Re: Gould listeners

[Sivan Etedgee <sme@cisunix.unh.edu>]

Bravo!!!

Allan MacLeod wrote:

> I actaully find A. Thayer's question rather insulting and certainly
> condescending.  I am an extreme non-musician in his sense, but my
> ability to appreciate a performance is not thereby impaired.  As the
> saying goes, you don't have to be a cobbler to assess the quality or
> fitness of a pair of shoes.  You don't have to be a pastry chef to
> appreciate a great cake.
> I have been working on a rather lengthy message to f-minor about the
> current debate over Gould's orthodoxy.  In it, one of the claims I make
> is that Gould is not a pianist's or musician's pianist; he is a poet's
> or writer's pianist.  Gould did not like professional musicians for
> exactly the reasons that the great debate of recent days illustrates.
> He enjoyed sharing enthusiasms with people who were interested in ideas
> and not questions of technique or performance style.  Hence his total
> indifference to the question of instrument. He had a sound in mind and
> whether is was authentic or orthodox or not mattered not at all to him.
> As one of our correspondents recently put it, stop burying Gould beneath
> norms.
> Why am I attracted to Gould?  For many reasons.  For one thing I was
> raised in Toronto and knew the Toronto that Gould did; I too liked the
> zoo and the Islands and , living near the old CBC complex on Jarvis, I
> would sometimes see him.  Gould was simply part of Toronto.  He would
> write pieces for The Globe and Mail; he would act as a radio host.  I
> too, like him, lived through Toronto's emergence from its
> Presbyterian/Methodist image of Toronto the Good to its vibrant modern
> complex self.
> Gould's incredible digital dexterity, his ability to make each part or
> line in a contrapuntal work sing independently and distinctly, the
> ability to bring out the inner voices, also attracted me.  His
> performances were virually visual in their ability to make you see as
> well as hear the independent voices at play.  Bach made sense , the
> greatness of his skill was apparent, when you listended to his playing.
> There are also the conversations, many transcribed into print.  When CBS
> released the 81 Goldbergs it included a second disc of a lengthy
> interview with Gould about this performance.  The sheer brilliance and
> daring of the conception as he described it added immeasurably to the
> enjoyment a performance that was alrteady outstanding.
> Third, there are his writings.  I can think of no pianist except for
> Rosen and to a much lesser extent  Brendel who is articulate in
> expressing the ideas behind his performance.  This, of course, must make
> performances by artists like this much more pleasurable and enlightening
> than by those who feel they have no obligation to explain themselves.  I
> should also include Kuerti in my list.  I heard him perform the
> Beethoven sonatas at Hart House in 1974-75 and each performance was
> preceded by a lengthy, illuminating lecture.  These were later expanded
> upon in his notes for the recordings.
> Fourthly, he could be very funny.  The liner notes to the Hindemith
> sonatas as well as his Grieg performances were gems as well as the
> "conversation" with Ken Haslem(?) about his Wagner performances.  What's
> wrong with being humorous and excelling at more than  one medium?  Why
> should this diminish the validity of his appeal to non-musicians?  And,
> of course, his fantasy shows us what he thought of critics and
> musicologists.
> And yes, he was a complex, contradictory and infuriating man.  He was
> interesting.  But that would only explain big sales in biographies and
> not an interest in his music.  His records sell because anyone can tell
> these are magnificent recordings.  I trust the professionals who tell me
> that they are also unorthodox and I can hear that for myself.  That is
> why I tell my friends to buy Gould but also buy a performance by Brendel
> or Perahia or Uchida or Argerich of the same work.
> In the era of CDs with so many superb orthodox pianists it is refreshing
> to listen to an imagination at play in a performance.  Ultimately, it
> will be we extreme non-musicians who keep classical music alive.  We can
> recognize talent.  We do not need to hear about their private lives on
> ET or whatever.  Many of us have extensive record collections.  We can
> detect differences, recognize satisfying performances, and we can read.
> So, don't look down at us.  Without us, classical music is dead.  And if
> sometimes a little gossip helps to sell a record, then maybe it's a good
> thing.
>         Allan