This is absolutely spectacular...the man was a communicative and self-analysis genius. The interviewer here is wonderfully empathetic. This is perhaps every bit as valuable as his musical work.
3:45 - "There's a very curious and almost sadistic lust for blood that overcomes the concert listener. There's a waiting for it to happen: a waiting for the horn to fluff, a waiting for the strings to become ragged, a waiting for the conductor to forget the subdivide, you know? And it's dreadful! I'm mean there's a kind of gladiatorial instinct that comes upon the hardened, the case-hardened concert goer. Which is why I suppose I don't like him as a breed, and I don't trust him, and I wouldn't want one as a friend."
Gould despised & distrusted groups. It's one of the things I love best about him. You & I see ourselves as individuals surrounded by other individuals. A person like Gould sees a blob. Audiences react as one. They dress the same, applaud on cue. They are invisible but ever watchful. "They" become an "it." A judgmental "it" that lavishes praise when they are pleased, coughs, rumblings or silence when they are not. Technology was a needed buffer; it allowed Gould to "speak" from the heart.
There is absolutely a spectrum of attitudes, MM. In GG's essay "Rubinstein," the "Maestro" (as Gould calls him) predicts that Gould will return to the concert stage. Gould tells him that if it's a bet, Rubinstein will lose that bet. Then, this exchange: AR: But was there never a moment when you felt that very special emanation from an audience? GG: There really wasn't. [...] AR: But you never felt that you had the souls of those people? GG: I didn't really want their souls. you know.
Group or mass mentality is the thing that enables the most large scale acts of evil, i think. Groups are very suggestible and dangerous, and submissive. I'm sure this has some bearing on Gould's points. An audience, by its nature is not able to give a reaction to music which is fitting; nothing on earth can Self Reflect apart from an individual. Psychology is the factor in a group, and not individual reflectiveness. I think music was to precious to Gould to be paraded in front of 'savages'
This is absolutely spectacular...the man was a communicative and self-analysis genius. The interviewer here is wonderfully empathetic. This is perhaps every bit as valuable as his musical work.
this is scripted bro
Oh, this is a treasure. Thanks for posting.
3:45 - "There's a very curious and almost sadistic lust for blood that overcomes the concert listener. There's a waiting for it to happen: a waiting for the horn to fluff, a waiting for the strings to become ragged, a waiting for the conductor to forget the subdivide, you know? And it's dreadful! I'm mean there's a kind of gladiatorial instinct that comes upon the hardened, the case-hardened concert goer. Which is why I suppose I don't like him as a breed, and I don't trust him, and I wouldn't want one as a friend."
Gould despised & distrusted groups. It's one of the things I love best about him.
You & I see ourselves as individuals surrounded by other individuals. A person like Gould sees a blob.
Audiences react as one. They dress the same, applaud on cue. They are invisible but ever watchful. "They" become an "it." A judgmental "it" that lavishes praise when they are pleased, coughs, rumblings or silence when they are not.
Technology was a needed buffer; it allowed Gould to "speak" from the heart.
There is absolutely a spectrum of attitudes, MM.
In GG's essay "Rubinstein," the "Maestro" (as Gould calls him) predicts that Gould will return to the concert stage. Gould tells him that if it's a bet, Rubinstein will lose that bet.
Then, this exchange:
AR: But was there never a moment when you felt that very special emanation from an audience?
GG: There really wasn't. [...]
AR: But you never felt that you had the souls of those people?
GG: I didn't really want their souls. you know.
6:17
6:52
Group or mass mentality is the thing that enables the most large scale acts of evil, i think. Groups are very suggestible and dangerous, and submissive. I'm sure this has some bearing on Gould's points. An audience, by its nature is not able to give a reaction to music which is fitting; nothing on earth can Self Reflect apart from an individual. Psychology is the factor in a group, and not individual reflectiveness. I think music was to precious to Gould to be paraded in front of 'savages'