ACD Test Wordpress

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Archive for April, 2002

Revisiting Landowska

Posted by acdtest on April 14, 2002

Revisiting Landowska And The Forty-eight

n the slow rebuilding of my fire-consumed libraries, I only recently replaced my copy of the Landowska recording of Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier. It’s been some seven years since I last heard this reading, and what a glorious reading it is. Landowska’s approach to Bach has often (and more often than not, pejoratively) been characterized as Romantic, and it is that indeed; an arresting contrast to the purity of Glenn Gould’s clean-and-lean if idiosyncratic approach, and a jarring departure from the school of so-called (and self-servingly-called) “authentic” period performance. On this recent hearing, however, it struck me that Landowska’s reading is as much gothic as it is Romantic. A sense of the darkly mysterious is everywhere present, even in the most joyful of the fugues, and no small credit for producing that effect is due the specially designed and built to Landowska specifications Pleyel harpsichord, a modern instrument that bears resemblance to the period harpsichord only in its general technical details.

Compared with a period harpsichord the Pleyel is a bit of a monster in both sound and aspect, and in these recordings its sound is not flatteringly or accurately dealt with by the technical limitations of early-’50s recording equipment and techniques, and by the circumstance that many of these preludes and fugues were recorded in Landowska’s home in Connecticut rather than in the controlled acoustic of a recording studio.

All that notwithstanding, there’s something to be said for hearing Bach’s great summa performed — and performed by a profoundly informed virtuoso such as Landowska — on this strange, iron-framed, seven-pedaled instrument, with its several registers which have no equivalent in the historical harpsichord.

The Pleyel’s sound is quite big for a harpsichord, and more metallically nasal than the period instrument, and if one approaches listening to Bach performed on the Pleyel by naively comparing or attempting to reconcile its sound with that of the historical harpsichord one is fairly certain to end up defeated and not a little repelled by the sound of the former. If, however, one listens to this music performed on the Pleyel not by comparing its sound with that of a period instrument, but by hearing its sound as that of an instrument that would logically, and almost certainly, have evolved from that period instrument had not the fortepiano come along when it did, one gets a different sense of the thing altogether, and an opening-up to a remarkable new listening experience. One has only to hear Landowska’s reading of the deceptively simple C-major prelude that opens Book I, with her mystical and evocative registration shifts — shifts impossible on a period harpsichord as the equivalent registers do not exist — to understand immediately the enormous expressive capabilities of the Pleyel under the right pair of hands. And no hands are more right for the Pleyel, for Bach especially, than those of the great Landowska.

For those of you with a more than passing interest in Bach’s keyboard works (and even for those of you without, for that matter) who do not already own this great historic recording, this luminous, gothic-Romantic reading of the Forty-eight is a reading you owe it to yourselves to give a considered hearing. For those of you who already own the recording, you owe yourselves another critical listen with new ears. In either case, I promise you your time will be revelatory and well spent.
The CDs (Books I & II) may be purchased here
–>

Posted in Music, Recordings | Comments Off on Revisiting Landowska

End Of The Properly-working Dog

Posted by acdtest on April 8, 2002

The End of the Properly-working Dog

ome years ago I said to myself, “Self,” I said, “you really ought to sit down and write a novel. No, not the Great American kind. Something a bit more modest. A nice little murder mystery, perhaps. Shouldn’t be too difficult, and pretty much everyone likes to read a good murder mystery, right? Of course right.”

And so I sat down and wrote a nice little murder mystery. A neat by-the-formula-connect-the-dots genre number more manufactured than written, the genre I chose called in the biz a “cozy”. Piece of cake, actually, even though I’d never so much as read a murder mystery before. Not all the way through, anyhow. Not even a Christie. That might be evidence of a streak of snobbishness in me, but I tend to think not. It’s simply that each time I attempted to read, say, a Christie (that master of the so-called puzzle mystery or whodunit, and the fons et origo of the cozy), I had the identity of the murderer, and why he (or she, or they) dunit, by page fifty. I mean, what was the point of reading further?

So, now I have this nice little murder mystery written, and the next thing to do is sell it. This, it turns out, is not a piece of cake. No more direct-to-the-publisher with your precious manuscript, its pages still damp with your blood, sweat and tears. No more a reading by a qualified editor or editorial assistant to determine its suitability for publication. The major houses don’t have the necessary staff for that anymore. They now depend on agents to perform that function for them, and won’t even look at a fiction manuscript by an unknown author not submitted by a bona fide agent. It’s the publishing house’s almost-guarantee the manuscript is, at minimum, of publishable quality and worth at least a look. Ninety-nine percent of fiction manuscripts submitted to agents for consideration aren’t, as dismaying and disheartening a bit of news as that might be for starry-eyed wannabes.

And what primarily determines whether a fiction manuscript is of publishable quality? Strange to relate, not the quality of the writing. That’s some way down on the list of essential requirements. At the top of that list is how well the manuscript will sell when made into a book. If an agent determines a fiction manuscript has high potential in that regard it’s ipso facto publishable. If not, not, even were the quality of its prose and construction such that it might have been written by a latter-day Joyce.

Is something wrong with this picture?

Just about everything, as a matter of fact. It’s classic tail-wagging-the-dog, but it’s what today overridingly controls the acquisition and market practices of the major publishing houses. You might be tempted to ask if things were ever any different. And the answer would be, indeed they were. During the era stretching from the turn of the 20th century up to the early 1940s, the era that saw the emergence of the great American publishing houses — Knopf, Random House, Scribner’s (begun in an earlier era, but whose zenith period as a book publisher began during this era), Simon & Schuster, etc., — things were very different indeed. Those houses were founded and run by men who first and foremost loved books. Great books especially. Books whose most salient characteristic was the stellar quality of their writing. And these men held as their primary role the sale of those books to as many people as possible because they were great books. Which is not to say they were against making a healthy profit on those sales, or that they were any less ruthless and conniving than their most crass commercial brethren. But it was their love of books rather than profit that turned them into publishers instead of purveyors of you-name-the-product, the manufacture and sales of which would have brought them far more filthy lucre with far less trouble than they could ever earn by making and selling books.

This is a properly-working dog, and these men not only did good, but made a great deal of money doing good.

So, what happened? Why is the dog now working ass backwards, and what made it work that way?

The facile answer is corporate greed, and while that answer may be facile, it has much to recommend it as the answer that most pointedly, and most accurately, answers the question. The men who founded those great American publishing houses are of course all gone now, their houses purchased and run by huge, multi-national corporate entities, and with them has gone the dedication to the Great Book — that is, the Great Book as understood in that era of great books. Great Book today means any book that sells, or has the potential to sell, at least 50,000 copies in hardcover, and the threshold number for admission into that exalted category is fast rising.

So, what chance, then, my nice little murder mystery given numbers appropriately scaled down for its niche (genre) market? Not much as it turned out, and three agents tried peddling it, two of them first-rate, seasoned veterans. And what was the remark most heard against it by publishers? Too literary(!), by which I suspect they meant no sex, car chases, shootouts, or things blowing up.

Uh-huh. I get it. I understand perfectly.

In a pig’s eye I do.

You may download an ad hoc eBook (Free) of the “nice little murder mystery” (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader (Free), or Acrobat eBook Reader (Free) to read).

Posted in Print Publishing, Writing | Comments Off on End Of The Properly-working Dog