Dale, thank you. I think you have hit it right. The ephemerality of
music is important to a lot of people who do make recordings, as well.
I have heard many recording artists do things in live concerts that
they would never dare do in a studio.
The previously mentioned procedures of Glenn Gould are more akin to
engravings to my mind. There are many plates of Remberandt, for
example, that were printed in several states leading up to the one
remaining. Gould could polish a recording to a fare-thee-well, since he
exerted total editorial control.
He made some great recordings that way, but they are really different
altogether from anything GL would do.
Think of GL's marvelous, spontaneous-sounding recordings of Alpine
farmhouse organs. There would be no point in editing those.
Still, I would gladly buy a CD of his unmeasured prelude just do I
could hear it once. Would I promise to destroy it? I dunno.
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 20:46:19 +0100, D.C. Carr wrote:
>> I don't know why Leonhardt has never recorded anything like this.
>I hesitate [more than is apparent] to speak for GL, but I think his reason
>is exactly his response quoted above: "This is music that does not exist".
>He believes very strongly - I hope I can formulate this well - in the
>ephemerality of music. Since recordings are not ephemeral, he approaches
>the making of them quite differently from the way he approaches playing a
>concert. Perhaps one could say that he doesn't even consider recordings to
>be music. He strictly forbids recordings of his concerts, and has for many
>decades. I think he doesn't want the schizophrenia of performing music for
>a breathing & listening public - a considerable challenge by any standards,
>a formidable one by his - while simultaneously feeling obliged to strive for
>the technical perfexion that recordings [seem to] require.
Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a
"I met about a dozen people who voted for me, and generally I can't say I really agree with their reasoning."
Bernard Goetz, subway gunman