Gould, talking about a giant, Schoenberg, while cementing his own gigantism "in his own quiet way." 34:52 "the reaction to pain, to suffering, is such a personal thing. . . It can be depicted by an attempt to invoke an artistic order, to compensate for distress."
His mention of Kandinsky is profound on a few levels yes they both essentially accomplished the same break with tonality or representationalism but they were pals and both respected each other UNTILL Kandinsky published a blatantly antisemitic piece in an Art Criticism magazine to kowtow to the changing political nature of Germany in the 30s. When Schoenberg called him on it he responded that of course he hadn't intended to include men of greatness like old Arnold. Schoenberg was of course Jewish. They never spoke again.
@@brucecross1164 I would think that others, who aren't devotees of Schoenberg, would want to listen to Gould simply for his wonderful cadences and excellent speaking style.. I like listening to everything Gould recorded, and am grateful whenever I find a submission new to me.
Part 1 has 468 views, but fewer than half that number have made it through to Part 2. A pity, as this was a subject of great importance to Gould. I have his other Schoenberg documentary, and I'll put it up some time for the few that may be interested.
Tempered tuning let the chromatic cat outa the bag. J.S.Bach invited said cat to live at his place. Established many many advanced harmonic precedents in musical expresivity with said cat purring in his ear. Subsequent composers "all" silently agreed this was the path forward. So the entire trajectory of western art music could accurately be characterised as a high speed power dive into higher and higher levels of chromaticism that made the 20th century crisis in tonality inevitable. Ta dah the end. Schoenberg: No not quite.
equal temperment didn't catch on until nearly the 20th century. "well tempered" - as in Klavier- means well tuned) Bach would have used something more like Werkmeister or 1/4 common meantone
The issue I have with Gould is not that he wasn't smart (he very much knew his stuff, and was moving artist of the 20th century), but that he didn't speak in a way that was practical. It's almost this mid-20th century idealistic artistic language of philosophy and art: that is, almost a stereotype of what true "serious" musicians should sound like. However, it isn't really necessary. It's superfluous, quick, vaguely-specific, something not many care to understand but rather sit back and think "Well, he's using large words and he's saying them quickly. He must know his stuff." Again, no disdain against the man, but I have always found him to be a bit annoying for this. Always serious, never reachable.
I think this is right. Psychologically Gould seems to have been very dogmatic as well as perfectionistic. His way of speaking - technical, articulate yet verbose - had something of the "defense mechanism" about it.
I admire Gould tremendously but I cannot disagree with this observation. I often have to listen to what he said multiple times to understand his abstruse way of speaking. He could have dumbed it down once in a while.
He didn't have a lot of time. Life is short. There are plenty of resources you can find to better prepare you to hear what Gould is saying. Come back later. Visit others. He's not trying to reach you. He's not trying to teach. He is offering his appreciation and expressing it. I have no issue with his style. Ive played music and I'm literate in it. But I'm no genius. He doesn't need to spoonfeed - he is recording his unique point of view. And I am bored by mediochre "translations for the mainstream". As Blake wrote . . " the eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn of the crow ".. Bernsteins Norton lectures 1973 should take you to the base of the mountain.
>Gould >Always serious Two mutually incompatible things. It is a recorded fact that Gould loved NOT being serious very often. Also for a person that listens to him, thinking what you described, its most certainly not Gould’s fault, and more or less the way the person thinks. For me Gould talked exactly as much as he should talk and had a talent of communicating ideas laconically, offering the irreducible content of his thoughts. I understand someone wanting to hear a “less scientific” (for a lack of a better description) talk, in which the information is somehow more easily handed to you, and there is no harm at that either. But if one stops to actually think and listen to what Gould says (and not think “aah this guy talks fancy!”), one would benefit more imo.
I disagree. To me, the opposite seems to be true, i.e. there seems to me to be an excessive adherence to practicality at the cost of substance in the way intellectual or semi-intellectual discussions are led today. The fact that Gould doesn't do this, or if he does he does it to a much smaller degree than is the norm today, is precicely what I find refreshing in listening to him. (Also, compared to many german intellectuals, the way he talks here is still quite simple i.m.o)
Tonality is not nerdy. Atonality (for its own sake) is. Schoenberg tried to defend his very nerdy system, an impossible and unworthy task. If there is value here, it is the exposure of worrisome aspects of the psyche (nerdiness, for example), which is possibly what Gould appreciated. Note that Gould had a very nerdy discomfort with Mozart, hard as that is to believe, but understandable when contrasting his own psychology with Mozart's. One can safely conclude that Mozart was not a nerd, and that nerdiness was no impediment to Gould's commanding genius. But genius does not guarantee that it will result in the overarching greatness of Bach or Mozart or Strauss or Gould (and so on). It seems to me that Schoenberg's stubbornness kept him on the level of a petulant child, one unable to control his tantrums and compelled to continue them at all costs.
It’s such a revelation. His thinking of Schoenberg doesn’t fade a bit even 60 years later.
Gould, talking about a giant, Schoenberg, while cementing his own gigantism "in his own quiet way."
34:52 "the reaction to pain, to suffering, is such a personal thing. . . It can be depicted by an attempt to invoke an artistic order, to compensate for distress."
The captions are immensely helpful. Thank you, Mr. Cross.
His mention of Kandinsky is profound on a few levels yes they both essentially accomplished the same break with tonality or representationalism but they were pals and both respected each other UNTILL Kandinsky published a blatantly antisemitic piece in an Art Criticism magazine to kowtow to the changing political nature of Germany in the 30s. When Schoenberg called him on it he responded that of course he hadn't intended to include men of greatness like old Arnold. Schoenberg was of course Jewish. They never spoke again.
