Listening Practice

[andyorgan]

I agree that this is an interesting topic, and I find myself genuinely torn. On the one hand, we, as organists know our favourite pieces if not to the point of obsession, then certainly inside out, and any mistake certainly stands out. "Wrong note fiends" (as Alfred Brendel calls them) are an acknowledged phenomenon. Gillian Weir, when asked about this is reported to have said that should she play a wrong note, everyone is happy, because the fiends get to spot their note, and the others, who don't let such things bother them will still have enjoyed the performance! I have heard blemishes in her more recent perfomances, but I feel completely neutral about these because what has remained is her absolute musical intelligence and let's face it, her technique is still pretty darned good, to say the least!

 

On the other hand, I had a lesson in not meeting (or going to hear) ones heroes playing live. At one stage I thought his performance of the JSB Passacaglia & Fugue might collapse (it didn't, quite). I was by turns embarrassed both for the player (no names no packdrill) and that my friend who was there with me (to whom I had raved about said organist) certainly couldn't see what the fuss was about. I was cross that the player, whose Bach had become part of my life, had let me down, sad that it was time for him to throw in the towel. This went beyond the odd duff note about which we shouldn't be so anal. It was, quite simply, an incompetent performance, without much pizzazz either, really. A sad evening indeed.

 

Also, the "panache" argument can be shaky. If you find the performance unmusical and inaccurate, no amount of "panache" (or head waving, in the case of our friend the hairy violinist of a previous post) will atone for it. All you are left with is the incompetent playing of the notes. Could I have done better? Maybe, maybe not, but no-one in their right mind is going to invite me to play at the RFH/Westminster Abbey/ AH etc.

 

Sorry, hadn't meant to mean 'panache' at the expense of musicality. Maybe I meant personality? I went to hear Guillou play and it was extraordinary playing. Meticulous in detail and with plenty of personality that didn't interfere with the integrity of the music. Made me re-examine long held thoughts and beliefs about interpretation. It wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but his own transcription (from memory!) of all of the Pictures at an Exhibition was spellbinding. At one point I even found myself liking the Symphony Hall organ, so good was his playing.

[jonadkins]

Sorry, hadn't meant to mean 'panache' at the expense of musicality. Maybe I meant personality? I went to hear Guillou play and it was extraordinary playing. Meticulous in detail and with plenty of personality that didn't interfere with the integrity of the music. Made me re-examine long held thoughts and beliefs about interpretation. It wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but his own transcription (from memory!) of all of the Pictures at an Exhibition was spellbinding. At one point I even found myself liking the Symphony Hall organ, so good was his playing.

 

Yes, indeed, I completely concur about the distinction between personality/musicianship and hollow showmanship, and also about Guillou, for that matter: he has made me re-examine long-held beliefs about registration. As you say, his ideas may not be everyone's cup of tea (8' + 2' in Franck!) but he is at least convincing enough to make me listen to familiar music with fresh ears.

 

As far as his instruments are concerned, give me Notre-Dame-des-Neiges ("talk to the hand") over St. Eustache any day!