I’ve decided tο sometimes write in English from now on… I might in this way be able to communicate with a much larger community sharing the same interests and passions. English-speaking people who may read these lines are kindly asked not be too harsh on my English, I beg you!
Yesterday evening, as I was listening to Glenn Gould performing a Contrapunctus from the “Art of Fugue”, a remark by an excellent Greek pianist, Danae Kara, came to my mind. She once told me that there is one thing you cannot accuse Gould of: that his Bach is “out-of-style”. This is so true. For whatever his eccentricities, his sometimes peculiar or unorthodox readings etc etc, his Bach remains "Bach" in the purest sense of the word. Glenn’s Bach is clear of any romantic indulgences and is pervaded by a clarity of tone, a musical “purity”, if I may say so, which is there all the time – in every single note that Gould recorded from 1955 onwards.
Yet, much as “Bachian” his Bach may be, Gould manages to combine faithfulness to this style with his own personal and unique tone. And this is where, I think, his genius lies – in the harmonic co-existence of uniqueness and faithfulness-in-style. (I wish, though, I could say the same for his Mozart!!...)
I played once in a concert a Contrapunctus from the "Art" (the 3rd one), it’s a strange work indeed! It seems to me (correct me if I am mistaken) that the “late” Bach is marked by a spirit of musical asceticism which, in the Art of Fugue, is embodied in the “strictness” and austere nature of these strange and long fugues; this is an element which is definitely missing from the Toccatas or his Suites.
There is an almost spiritual quality in this transition, which I find quite moving…
Yesterday evening, as I was listening to Glenn Gould performing a Contrapunctus from the “Art of Fugue”, a remark by an excellent Greek pianist, Danae Kara, came to my mind. She once told me that there is one thing you cannot accuse Gould of: that his Bach is “out-of-style”. This is so true. For whatever his eccentricities, his sometimes peculiar or unorthodox readings etc etc, his Bach remains "Bach" in the purest sense of the word. Glenn’s Bach is clear of any romantic indulgences and is pervaded by a clarity of tone, a musical “purity”, if I may say so, which is there all the time – in every single note that Gould recorded from 1955 onwards.
Yet, much as “Bachian” his Bach may be, Gould manages to combine faithfulness to this style with his own personal and unique tone. And this is where, I think, his genius lies – in the harmonic co-existence of uniqueness and faithfulness-in-style. (I wish, though, I could say the same for his Mozart!!...)
I played once in a concert a Contrapunctus from the "Art" (the 3rd one), it’s a strange work indeed! It seems to me (correct me if I am mistaken) that the “late” Bach is marked by a spirit of musical asceticism which, in the Art of Fugue, is embodied in the “strictness” and austere nature of these strange and long fugues; this is an element which is definitely missing from the Toccatas or his Suites.
There is an almost spiritual quality in this transition, which I find quite moving…