Thank you for that bit of history.
Hilma af Klint
Muchas gracias!!!!
thank you so much for sharing🙏
Evening plans altered.👌🏻
I'm glad you are interested - the Schoenberg documentary has not garnered many views!
@@brucecross1164 I would think that others, who aren't devotees of Schoenberg, would want to listen to Gould simply for his wonderful cadences and excellent speaking style.. I like listening to everything Gould recorded, and am grateful whenever I find a submission new to me.
Part 1 has 468 views, but fewer than half that number have made it through to Part 2. A pity, as this was a subject of great importance to Gould. I have his other Schoenberg documentary, and I'll put it up some time for the few that may be interested.
Bruce Cross bruce do you follow the schoenberg center on ig ? they have been very active lately putting out amazing photos and manuscripts etc
Thank you Jonathan. That was most interesting, once I figured out what ig is! Their web site is full of interesting things, too.
grazie
Listened to this in the car, nope, didn't understand a damn word, I'll go and find someone with crayons and patience instead...
37:03 "No more 'exorbitant' than that which always has occurred in the history of music."
47:06 "I called this: working with the tones."
Many thanks, Rory. I have incorporated these into the captions.
Tempered tuning let the chromatic cat outa the bag. J.S.Bach invited said cat to live at his place. Established many many advanced harmonic precedents in musical expresivity with said cat purring in his ear. Subsequent composers "all" silently agreed this was the path forward. So the entire trajectory of western art music could accurately be characterised as a high speed power dive into higher and higher levels of chromaticism that made the 20th century crisis in tonality inevitable. Ta dah the end. Schoenberg: No not quite.
equal temperment didn't catch on until nearly the 20th century. "well tempered" - as in Klavier- means well tuned) Bach would have used something more like Werkmeister or 1/4 common meantone
With hindsight almost anything can be made to have seemed to evolve -- Eliot and Gould both disavow progress in art
38:05
The issue I have with Gould is not that he wasn't smart (he very much knew his stuff, and was moving artist of the 20th century), but that he didn't speak in a way that was practical. It's almost this mid-20th century idealistic artistic language of philosophy and art: that is, almost a stereotype of what true "serious" musicians should sound like. However, it isn't really necessary. It's superfluous, quick, vaguely-specific, something not many care to understand but rather sit back and think "Well, he's using large words and he's saying them quickly. He must know his stuff." Again, no disdain against the man, but I have always found him to be a bit annoying for this. Always serious, never reachable.
I think this is right. Psychologically Gould seems to have been very dogmatic as well as perfectionistic. His way of speaking - technical, articulate yet verbose - had something of the "defense mechanism" about it.
I admire Gould tremendously but I cannot disagree with this observation. I often have to listen to what he said multiple times to understand his abstruse way of speaking. He could have dumbed it down once in a while.
He didn't have a lot of time. Life is short. There are plenty of resources you can find to better prepare you to hear what Gould is saying.
Come back later. Visit others. He's not trying to reach you. He's not trying to teach. He is offering his appreciation and expressing it.
I have no issue with his style. Ive played music and I'm literate in it. But I'm no genius.
He doesn't need to spoonfeed - he is recording his unique point of view. And I am bored by mediochre "translations for the mainstream".
As Blake wrote . . " the eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn of the crow ".. Bernsteins Norton lectures 1973 should take you to the base of the mountain.
>Gould
>Always serious
Two mutually incompatible things. It is a recorded fact that Gould loved NOT being serious very often. Also for a person that listens to him, thinking what you described, its most certainly not Gould’s fault, and more or less the way the person thinks. For me Gould talked exactly as much as he should talk and had a talent of communicating ideas laconically, offering the irreducible content of his thoughts. I understand someone wanting to hear a “less scientific” (for a lack of a better description) talk, in which the information is somehow more easily handed to you, and there is no harm at that either. But if one stops to actually think and listen to what Gould says (and not think “aah this guy talks fancy!”), one would benefit more imo.
I disagree. To me, the opposite seems to be true, i.e. there seems to me to be an excessive adherence to practicality at the cost of substance in the way intellectual or semi-intellectual discussions are led today. The fact that Gould doesn't do this, or if he does he does it to a much smaller degree than is the norm today, is precicely what I find refreshing in listening to him. (Also, compared to many german intellectuals, the way he talks here is still quite simple i.m.o)
Tonality is not nerdy. Atonality (for its own sake) is. Schoenberg tried to defend his very nerdy system, an impossible and unworthy task. If there is value here, it is the exposure of worrisome aspects of the psyche (nerdiness, for example), which is possibly what Gould appreciated. Note that Gould had a very nerdy discomfort with Mozart, hard as that is to believe, but understandable when contrasting his own psychology with Mozart's. One can safely conclude that Mozart was not a nerd, and that nerdiness was no impediment to Gould's commanding genius. But genius does not guarantee that it will result in the overarching greatness of Bach or Mozart or Strauss or Gould (and so on). It seems to me that Schoenberg's stubbornness kept him on the level of a petulant child, one unable to control his tantrums and compelled to continue them at all costs.
Nothing wrong with nerdiness, pretentiousness isn't a requirement lol
Tonality can be very nerdy.
Schoenberg was a disaster for western music.
HAHAHHA
It was more his successors Boulez, Berio, Nono, Cage and Stockhausen et. al. that were collectively a disaster.