GG: and the mighty $

[Mary Jo Watts <mwatts@rci.rutgers.edu>]

Welcome to the list Ron!

I have to say for myself that your ponits about the Gould cottage
industry are well taken.  Sony has overpriced the GG Edition.  The
video series is arbitrarily chosen and hacked away from its original
context. All true, and annoying.  And Sony has done what it could to
stop the releases of any and all bootlegs (Music and Arts releases
included.)

On the other hand there are reasons for some of the actions you
mentioned that I would like to know more about.  The squashing of
bootleg releases is without a doubt in most cases perfectly within
Sony's legal rights-- remember that GG signed an exclusive contract
all his life with CBS Records then bought by Columbia and now owned by
Sony. On the other side of that issue was Gould's own hatred of
concerts.  If he were alive today none of us would have heard, much
less own copies of a large percentage of the releases Sony has
remastered and made public in the GG edition. (Recordings made
available against GG's and Sony's wishes but done to control the
quality of the masters made available and to stop the bootlegging) As
a scholar of Gould's work (and by now it should be obvious-- a fan ;)
of his work) I appreciate having this material available.

The radio work is another issue simply because the CBC owns the rights
to all that material (If I understand my friend at the CBC, all or
most of the television material has been optioned by Sony so some of
it could be released commercially along with *some* of Bruno M's Gould
footage.)  And the CBC, though it has released several CD's worth of
rare Gould material, isn't really in the business of marketing their
archives for commercial purposes.  (You CAN get copies made of the
radio material made.)  All in all there is a great deal of GG material
available for purchase-- more than ever.

The Carroll book is yet *another* issue.  I've heard arguments on both
sides (from Carroll's family and from the Foundation which works
closely with S. Posen, Gould's executor.)  The Carroll family owns the
rights to Jock's photos-- no doubt, and the photos he did of GG are
the best ever taken of Gould.  It is their position that they deserve
to profit from the book that Jock wrote and the courts upheld the fact
that they obviously own the copyright to the photos.  It's my
understanding from a Carroll family member that the Gould estate has
tried to buy the rights many times.  From GG's estate's position-- the
photos are the most beautiful that exist of Gould.  People want copies
and will pay a good deal of money for them.  This is money that is
made from Glenn Gould's face (undoubtedly some photography fans would
buy the book but let's be realistic) and as such GG's estate deserves
to profit.  The estate, as most of have heard by now, benefits the
Humane Society and the Salvation Army. Now legally Carroll's family
may own the copyright but the beneficiaries of Gould's estate (those
two charities) are not profiting.  The GG estate tried to buy the
rights and they were not for sale so the case went to court.  If the
estate hadn't at least filed the claim, more and more folks with
bootleg tapes, photos, etc. ad infinitum would find an easier market
for their goods and Gould's wishes go down the drain. Unfortuantely
the book will likely have difficulty finding a distributor in the
U.S. because of the suit.  Way I see it-- Posen did his job as Gould's
lawyer AND justice was served.  (The book is great, BTW, and Carroll's
family has graciously allowed me to post photos from the book on the
f_minor site.)

I understand that there are efforts underway to produce a Gouldesque
media project. And at least Sony's Gould site are in his fave colors--
battleship grey and the ubiquitious grey-blue of those shirts he
always wore! <tongue firmly planted in cheek>

So while I agree with many of Ron's points-- I's just like to point
out that these issues are very complex both morally and legally.

-Mary Jo,
mwatts@rci.rutgers.edu