Re: GG's orthodox interpretations

[Bradley P Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>]

On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Tim Solomon wrote:

> I was intrigued by your classification of the Partitas (below).  I'd be
> very interested to hear your analysis of the differences - with respect
> to "orthodoxy" - between #1,5,6 and #2,3,4.  In particular, what makes
> the latter "unorthodox"?  Also, some of the tempi in #5 - insane, in my
> opinion, but also incredible and wonderful to behold - strike me as
> quite unusual.  These are among my favorite recordings, so I'm
> interested in your opinion of them.

Regarding GG's Bach Partitas I was thinking mostly of his piano touch and
phrasing.  Really, all six of these are near my line (if there is one)
between orthodox and unorthodox.  Ask me on a different day and I might
distribute them differently.  In any case, the GG partita set is still my
favorite among all GG's Bach, and when I was young this set (checked out
dozens of times from the public library) was one of the two most
influential recordings getting me to like Bach in the first place. The
other was GG's 1955 Goldbergs.  GG's way with the music is so joyful and
sparkling!

In Partita 5 (both the CBC and CBS recordings) and somewhat also in 6, GG
still uses those "party tricks" of hairpin dynamics, subtle rhythmic
nuance, and tempo flexibility that he later deliberately eradicated from
his Bach playing.  I wish he'd kept those throughout his career rather
than wiping them out, because to me they're the best evidence of his
instinctive musicality.  Yes, he used them to project the music to an
audience.  They're convincing!  And why is projecting to an audience
"wrong"?  Isn't that a main point of musical performance?  What he called
"party tricks" I call "natural expression" -- the kinds of things a
sensitive singer would do.  What did CPE Bach advise a keyboard player to
do to learn style?  Go listen to great singers!  When GG later became a
Streisand fan, he obviously heard and resonated with her techniques, but
he still didn't bring those techniques back into his Bach playing.  He'd
had them to begin with, and he'd cast them aside.  He could rave
enthusiastically about what Streisand and Schwarzkopf did, but their
example didn't fit into his model of himself.

In 1 and 2 it's tough to make the call...the party tricks still show up a
bit, and he still plays like an extraordinarily sensitive pianist.  Then
in 3 and 4 they're mostly replaced by a more even-fingered, more strictly
phrased touch.  A pity.  It's still wonderful playing, but he's beginning
to replace his aesthetic focus: converting himself into something
different from "merely" a great pianist.  To me, that's the point where
his Bach (especially) ceases to be orthodox.

Bradley Lehman ~ Harrisonburg VA, USA ~ 38.45716N+78.94565W
bpl@umich.edu ~ http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/