Recently I was reading my weekly assignment for a class, and came across a reference to Glenn Gould renouncing live performance. I don't know much about Glenn Gould, and couldn't believe a musician would actually give up live performing and perform only in a recording studio, so I researched him a bit. Apparently this is true; in 1964 Gould gave his last live performance, Since then he has dedicated himself to recordings and broadcasts for radio and television.
This brings me to my dilemma with his decision: isn't a main characteristic of music the live interaction between performer and listener? My favorite part of performing is playing with other people in an ensemble, but a very close second is performing for other people. The presence of an audience is one of the main factors in performance. Of course there is an audience for recorded music; the listener to a stereo, or an mp3 player, or a radio broadcast. But that listener is not getting as authentic a performance as she would if she were present in a concert hall. She will not observe the performer's movements, a key to his expression. She will not witness firsthand the judgments and decisions made during the performance and the interactions between players on stage.
Another disadvantage to recorded music is the quality of sound. The size and shape of a concert hall affect the sounds produced, and often enhance a performance. A member of a live audience will notice and appreciate variations in sound from their particular spot in the hall. The bassoon may sound like it is right next to her, or she may hear a very bright string section. In a recording, the best technology can only approximate the sound of live performance. The recording engineers add reverb to more closely imitate the concert hall. Unfortunately the microphones do not always pick up the lasting harmonics, echoes, and vibrations one hears and feels in live performance. And the quality of the listener's speakers will greatly affect the listening experience. The recorded performance is only as good as the technology used to record and play it.
The one reason I can concur with Gould is the advantage of editing. In a recording studio, the performer has supreme control over most musical aspects (except those I mentioned above). Gould feels live performance is like a competitive sporting event. There is too much risk and stress to give a really musical performance. In a studio he is free to fix mistakes and splice takes as necessary. This is a great tool for musicians, but I don't think it leads to the conclusion that recorded music is the ideal format for performances. Recordings preserve music as history for us, like an audio archive. But music is temporal; the performer does things on stage emotionally and musically that cannot be reproduced in a studio, and the audience should experience these firsthand.
I understand Gould's point of view, but I don't agree with it. I will make recordings to preserve my own musical history, and continue to listen to others' recordings for research, for education, and for inspiration. But I believe the most authentic musical experience is live performance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Kate,
Gould was definitely an interesting personality. There's a neat article about him in a book called
Sounding Off: Theorizing Disability in Music
by Neil Lerner and Joseph Straus
You may want to read it, its short and has some good anecdotes. I think it also answers your question in some ways. Basically the article talks about how Gould had autism and how that effected the way he perceived the world (including the musical world).
Post a Comment