Rothstein article and explaining why Gould moves people

[AJH <ajh@WORLD.STD.COM>]

Bradley wrote:

>As for the way Gould's late work moves other people, that's for them to
>explain for themselves, not for me....  :)

One interesting about that Rothstein piece in the Times is that he does 
explain why Gould moves him, and writes about his own response in much the 
way Bradley does about his: by appealing to technical/musical aspects of 
the playing.  For Rothstein it's Gould's deliberate foregrounding of 
musical details usually relegated to the background--bringing out inner 
voices, emphasizing contrapuntal textures in composers not generally played 
that way, etc.  (It does seem like a key feature of Gould's playing, and 
it's one that Bradley doesn't mention.)  And Rothstein gets from that 
technique, more or less straight to "ecstasy".   I'd be curious what people 
in these recent threads--James, Kate, Bradley, Mary Jo--and everyone else 
thinks about this:

        "For example: Music often has a foreground and a background. 
Musical events ? themes, melodies, rhythms ? might move forward, demanding 
attention, and then recede, giving way to others, according to the desires 
of the composer and the interpretations of the performer. Gould's 
achievement was to shift the emphasis, taking his cues not from Romanticism 
with its arching foreground melodies that have long been the pride of piano 
virtuosos, but from Bach fugues, in which no line is subservient and the 
whole of musical space demands simultaneous attention.
        "This approach might distort the music of some composers like 
Chopin and Mozart (though Chopin was more Bachian than generally assumed). 
But when applied to Bach and Haydn or Brahms and Schoenberg, the 
achievements were wondrous. So much detail unfolds that when rehearing a 
Gould recording, it always seems different.
        "But why has the response to Gould also been so astonishingly 
personal? Those who admire him ? and they are legion ? always have stories 
about when they first heard him, what he played, how he talked, what they 
felt, how they were changed.
        "This must be connected with Gould's distinctive musical style. 
Many musicians allow music to tell a story. They recount events, showing 
how one moment develops out of another, building suspense about what is to 
come. They emphasize continuity. Such playing is novelistic, theatrical.
        "But Gould's playing is different. He isn't interested in 
novelistic experience. In fact, the elimination of background and the 
accumulation of detail can be overwhelming. Yet when he pulls it all 
together, it becomes possible to apprehend something that also seems beyond 
comprehension. The result can be sublime: one begins to experience music as 
if from outside, gazing in at its workings while being absorbed in them. 
One is at once standing still while being swept away, standing apart while 
feeling immersed. This is what Gould meant by "ecstasy.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/28/arts/28CONN.html

andy h.