Dan, I did not know that Karajan played with Gould.
Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career
- Thread starter pc1
- Start date
Dan, I did not know that Karajan played with Gould.
Dan, Thanks for the link. I have heard a bit: Gould's piano sounds a bit like a cembalo. I just dislike this sound. I prefer Backhaus, Kempff, Gulda, Brendel, Kissin with their "full" sound, not with the typical Gould chirping.
You should not be too nationalistic and praise all Canadian persons and things.
I also heared a bit of Beethoven 3rd and 5th concerto: Gould plays wrong tempi, has a sound remembering to Liszt but not Beethoven,
Ancerl was not a great conductor.
Gould had always extravagant tempi: either too fast or too slow.
Furtwängler did not have slow tempi mostly.
Gould plays without soul, maybe because he often belittled Mozart and Beethoven and almost never played the GOAT composer, Schubert...
Dan, As told several times: That's a LIE! He always writes " World Pro Champs" "(Inc US Pro Champs)" Stop lying!
No, Bobby, I gave you the page numbers, McCauley refers to "World Pro" but NO mention of "U.S. Pro" in his text.
Bobby, "champs." is the abbreviation for "champions", NOT "championships".
That would be "chmpshps.".
German is different from English.
Dan Lobb, My brain is different from yours, fortunately.
Note: My English is good enough to understand Joe's words. I was his friend, and he often sent me letters where he abbreviated "Championships" to "champs."
Have you ever reflected that your version does not make any sense??? Why should he mention that in the World Pro "champions" were included???
You must be crazy to not see that Joe writes "US Pro Champs" as TITLE.(by the way: without point at the end of "Champs".
Awake! I will not waste time to explain the matter to you anymore!
Bobby, see McCauley at p. 64 where he calls Cleveland "World Pro" and the L.A. tournament "U.S. Pro".
McCauley never calls Cleveland anything but "World Pro" in his text, no mention of U. S. Pro, and only a bracketed subtitle for "inc. U.S. pro champs" in the appendix, not in the main text.
"champs" is the abbreviation of "champions", not "championships".
Your point is that McCauley was not quoting March, but making his own terminology?
What evidence do we have of that?
There is a significance to this in commercial practice.
Here is the 1957 Beethoven third concerto with Gould, Karajan, and the Berlin Philharmonic, a very lyrical performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-dwTWlD9xo
Karajan also accompanied Gould in 1958 and 1959 with the Bach d minor concerto, with both the Berlin Philharmonic and the Philharmonia orchestras.
Karajan's reaction to Gould's Beethoven:
"This Beethoven concerto performance was a masterly achievement that very few artists will duplicate in our lifetime. When I heard Gould play, I felt as if I was playing myself, for his performance was exactly in line with my own view of the music."
Karajan offered to accompany and launch Gould in every city that Karajan conducted in.
Bernstein called Gould "the greatest thing to happen to classical music in recent years", and performed frequently with him from January, 1957 to April, 1962.
Bernstein wanted to continue the partnership, but Gould was withdrawing from live performance.
Karajan and Bernstein did not make such offers to Backhaus, Kempff, Gulda, Brendel or Kissin.
Last edited:
Here is the foremost Gould/Bernstein collaboration, the Beethoven 4th concerto;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix65UhV0TWM
Here is the 1960 Gould/Krips Emperor concerto of Beethoven, the best ever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MaFozXoWho
Last edited:
Dan, Be happy with your Canadian cembalo player! At least it's better you write about classic music than about championships and champions...
Last edited:
Dan, Thanks for the link. Gould's kind of interpretation will never convince me: Too little soul and feelings involved.
Gould was a genius but did not understand the mature Mozart. He called Mozart a mediocre composer and claimed Mozart died too LATE. He did not understand that the late Mozart is better than the young.
I doubt he ever understood Schubert.
Dan, Thanks for your efforts. Alas, you cannot convince me. The beginning of fourth concerto is too slow. In the fifth concerto there are the usual Gould accelerations and slowings down without reason.
Glenn wanted to play the masterpieces much differently from all other star pianists but he severely failed. Turn to Backhaus or Brendel and you will hear the true Beethoven...
Backhaus was MUCH better in Brahms than Beethoven (especially the 1939 Brahms 2 with Bohm).
Brendel cannot keep me involved, sorry. I find his recordings too refined and controlled for my taste.
Gould could BUILD a climax, and express emotions.
Music is essentially an emotional art, and musicians like Karajan and Bernstein recognized the expressive nature of Gould's performances.
That is why Karajan and Bernstein preferred to work with Gould.
