R: Memories of Maude Harbour - or - Variations on a theme of Arthur Rubinstein

[madiva@working.it]

Dears F minors,
permit me to voice my personal  meaning about GGs "Memories of Maude Harbour
" . I read this story with plaisir and sadness.in the same time.
I think that is a very touching story: in it Glenn Gould showed his
wonderful world of tenderness and  devotion for a" love symbol" that he
didn't have.
In 1980 the GG life was close at the end and I'm feeling that   this story
give us an "unconscious"legacy of GG affectivity.
"Memories of Maude Harbour " moved me because is a  " offer of pure love" by
an alone man  for a symbolic woman.
Any comments about my  singular feeling that don't consider the funny and
ironic aspect of the piece?

Thanks and greetings

Valeria Massari


----- Original Message -----
From: Harding.Matthew <Matthew.Harding@CIC.GC.CA>
To: <F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 2:38 PM
Subject: Memories of Maude Harbour - or - Variations on a theme of Arthur
Rubinstein


Yes yes yes!

This is one of the funniest GG stories written of all time (in my humble
opinion, etc.etc.).

BUT - do you know the context? In fact this thread ties in very neatly
with the Brendel discussion that was just started.

Maude Harbour - Variations on a theme of Arthur Rubinstein first
appeared in the Piano Quarterly magazine, Summer 1980 (issue #110). It
is placed in the magazine right after a book review of Arthur
Rubinstein's autobiography, which had just been released. The book
review is written by Robert J. Silverman, the editor/publisher of PQ and
also one of GG's closest friends. Needless to say, RJS was a definite
pro GG fan.

GG's piece is really a take-off of the Rubinstein book.

 omissis


So the moral of the story? As someone mentioned before, most concert
pianists of the day had enormous respect for GG and his beliefs. The few
that didn't, (Horowitz, Rubinstein, Brendel) were leftover from a bygone
era where pianists were considered virtuosos and the ground they walked
on was worshipped.

I think GG was more than a little ahead of his time in that regard. I
think he realized that the concept of a performer as a public idol was a
short-lived concept, whereas the multi-media, multi-track thinking
machine that he became has far more staying power. After all, we're
celebrating his achievements still 20 years after he died, and when was
the last time there was a Horowitz/Brendel/Rubinstein Gathering, or new
plays or novels being written about those guys? I rest my case.

Best regards,
Matthew