> Do you think Glenn would have made
recordings if he didn't need to? I realize this is a poorly phrased
question, but what I am getting at is how much do you really think GG cared
about those who listen(ed) to his music?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Charlie
Don't you think if Bach wasn't forgotten and
there would be no need in a reviver of his piano music, there would [be]
no Gould: he would've dissolved in the vast ocean of other skilled
pianists?
Juozas Rimas
Lithuania
No, I don't
think this at all. It's only with our hindsight that we think Bach played
some special role in Gould's career. (I, for example, first fell in love
with Gould's Mozart; it was years before I discovered he didn't like Mozart,
and years before I was at all interested in his or anyone's Bach. If Bach
had never existed, Gould's recordings would still be the centerpiece of my
classical collection.)
Gould the youth and young man was blossoming -- actually an
exploding volcano seems a more apt image -- into an artist obsessed with not
simply the possibilities of the keyboard, but of all music and eventually of
all sound. (It's somewhat surprising to me that he didn't try to improve the
piano itself -- does anyone know if he ever experimented with this?) He
didn't need any particular composer to bring this vision and obsession to
life and fruition.
His technical skills and talent alone would have landed him
his youthful concerts and a recording contract. But more important than his
Goldberg breakthrough was his unique abandonment of the concert stage to
explore the complete possibilities of the recording studio. Amazingly after
all Gould's success in the studio, I don't think another classical musical
artist has ever dared to take so revolutionary a stance. It can't possibly
be that all his pianist peers enjoy all the mandatory touring;
rather I see it as a reflection of the unique strength of Gould's vision and
decision. Many must have told him he was committing career suicide. (The
mythic aspect of Gould's stance is reflected in the movie "Diva,"
about a coloratura soprano who only sings operas and concerts,
but refuses ever to be recorded. She calls the mechanical capture of her
voice "le viol" -- rape.)
How the world would have welcomed Gould under different
"what if" scenarios is impossible to say. But what Gould would
have made of himself under any circumstances is very clear: One way or the
other, he would have created a huge volume of unique, remarkable
achievements in the arts. He would have stood out like a beacon from his
peers. And I'm certain many aspects of his style and personality and
intellect would have caught the attention and admiration of many people like
us even without Bach or the Goldberg Variations.
What is important -- harkening back to the first question
in this thread -- is that Gould felt compelled throughout his life to
communicate with a lot of people. Though personally shy, he had an enormous
passion to be heard. Not by a mass audience like Petulia Clark or the
Beatles -- this inherently involves commercial compromise -- but an audience
looking, as he was, for perfection, rare beauty and emotion, for greatness.
Chiefly through the piano and the composers he was interested in, he
had messages for people. He could not have contented himself with
playing the piano and being the only listener. Bach and Mozart and Gibbons
had yet-unexpressed things to say to many people, and Gould saw himself as
their best, perhaps their only true messenger, the decoder of their musical
and emotional messages.
Listen to his CBC documentaries; we consider them something
of a footnote or oddity in his career, but he was incapable of making
ordinary, standard, predictable things in any field he set his hand to. They
remain to this day deeply fascinating, entirely unique achievements in what
can only be called, because of them, the Art of Radio.
In general, though, these trains of musing are best
expressed with "If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a roller
skate."
Bob Merkin
Elmer Elevator's Discount
Prep:
http://www.javanet.com/~bobmer/