They did not choose to play with Brendel or Backhaus or Gulda, as far as I know.
Krips did a complete Beethoven cycle with Gould, and also with Rubinstein, a friend of Gould.
Last edited:
Dan, Again wrong claims. F.i. Brendel brings more emotion than Gould.
Hope you have read yet my post about "Champs" and US Pro Hardcourt which was not the US Pro. The post was deleted, alas.
Last try: You always say there was no US Pro at all after 1952 in the 1950s but now you mention the 1954 US Pro???
I'm too tired to answer you anymore in this case!
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Actually (and surprisingly), his late Brahms is quite good.
What?
No, on P. 64 MCAULEY mentions the L.A. US Pro in 1954, and the WORLD Pro at Cleveland, making a distinction between the two.
In the appendix on P. 201, McCauley describes the L.A. event as the U. S. Pro Hardcourt (Cement).
Check also on P. 65, where McCauley describes the Cleveland event as "Jack March's Cleveland World Pro Champs".
This is consistent with the USPLTA webpage which claims that there was NO US Pro between 1952 and 1961.
McCauley agrees with the USPLTA.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by BobbyOne
Gould was a genius but did not understand the mature Mozart. He called Mozart a mediocre composer and claimed Mozart died too LATE. He did not understand that the late Mozart is better than the young.
[/QUOTE]
Here is a great performance of the Mozart 24th concerto, with Gould and Bernstein with the New York Philharmonic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV_lnAtLYkU
Gould was a genius but did not understand the mature Mozart. He called Mozart a mediocre composer and claimed Mozart died too LATE. He did not understand that the late Mozart is better than the young.
[/QUOTE]
Here is a great performance of the Mozart 24th concerto, with Gould and Bernstein with the New York Philharmonic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV_lnAtLYkU
Last edited:
Here is a set of Beethoven performances superior to Brendel or Backhaus, from a student of Serkin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QovWdTzd0vg
I have just listened to Brendel/Rattle in the Beethoven 4th and while the lyricism is impressive, I do not hear the contrapuntal details as Gould and Kuerti reveal them.
And for the best Liszt, the master of piano sound,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yt_3dSgUUQ
Playing which Liszt himself would have envied.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Dan, I try to avoid any insulting words to not being deleted again but:You even overlook that you contradict YOURSELF within of only THREE lines in your new post: First you mention the (L.A.) US PRO in 1954 in Joe's book, three lines later you again give your old claim that there was no US Pro at all between 1952 and 1961!!Is 1954 not a part of the 1952 to 1961 period?
Then you (rightly) write that the US Pro Hardcourt was played on cement while you do know that the US Pro in Cleveland was played indoors! Thus you must know that US Pro is NOT identic with US Pro HARDCOURT
McCauley does NOT agree with USPLTA! He always writes: "Inc US Pro champs". On page 199, regarding 1953, he even uses the title "US Pro Champs Lakewood" (=Cleveland) without calling it World Pro Champs!!!. No US Pro after 1952??? You know all this but nevertheless you write wrong claims and statements. Why do you do this? Only to insult my intelligence and to prove my patience??
Dan, Last try: Read page 257: There you clearly can see that Joe has written "US Professional Championships" for ALL such events without ever writing "World Pro(fessional) Championships!!!!!!! Now you can accept that Joe disagreed with USPLTA and that Gonzalez has won 8 US Pro Champs.
Please understand that I'm at the end of my wisdom and my patience. I want to avoid being mocked be my posters colleagues who could blame me that I explained the SAME few clear points several times to you and that I did not stop to answer your wrong claims. Thus end of discussion with you now!
Last edited:
Dan, The only good thing in your posts is the fact that you seem to like or love Beethoven. Here we are colleagues.
HELLO COLLEAGUES,
I would be glad if one or several of you posters could interfere a bit into my discussion with Dan L. It's emotionally too much for me to always explain Dan obvious things, to show him his self-contradictions and to read his strange replies full of wrong claims.
Maybe you can inform Dan that
1) Joe McCauley used the abbreviation "champs" for championships and not for champions (equal if Joe used the correct English term or not)
2) Joe entitled the 1950s Cleveland event "World Pro Champs" PLUS "US Pro Champs" (see pages 201 till 220, every time at the World Pro champs event).
3) Joe disagreed with USPLTA that there was no US Pro after 1952 (till 1961). He did use the usual (but not sanctioned) term US Pro as also Bud Collins and others do.
