Gould's Orthodoxy

[Allan MacLeod <allan.macleod@usask.ca>]

In light of the discussion going on concerning Gould's orthodoxy, I
thought I might resend part of a message I sent out a few weeks ago
to see if it adds anything to the debate.  That Gould was unorthodox
is without question, but why?  Also, Gould's unorthodox interpretations
were usually backed up by well thought-out explanations in liner notes and
articles.  As Edward Said has said:"Unlike many performing musicians, he
seemed to  have not only ideas and a mind, but the ability to apply them
to music both as a performer and as a critic.  His performances, in short,
approximated to an argument and his discursive arguments were often borne
out by his pianistic feats."  This raises the question of whether Gould was
unusually intellectual for a musician?  Any debate?

>From my earlier message:
On the subject of Gould's spirituality and wrong-notes, I wonder if
Gould wasn't at heart a Romantic?  He believed in a transcendental world
of perfect forms and performances, in the way that Shelley did.  There
was a beyond that spoke to us through music and his favourite composer
was Gibbons who composed mostly sacred choral music.  Bach was one of
those composers most in contact with that beyond, but occasionally he
got it wrong, so that Gould would have to correct him to realize the
perfection that Bach had sought to realized but missed.  This spiritual
dimension may explain his interest in becoming a conductor.  We know he
wanted to conduct the B-minor mass; perhaps he would have recorded some
of the cantatas as well as music by Gibbons and some of Schoenberg's
choral work.  We know that he wanted to record Verklaerte Nacht and
Strauss' Metamorphosen.  All this suggests that he wanted to give
expression to a transcendence that the piano was poorly suited to do.