost at the expense of the trickery" Psychiatrist: "You can't deal with things rationally only" G.G. "Why not?" This psychiatrist is a wise man!
While the psychiatrist here sounds much less colorful than Gould, he got Gould when he called the man an irrational and thus functional, emotive being. After that point, Gould kind of 'loses' it, becoming vehement and drowning the other voice (he is doing exactly what he blames the pianist of doing in a concerto!!). This is because Gould obsessively identifies with what he considers rationality and cannot bear a fundamental doubt. Very revealing.
Gould is a tragic figure in many ways - to me, all the way through, his playing is at the mercy of his pathology too. But his talent was in some ways a once in a century thing.
I think the virtuoso pianist or violinist is continually guided by the orchestra, sort of dragged out of their state of introspection and back to the external scene. Bach is an exception to this rule, though.
These listener comments defending Gould’s absurd position that a soloist must be essentially egoless to be a pure, non-Dionysian individual contradicts the very notion of being a performer! Any performance is an exhibition of talent and expertise. It can’t be otherwise. Why Gould is ashamed of his own exhibitionistic tendencies that have led him to a career as a virtuoso is beyond me. His rationalizations against his very nature are a form of denial. He is indeed an egotist. An egoless person does not become a performer-he becomes a monk living in unnoticed contemplation on a mountaintop. Or an artist who humbly sublimates himself to teaching the lowliest of students in a quiet corner of some nameless conservatory. Methinks Gould protests too much.
You’re quite wrong there. A lot of performers aren’t that interested in showing off when they’re on stage. There are a lot notes to be played, high precision to achieve, of course phrasing, colors, shapes..there a lot of intense unbroken attention needed to deliver great performance....usually in classical music. Or even When they decide walk that path to become musicians, it’s because they fell into it helplessly. I don’t believe a lot of great musicians do actually care about fame. Artistic practice happens in isolation and we love to be connected with audience through music. Musicians are very talented people as they say. If they were into egoistic flamboyant lives, most of them should/would have chosen to be actors actresses... Here you go. This is my version of defence for GG
This is remarkable. What blather. It is embarrassing. Gould should stick to playing the piano, Joe should stick to doing whatever psychiatrists do, if there is anything. Emotion vs rationality etc. etc. Neither one of them seems to be at all aware of the ways in which discussions by aestheticians et al on these matters have been going on for hundreds of years.
Surprising. Gould argues like a child. "Oh, that's nonsense." Why, Glenn? Very disappointing. He seems to speak just for the sake of speaking -- he loves hearing his own voice. Gould misses the point of the Romantic Concerto, and indeed of Romanticism itself. Not surprising he stayed away from it. Dr. Stephens has far more insight and sensibility, intellectually, to the inner workings and nature of music. Stick to Bach, Glenn.
The psychiatrist regurgitated nebulous, tired cliches that should have been left in the 19th century. 'Something to say' for showboating but he never says what! Surprised he didn't abandon all pretense of logic and just start start dropping 'divine' or 'ineffable' into his sentences.
The title probably needs to be corrected: “Glenn Gould plays a psychiatrist and consults Beethoven”
Ha ha hawww. that is right, I thimk it is all done, however, in fun. I did object to Gould's characterization of Liszt's piano concerto--yes, certainly it is bombastic, and I feel sorry for him not being able to get any pleasure out of listening to it (but we ARE all individuals afterr all--I don't like squid, for instance), as I believe Liszt's piece is a stroke of genius, bomasticity and all.
@@dikhed1639 But even if there is humor here (which I think you exaggerate), there is “truth in jest.”
Gould probably would be classified as classic neurotic one OCD for obviously “empirical” (leaving underlying matters aside); he was notoriously plagued by various kinds of hangups obviously rooted in some underlying matters we can speculate about: the exact nature of the guilt feelings he bandies over with this psychiatrist and elsewhere.
It is obvious that he is deeply ambivalent about piano performance in general, directly connected to clearly explicit religious concerns and sensibilities. Quite simply and frankly, he considers self-display and showing off skills very unseemly. Bach and his music are deeply religiously devout, and using religious material for secular self/aggrandizement through displaying technical prowess on a keyboard is inherently suspect for anyone even superficially attentive to Bach, let alone someone of Gould’s intimate and deep convection and identification.
Once this premise is accepted, music more overtly or flagrantly focused on self-display, showing off (“exhibitionism” in Gould’s word) is all the more deplorable and morally tainted, especially Liszt.
But the E-flat concerto of Liszt is a unique case in American music performance history, concerning Gould. This is famously the concerto Gould was to perform with Bernstein in a televised concert, and when Gould backed out, Andre Watts was invited by Bernstein to fill in, launching Watts’ blockbuster career focusing heavily on virtuoso showman concertos like the Liszt, Emperor, Brahms #2, Saint-Saens” and several others now all over RUclips with Mr. Watts....