4) There is a difference between US Pro and US Pro Hardcourt. The latter was played only in a few years at all. McCauley made a little error when writing US Pro instead of US Pro Hardcourt on page 64 (right title on page 201 for the same event) which lead Dan to his own error that the two events were identic (even though ironically he of course had claimed that there was not a US Pro AT ALL...)
Dan contradicts himself sometimes within ONE of his posts, as I have shown several times.
Maybe such an explanation of yours could help to enlighten Dan and to cool down my annoyance and emotion ;-)
Thanks,
BobbyOne
I would be glad if one or several of you posters could interfere a bit into my discussion with Dan L. It's emotionally too much for me to always explain Dan obvious things, to show him his self-contradictions and to read his strange replies full of wrong claims.
Maybe you can inform Dan that
1) Joe McCauley used the abbreviation "champs" for championships and not for champions (equal if Joe used the correct English term or not)
2) Joe entitled the 1950s Cleveland event "World Pro Champs" PLUS "US Pro Champs" (see pages 201 till 220, every time at the World Pro champs event).
3) Joe disagreed with USPLTA that there was no US Pro after 1952 (till 1961). He did use the usual (but not sanctioned) term US Pro as also Bud Collins and others do.
4) There is a difference between US Pro and US Pro Hardcourt. The latter was played only in a few years at all. McCauley made a little error when writing US Pro instead of US Pro Hardcourt on page 64 (right title on page 201 for the same event) which lead Dan to his own error that the two events were identic (even though ironically he of course had claimed that there was not a US Pro AT ALL...)
Dan contradicts himself sometimes within ONE of his posts, as I have shown several times.
Maybe such an explanation of yours could help to enlighten Dan and to cool down my annoyance and emotion ;-)
Thanks,
BobbyOne
Last edited:
Bobby, no contradiction at all.
The Cleveland was not the "US Pro", but the "World Pro".
Again, read the USPLTA website for confirmation.
McCauley lists the Cleveland event under "US Pro" in the final summary APPENDIX, but in the main body of his text he uses "World Pro".
Yes, in the APPENDIX again, he refers to LAKEWOOD as "US Pro", but beginning in 1954, when the Cleveland Arena was the venue, he uses "World Pro", even in the appendix, and in the main text he makes no mention of "US Pro", only "World Pro".
Did you somehow fail to notice this?
Last edited:
Bobby, perhaps I can convince you that Beethoven composed his keyboard concertos for TWO hands, not ONE-AND-A-HALF hands.
The traditional school of pianists you favour apparently take the one-and-a-half approach.
Gould brought a revolutionary exploration of Beethoven, a contrapuntal realization, in the fifties.
That is why Bernstein referred to Gould as "the most exciting thing to happen to classical music in recent years".
This was as profound a seismic shift in music performance as the "method acting" of Brando and Dean in films at about the same time.
The culture of the fifties, both in sports and the performing arts, was a climactic period of achievement.
We have not seen a similar level of achievement since that era.
Last edited:
Gould's significance continues to grow, as evidenced by this article by Richard Brody in the New Yorker magazine,
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/glenn-gould-at-eighty
and this opinion poll, which places Gould at number two all-time among great pianists (Sviatoslav Richter, another pianist who emerged in the 1950's, is number one),
http://www.talkclassical.com/22559-absolute-greatest-pianists-all-2.html
Dan Lobb, Enough is enough! You did not answer any of my clear statements and you remain at all your WRONG claims. That averts any serious discussion! Every 8 to 10 years school kid is able to read Joe's book correctly, to confirm my arguments and to disprove yours. Only a 63 years old tennis "expert" is not able to read correctly a book and to think logically???
My last main argument was that Joe McCauley, a good friend of mine (and I'm near to tears that you blame him so much) on page 257, in the championship roll of the US Pro, has only used ONE term and title: "US PROFESSIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS" without calling the event "World Pro Championships". This my hint was the best and ultimative proof of my statements and a MUST for you to concede that your "arguments" were totally WRONG! Have you had a short look at all on page 257 where Joe writes that Gonzalez has won eight US Pro Championships???
Do you really blame McCauley for confusing World Pro (in the text) with US Pro (twice in the appendix, both in pages 199 till 220 plus in the championship roll on page 257)??? It's a shame!
It's a wonder that you recently accepted your mistake regarding "top ten" player John Bartlett (where I thanked you immediately) but it's even a much greater wonder that you don't concede your fatal mistakes regarding World Pro/US Pro; US Pro/US Pro Hardcourt and regarding Championships/champions.....
