Re: Gould Bias

[Bertrand Russell <jcs@grove.ufl.EDU>]

I heartily agree. For an extreme case, I had obtained Gould's recording of
Chopin #3 before ever hearing any other recording of the work. I liked it
so much (particularly the 3rd mvt.) that I went out and bought the
Ashkenazy recording, figuring that a more convential Romantic era
interpreter might perform the work even better. I was very dissatisfied
with the Ashkenazy, feeling that it was lacking the essential rythmic
drive which Gould brought to the Largo. I then tried the Rubenstein
recording, with no greater success. I felt that he was *way* too dramatic
with the dynamics. I have had similar experiences with the Emperor. ON the
other hand, I remember the very first Gould recording that I cought: the
complete Well-tempered Clavier (the masterworks version on 3 cd's), and
being *appalled* at the way Gould took the prelude in C major. I had been
brought up on the usual interpretations, and was almost biased against
Gould forevermore. Having never really heard any other performers play
Mozart, I suppose I fall into the category of people whose only exposure
tto the Mozart sonatas are through Gould, a category I once heard referred
to as "scarred for life".

Hearing the Gould\Stokowski Emperor re-awakened my interest in Stokowski.
Want to talk unconventional interpretations? Has anyone heard Stokowski's
1958 Carmina Burana? I've never heard the "O Fortuna" the way he conducts
it. Did anyone else buy a copy of the recent (1996) Bach recording by Lara
St.
John? She plays the D minor partita and the C major sonata *beautifully*,
as far as I'm concerned. But then again, I've never heard any other
recordings of them, so I might be suffering from "St John" bias. The CD
itself was made by Well-tempered Productions, and is probably the best
*sounding* recording I have ever heard in my life. I think its worth the
price just to hear the production achievment.


On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Gregory T Romero wrote:

> 
>  
>     I'm suffering from a malady, and I'm wondering if other GG fans
> experience it too.  Once I've heard GG play a work, it's spoiled for me. 
> For example, today I was listening to a performance of the Beethoven
> C-minor concerto by Rudolf Serkin in the record library, truly a great
> Beethoven interpreter.  The whole time I was listening to it, I realized
> that I scarcely recognized the work.  For one thing, it seemed so slow,
> and the obvious rhythmic fluctuations of Serkin seemed so, well, bad,
> compared with Gould's throbbing, rhythmically driving performance of that
> same concerto.  I realized I couldn't hear the songs hidden in the left
> hand, which come through so beautifully with Gould.  And in the passages
> that required nimble virtuosity (I realize Serkin wasn't known for his
> technique), such as the finale, I sorely missed Gould's razor sharp
> approach.  When I had finished that concerto, I decided to try Leon
> Fleisher's Emperor, a benchmark of sorts, I guess.  Well, with score in
> hand, I noticed how meticulously Fleisher adhered to the score, and
> admired the playing, but still missed Gould's unique articulation and
> sound.  Now, I know that Gould's Emperor has been beaten up by the
> critics, but I like it by far, better than any other Emperor that I've
> heard.  I know critics were often intimidated by Gould's imagination, but
> sometimes I wonder if they might have a point.  I can't even really listen
> to other performers of Mozart, who I think did a better job in most
> aspects, without noting all the parts of GG's Mozart that I liked better.
> 	One more example, Scriabin.  In almost every critic's report,
> Gould's Scriabin #3 is referred to as "unorthodox" and "out of his idiom".
> Yet when I listened to Gould play the Scriabin #3 today, I was stunned.
> For once, I could actually hear the elaborate left hand work, amd the
> multiplicity of lines in the Scriabin.  Now my Ashkenazy and Horowitz
> disks sound trite, overpedalled, overblown.  And yet, this is the way that
> Scriabin is *supposed* to sound.  But I am still so convinced by
> everything that Gould does.  I find myself asking myself why Scriabin
> would write such an intricate left-hand part if it's just meant to be
> pedalled into a blur.  
> 	My point is, I sometimes worry that maybe GG's performances
> influence my musical bearings a little too much.  Rather than see his
> performances as unbelievablly creative but unusual interpretations, I
> sometimes see them as "the only way to go".  I can't really enjoy the
> Arrau, Horowitz, etc when I hear them play a work that I am familiar with
> through GG.   I call it Gould Bias.  Any comments?
> 
> 
>     
> 
> 
>