GG: Two Short Comments About the Artist's Intentions

[Sean Nicholson <srn@home.com>]

	billy budd wrote:
	Surely it is true that Glenn Gould was a product of his generation.  He 
was fascinated by the recording 	studio.  Maybe if he had lived longer he 
would have ventured into the digital realm.  I feel certain that if 	he did 
he would have done it with taste.  But to use his desire for exploration as 
a rationalization for 	altering his works after he is dead is sick.

Here is Glenn "on the record" regarding the alteration of his recordings. 
From "GG Interviews GG About GG" (by GG!) 
http://www.gould.nlc-bnc.ca/docs/ehf.htm]:

	g. g. : And you're prepared to have similar unauthorised permutations 
practised on your own 	recorded output by listener or listeners unknown?

	G. G. : I should have failed in my purpose otherwise.

___

I think one needs to make a distinction between the end listener "altering" 
as he desires, and the record-releasing party doing any such altering.  I 
don't think Sony is justified in changing Gould's recordings in any way, at 
least as long as the artist is not around to give the go-ahead; its role 
(now) is to distribute, not to "audit".  What the last component of the 
chain does, the listener, does not have the effect of changing the material 
for anyone but himself.  The two issues need to be judged separately.

If Sony removed the humming, they would indeed be denying each of you 
anti-hummers the opportunity to do so!  The burden is yours, not theirs 
(without regard for the better 'business' decision).  Pragmatically, my 
opinion seems silly in the case of the humming dilemma, I know, but could 
be usefully applied in more important matters. Removing the humming at the 
source is taking away a little bit of Glenn, especially for those of us who 
are as interested in the whole picture of GG as in strictly musical matters 
(can of worms: opened).