Since I got no support from serious posters to date, I tried it now just another time, but as an exact thinking man and intelligent (!) person I can't stand your kind of posting anymore. Therefore my great request: Please answer this post only in case you have understood truth and facts and my arguments!! Thanks a lot!
BobbyOne
P.S.: There is no need to mention USPLTA as I'm aware that they did not sanction the Cleveland US Pro. It's a fact that most experts like Collins and McCauley have labelled that event as US Pro: Collins both in text and appendix of his marvellous encyclopedia and McCauley as World Pro PLUS US Pro twice in the appendix, at the general tournament results plus at the championship roll on page 257. If you are not satisfied with Joe's appendix terms and title, you can tear out those pages and throw them away because they don't confirm your ideas of correct writing and of correct labelling of the US Pro Championships...
Last edited:
Dan, Your one-and-a-half-hands thesis is of course wrong. Listen to Gulda and Brendel.
I was informed that Glenn Gould manipulated the hammers of the piano to get a more cembalo like sound. That's the reason why I dislike his playing, of course together with his bizarre speeds (too fast and too slow even within ONE opus).
Dan, Brody is wrong: Toscanini died in 1957. But he is right that Gould is mechanic...
The poll is laughable: Richter is over-rated and unsatisfying.
In that list is Gilels but no Brendel and Kissin and Gulda: absurd. Forget it.
Bobby, you incessantly refer to P 257 in the APPENDIX, a list borrowed from some other source?
In McCauley's TEXT, which you avoid discussing, he refers to the Cleveland Arena event as "Jack March's Cleveland World Pro", from 1954 to 1964, and makes NO mention of "US Pro".
Read thoroughly.
Last edited:
I Have listened to Brendel/Rattle, and he follows the traditional one-and-a-half overemphasis of the right hand.
That older approach believed that the right hand should be more emphatic than the left and carry the melody, while the left hand was a mere support and less emphasized.
Gould revolutionized the playing of Beethoven and revealed the contrapuntal details in BOTH hands.
Last edited:
Yes I noticed that , too, I think that Brody was confused because Toscanini RETIRED in 1954.
The poll is a very accurate list, and Richter and Gould have always been my personal top two.
They brought the strongest individual ideas to their interpretations.
The rest are relatively tame interpreters.
I am not surprised that your favourites did not make the list.
Here are the top fifteen pianists, all-time from this poll.
1. Sviatoslav Richter
2. Glenn Gould
3. Vladimir Horowitz
4. Artur Rubinstein
5. Marta Argerich
6. Maurizio Pollini
7. Claudio Arrau
8. Vladimir Ashkenazy
9. Andras Schiff
10. Krystian Zimerman
11. Marc Andre Hamelin
12. Murray Perahia
13. Rudolf Serkin
14. Radu Lupu
There are two Canadians on this list, Gould and Hamelin, and one American, Perahia.
Gould had great admiration for his friends Sviatoslav Richter, Leon Fleisher, Serkin and Rubinstein
Irish Lass
New User
Thought this thread was about Lew Hoad!
Dan, That's the problem of Richter, Gould and others: "They brought the strongest individual ideas to their interpretations"! Backhaus, Serkin, Gulda, Kempff, BRENDEL, Kissin and others played what the COMPOSERS wanted to be played...
Dan, oddest list I ever saw.
Who is Hamelin??? Probably the "John Bartlett" of the pianists: about No.80...
I just read that he plays almost only fourth-class, pardon, I mean third-class composers...
Last edited:
Not "an odd list", but a poll of classical aficionados. This is a consensus list of knowledgeable music people.
Marc-Andre Hamelin? I gave you a link above to his Liszt recital, which you obviously failed to listen to.
He is generally regarded as the foremost virtuoso of the last twenty-five years, and his recording of the Brahms 2nd concerto is the most highly acclaimed of recent interpretations.
His Liszt is phenomenal.
Brendel, Gulda, Weissenberg, Kempff, Backhaus, Fischer, and other "old school" bland-oriented centrists failed to make the list.
Serkin and Gould were friends who admired each other's work.
Last edited:
Dan, You concede it was not a list made by experts.
A list made in Europe would read totally differently: Backhaus, Gieseking, Fischer, Kempff, Brendel, Gulda, Kissin (the best active pianist), Arrau, Benedetti-Michelangeli would be ranked very highly.
Who is "expert"?
A "fan" of great pianism is qualified to give an opinion, even if they are not outstanding pianists themselves.
Arrau is already on the list at number 7, and I could see a case for Gieseking, Fischer, Michelangeli.
But you and I are not being "polled".
This is a contemporary poll of classical music aficionados in the broad sense, using statistical parameters.
