>Will we one day see a brilliant violinist who in fact has never touched
>the violin, but produces all his utterly violin-like sounds with as-yet-to-
>be-invented electronic gadgetry?
I think we will indeed one day hear music created by musicians/programmers
who can't play a violin or cello very well physically, but certainly
very convincingly create them on computer. Which asks the question-
does it matter HOW the sound is created if it's musical? The
new
'physical modeling' sythnesizers are designed to reproduce
instruments with uncanny realism. And, they do.
Bardolph wrote:
> When will the first opera singer sing a note slightly flat and say,
>"just correct it in mixing,.."
Yes they can do that not only in the studio but also during
a live performance! (a special device will correct a vocalist
going off pitch if that pitch goes off too far. This device is
used often in rock concerts but probably never in classical concerts)
Elmer Elevator wrote:
I guarantee -- and I don't often make guarantees about the opinions of deadYes, once you record something, it will stay that way forever.That's because of the way technology works these days. The
people -- but I guarantee Gould saw it precisely that way when he said "This is
my Goldberg. It's finished now. This is my Gibbons and Byrd. This is how I want
it. This is how Columbia/CBS/Sony will forever sell it."
The point I'm making is that we allready do alter the final
product to suite our tastes, if only tone and volume. In the future,
we may have more total 'control' (what GG wants us to have
and what he sought all his life) over the performance when
reproduced by technology. GG knew this- that technology
was altering our musical experience in dramatic ways. He
embraced technology whole-heartedly. He actually said things
like "what if you could splice the ending of one recording to
another and create a 'better' performance"?
I'm not convinced at all that GG's recordings represent in his mind
'final' products that are 'final' and un-changable. In fact,
GG
was constantly changing. He saw music as a fluid, living, changing
organism. He demonstrates several ways to play the same Bach
prelude in his music videos, depending on the mood of the moment.
He said "I have no problem playing the prelude twice as fast"
(if the music allows it). Or, maybe even at half speed
(one of his
favorite things to do). Especially with Bach, there is extra
freedom
and liberty to be expressive in a more personal way. That's one
reason he liked Bach so much- because Bach's music does lend
itself to open interpretation. And, it lends itself to be played
in one mood one day, another mood another day. There is no
exact approach you have to take with Bach, as you are much
more 'forced' in say, Beethoven, who marks every note with detailed
instructions. GG often disobeyed composer's markings and intentions
anyway! I certainly don't think GG thought his performances as
final and unchangable.
GG hated the idea of all pianists sounding exactly alike. He was
desperately searching for ways to make his recordings sound fresh,
innovative, and original. If anyone broke the rules, disobeyed
composers instructions, and wanted nothing more than to make
music an ever-changing, fluid, living thing- it was GG.
If the 1955 Goldbergs are so final and finished, then why did
GG re-record them in 1981? Because things changed. Technology
changed. His viewpoint changed. His approached changed.
The 1955 version is NOT the only way the Goldbergs can be
played! GG changed over time and so did his whole approach
to the Goldbergs. He felt very compelled to re-record them and
make a new statement with them. If he had lived another
20
years, he would probably re-record them again. And then even
again in another 20 years after that! In fact, I think it was
the advent of modren recording technology that was
developing just as GG came on the scene that probably drove
GG into a perfectionistic, obsessive, work-a-holic, pianist.
He was simply obsessed with recording technolgy and the
fact there are many ways to perform the same peice of music.
Sure, we should not change an artist's performance, nor an
authors book. Not one note, not one comma. That would
be abhorant. But humming is not an essential part of the composer's
music. The composer's music stands on it's own 100 percent.
The humming is 'extra'. No matter how inventive it is. In fact,
GG was very careful to hum a part in the music (any part of it),
and NOT to hum an original melody. If he ever hummed
an original melody will someone please tell me which recording?
It may be 5, 10 or 20 years, but one day the option to
remove humming on any recording will be available.
And so I simply agree with the idea that if the humming was
removed, (which I don't think is possible or practical yet), there
would be no real damage to the artistic integrity of the piano
performance. I think it is rather ridiculous to suggest that
the
humming is a major element of the MUSIC. It's not. It's
a
major element of GG.
And I do agree that the humming adds a perspective to the music
but only because we never hear other pianists hum! Maybe if we
did it might become rather obnoxious. Actually I don't want to
see that happen. GG's humming has become a trademark and
added 'feature' that works for GG. It's not going to work with
other pianists. One humming pianist is enough. Plus, no
serious
musician thinks of GG's humming as reveling something in the
music no one else noticed before, or that the humming somehow
improves the music.
IMO, what the humming does is add a human being at the keyboard
in the very stuffy world of classical music. This is a refreshing
change
of pace but not a significant musical occurance in the history of music.
It's something radically different and startling refreshing from the
same
old standard recording practise since the beginning of recordings.
This is what's so effective about it. GG is not revealing secret
parts
of the score that no one knew was there.It's simply humming!
A
part of the GG product. Another way to add a human touch and reach
out thru "time and space" to anyone with ears and a record player or
radio.
And if they can remove the humming effectively, a remarkable thing
may happen- there may be an INCREASE in the piano clarity! It
could even be a very dramatic increase. That is possible!
And
then we just might have the best of both worlds- recordings with the
humming for the times you want the good old GG experience, and
the recordings without humming for a pure music-only experience.
If these non-humming recordings ever do get produced from Sony
in a high qaulity manner (which I doubt), then we just might have
a very difficult choice to make when playing GG: having to choose
between TWO types of GG CD's, as both would be excellent.
Because if the humming is removed- count me as one who
believes that the piano that's left will be awesome.
Mike