I like how he found a psychiatrist with the initials "J.S." (indeed appearing that way on the captions); I expect no less from Glenn Gould.
5:40 onwards: This is a great argument (by Gould himself) against people who thought Gould was an egotistical show-off. He passionately believed the performer was subservient to the music, and from this perspective created unique interpretations that sometimes seems incomprehensible to the casual listener. He is motivated by something that is so removed from his personal ego that ironically, by the sheer originality of the results, it is perceived as self-seeking.
The curious thing is, while he might have thought the performer should be subordinate to the music, he certainly didn't think the performer should be subordinate to the composer and/or the score. He believed, not just in theory but in actual practice, that performers can and sometimes should directly violate clear instructions from the composer, based on their understanding of the music. This notion was by no means unique to Gould, but he was much more straightforward about it than most. While many musicians would first try to convince themselves that the composer would have approved of what they're doing, Gould quite openly admitted that he's concerned with that.
The most important thing for the listener is the exposure to beauty, to emotional content that is beyond one's world
what a fascinating discussion,,,,,,,Gould was really a phenomenon
It's a shame we will not get a genius like this anytime soon. A genius unafraid to speak his mind.
A what a gorgeous mind it was, too.
4:46
Psychiatrist: 'The Liszt E-flat major concerto which I don't get any pleasure out of"
Gould: 'I'm glad to hear that'
LOL
You mean 4:35
=P
I love how Gould's "I'm glad to hear that" seems to underline the psychiatrist's "pleasure out of listening to"
XDD
y ...!!!....
a lot going on here, but one big take-away: gould's retreat to the studio was a retreat to the "inside" of music, vs. the "externalization" of music, represented by the bombast of concertos in the concert hall. (i had always understood his move away from the stage, to the solitary studio, was to avoid something else they talk about: that the audience only comes for the potential of a disaster.)
and now, in the time of covid and empty halls, but orchestras performing just the same, we can now see the effect of the concerto without an audience: is it the same? does the concerto lose something without the presence of the egos in the audience? (paul lewis recently performed B's 4th concerto to an empty hall, you can find it here on youtube.)
in any case, timeless musings, never uninteresting
This is such a gem!!!!! Very important insights into Gould’s position about the concert hall.
Gould is a purist--if it does not contribute to a meaningful musical idea qua music, then it should be disposed of. Show-off passages in concertos are definitely in this category. so Gould takes aim. It is good to have people like him around because, while we are sometimes mesmerized at the technical wizardry of some performances we hear, it is always good to remember what is really important.
This is just fascinating. Thanks for the marvellous upload!
The way we connect through social media is inherently performative and lends people to great deal of narcissism if not careful. Most people could benefit from his desire to be a humble performer.
I have not listened to Beethoven's Emperor for years and consciously so. I just got sick of hearing it way too many times on the radio. I probably heard Gould and Stokowski's version years ago. This recording now is fresh and as clear as if recorded yesterday. I am really enjoying it. Glenn's tempo is not radical but a bit sublimated as he indicated in his bizarre conversation with the psychiatrist. What I like in Glenn's performance is that the musical structures and themes all shine with great clarity. There is nothing mannered and over the top like Gould and Bernstein's Brahms piano concerto. Gould's Emperor is very good and the sound is fantastic. Its as good as any I have heard before.
I'm glad you enjoyed it Fred. I have in my collection Barenboim (with Klemperer, which explains it) and Cherkassky live taking the first movement even slower. The middle movement, though, must be among the slowest on record. Gould played it in Buffalo with conventional tempi, and on television in 1970 with fast tempi, which he attributed to the dry studio acoustic.
@@brucecross1164 The second movement was a tad bit slower than most others have done it. He certainly didn't do a "Brahms" piano concerto stunt of excessively slow speeds. I don't think that Stokowski would let him get away with that; which then only makes me wonder what Bernstein was thinking? Overall I really liked Glenn's Emperor. The subdued tempi he sort of tries to explain in his conversation with the psychiatrist. But Gould was famous for bad mouthing a piece of music and then give you one of the most memorable performances. A funny guy.
pages.stolaf.edu/music242-spring2014/portfolio/piano-vs-orchestra-a-defense-of-glenn-goulds-historic-performance-of-the-brahms/
Here's an article that I believe justifies why Gould's Brahm's is fantastic as well.
Am I alone in my adoration of the Gould/Bernstein Brahms? I LOVED the tension in the first movement.... I searched and searched for someone who played it as slowly - minus the coughing.
@@s.l5787 Thanks!
Gould's friends often told him he spoke too fast. I had to check the speed on this video, thinking I was listening to it at a faster speed. Yet another of many reasons why Gould resorted to scripting. Though often at the expense of his gorgeous unbridled enthusiasm for his topics.