And I agree that Richter and Gould deserve the top two spots, by a huge margin, for their originality and creativity in performance.
No one else comes close to them.
Bobby, the point is very simple.
McCauley chose to use "World Pro" and not "US Pro" for the Cleveland Arena event in his text.
Dan, Every fan can give an opinion, but of course not every fan must be right with his/her opinion and judgement.
Make ten polls and you will get ten different lists.
Which statistical parameters?????
I never heard a satisfying interpretation from Richter and Gould, and I have been hearing classical music since 1964 very often.
Last edited:
Hello colleagues,
Since I did not get yet support from you in the "endless" battle with Dan I repeat here my request of post 1322 to explain Dan the whole matter including his wrong claims and self-contradictions. Maybe some posters are on holidays at the moment.
I don't need any help for my argumentation, for my logic and formulations. But I think that Dan would be more impressed by serious argumentation if it would come from 3 or 5 acknowledged posters than "only" from one poster equal if the latter provides convincing arguments or not.
Dan should be enlightened that Joe McCauley used the term "champs" as abbreviation for "championships" (not for "champions"!), furthermore
especially that Joe did use both terms: "World Pro Champs" AND "US Pro Champs" and that way disagreed with USPLTA that did not sanction a US Pro (from 1953 till 1962) whilst McCauley (plus Collins, plus Rowley, plus Haylett, plus Sutter and others) always used the term "US Pro" for the 1950s "World Pro" event.
Joe's (and Dan's) confusion of US Pro with US Pro Hardcourt is a minor one.
I do hope that your support will make Dan more thoughtful and less stubborn...
Since I did not get yet support from you in the "endless" battle with Dan I repeat here my request of post 1322 to explain Dan the whole matter including his wrong claims and self-contradictions. Maybe some posters are on holidays at the moment.
I don't need any help for my argumentation, for my logic and formulations. But I think that Dan would be more impressed by serious argumentation if it would come from 3 or 5 acknowledged posters than "only" from one poster equal if the latter provides convincing arguments or not.
Dan should be enlightened that Joe McCauley used the term "champs" as abbreviation for "championships" (not for "champions"!), furthermore
especially that Joe did use both terms: "World Pro Champs" AND "US Pro Champs" and that way disagreed with USPLTA that did not sanction a US Pro (from 1953 till 1962) whilst McCauley (plus Collins, plus Rowley, plus Haylett, plus Sutter and others) always used the term "US Pro" for the 1950s "World Pro" event.
Joe's (and Dan's) confusion of US Pro with US Pro Hardcourt is a minor one.
I do hope that your support will make Dan more thoughtful and less stubborn...
Last edited:
Richter and Gould both stated that there is no point in making a recording of a standard interpretation of a work, but only if the pianist has something new to say.
Just giving another bland reading is a hackneyed approach to music.
Please throw away the appendix of Joe's book: it disturbs your fantasy world. And throw away Bud's encyclopedia and the other books which refer to the Cleveland Arena event as the "US Pro"!
Funny man: I never doubted that Joe used the term "World Pro" but YOU doubted about ten times that Joe used the term "US Pro"! Get real finally!!!
Last edited:
Bobby, I understand WHY some encyclopedias refer to Cleveland as the "US Pro".
Some people are determined to look for pro majors, even where they don't exist.
But Gonzales' record doesn't need puffery, it stands by itself.
Gonzales was unfortunate to not have any majors to play for in 1954 and 1955.
The L.A. wins in 1954 and 1956 are close to major status, also White City in 1959, and these are more important than Cleveland.
I was generous in giving Gonzales major wins at Philadelphia in 1950 and 1952.
Last edited:
Dan, Instead of being "generous" towards Gonzalez, you just should try to be serious, honest and logical and to avoid arrogance, misreading and lies.
I have done that, old friend.
I do not pretend that Cleveland is a major.
Gonzales' history does not need such a pretence.
Dan, I prefer serious and intelligent friends...
That is why you correspond here?
Here is the infamous, but now revered, Brahms 1 by Gould and Bernstein.
Bernstein later told Gould that Gould's playing in the slow movement was overwhelmingly beautiful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuxPKikM0NI
Gould/Bernstein were scheduled again with the N. Y. Philharmonic in Jan. 1963, but Gould withdrew for health reasons.
Here is the interview where Laver mentions his own personal "Dream Match" of all time, Hoad vs. Federer.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ould-be-tennis-match-worth-paying-to-see.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ould-be-tennis-match-worth-paying-to-see.html
Similar threads