6:26
Psychiatrist: "Horowitz's fantasy on Carmen is genius."
Gould: " Ohhhh..... ........... Heavens no. That's nonsense.(!!)"
SHOTS FIRED
XD
Gould is right, this modernist concerto is an assault on the inner voice that music should really cultivate. Exhibitionism has its place of course but surely Gould is trying to speak of how really the classic era perverts the Baroque era. Just listen to the virtuosity of Weiss or Bach and you will see the difference, everything is directed inward and although surely they had competition on stage back in those days, the music itself is just a completely different creation and steers the listeners heart and mind rather than exciting it
Unfortunately, to limit the human energy of destruction and eradication, in which ever form would only limit the ability to create as a corollary.
Cuanta sustancia!, Glenn Gould era un genio, no solo como músico.
Brilliant
on the image Mr Gould and Maestro Stokowsky
Psychiatrist: "The musical interest maybe is completely lost at the expense of the trickery"
Psychiatrist: "You can't deal with things rationally only"
G.G. "Why not?"
This psychiatrist is a wise man!
I just love this.
Where can I listen to that comical Grieg interjection performance near the beginning?
I'm going to guess that is Victor Borge.
Grazie!
3:00 what? Is Glenn Gould projecting?
While the psychiatrist here sounds much less colorful than Gould, he got Gould when he called the man an irrational and thus functional, emotive being. After that point, Gould kind of 'loses' it, becoming vehement and drowning the other voice (he is doing exactly what he blames the pianist of doing in a concerto!!). This is because Gould obsessively identifies with what he considers rationality and cannot bear a fundamental doubt.
Very revealing.
Gould is a tragic figure in many ways - to me, all the way through, his playing is at the mercy of his pathology too. But his talent was in some ways a once in a century thing.
Isn’t Gould asking, “am I sick in the head for wanting to make the entire orchestra submit to my power?”
He doesn't talk about himself tho
I think the virtuoso pianist or violinist is continually guided by the orchestra, sort of dragged out of their state of introspection and back to the external scene. Bach is an exception to this rule, though.
Does anyone know around which year Gould started scripting his interviews?
11:40. Glen the Transhumanist.
Or eugenicist, depending on how charitable you want to be.
What exactly is a "pionist"?
every time he says that it drives me nuts lol
pionist!!!!!!!!!!
These listener comments defending Gould’s absurd position that a soloist must be essentially egoless to be a pure, non-Dionysian individual contradicts the very notion of being a performer! Any performance is an exhibition of talent and expertise. It can’t be otherwise. Why Gould is ashamed of his own exhibitionistic tendencies that have led him to a career as a virtuoso is beyond me. His rationalizations against his very nature are a form of denial. He is indeed an egotist. An egoless person does not become a performer-he becomes a monk living in unnoticed contemplation on a mountaintop. Or an artist who humbly sublimates himself to teaching the lowliest of students in a quiet corner of some nameless conservatory.
Methinks Gould protests too much.
For every rule there is an exception ;)
You’re quite wrong there. A lot of performers aren’t that interested in showing off when they’re on stage. There are a lot notes to be played, high precision to achieve, of course phrasing, colors, shapes..there a lot of intense unbroken attention needed to deliver great performance....usually in classical music. Or even When they decide walk that path to become musicians, it’s because they fell into it helplessly. I don’t believe a lot of great musicians do actually care about fame. Artistic practice happens in isolation and we love to be connected with audience through music. Musicians are very talented people as they say. If they were into egoistic flamboyant lives, most of them should/would have chosen to be actors actresses...
Here you go. This is my version of defence for GG
I, too, have largely withdrawn from the human world due to its cruelty & lack of logic … I laugh in sympathy, so that I may not weep … ❤
The psychiatrist is not as interesting as Gould here.
This is remarkable. What blather. It is embarrassing. Gould should stick to playing the piano, Joe should stick to doing whatever psychiatrists do, if there is anything. Emotion vs rationality etc. etc. Neither one of them seems to be at all aware of the ways in which discussions by aestheticians et al on these matters have been going on for hundreds of years.
Gould is out of his league and should have learned more from Dr. Stephens.
Surprising. Gould argues like a child. "Oh, that's nonsense." Why, Glenn? Very disappointing. He seems to speak just for the sake of speaking -- he loves hearing his own voice. Gould misses the point of the Romantic Concerto, and indeed of Romanticism itself. Not surprising he stayed away from it. Dr. Stephens has far more insight and sensibility, intellectually, to the inner workings and nature of music.
Stick to Bach, Glenn.
You tell him!
The psychiatrist regurgitated nebulous, tired cliches that should have been left in the 19th century. 'Something to say' for showboating but he never says what! Surprised he didn't abandon all pretense of logic and just start start dropping 'divine' or 'ineffable' into his sentences.