Re: Gould Bias

[Arin Murphy <la_murph@alcor.concordia.ca>]

I think it's a disease quite a few of us suffer from. Gould does indeed
`ruin' a work for us because once you've gone through his passionate
interpretation everything else seems like it's missing something. For
example, I met Gould's recording of the Allegretto from Beethoven's Sonata
#17, was thrilled, balked at the price for both concerto CD sets and
bought someone else's recording - Alfred Brendel, to be precise. I was so
disappointed! It's... well... flat. Where's the depth, the emotion, the
drama? Same thing with the Goldbergs, now. I was crushed when my future
father-in-law said that Gould had utterly ruined the Goldbergs for him in
a negative fashion - he'd grown up on someone elses's recording (oh, you
know the one I mean - the only one who recorded the Goldbergs before
Gould... it was a woman... oh, well, it's gone now) and found Gould's much
too harsh. I suppose Gould can ruin things that way, too. I'm glad he
never has for me. Not that he's the only musician I listen to - not by a
long shot (I like Ashkenazy too, especially his Chopin - maybe it's a good
thing Gould didn't care to record him, or I'd have to make a painful
decision!) - it's just that once he's made a piece so completely his own,
everything else just sounds wrong. 

Oh, by the way, Gerald... I organise my CDs by composer... except for a
shelf of Sony Gould recordings at the top. It's very much a case of
`Beethoven, or Gould?' when I have to choose something to listen to! 


Arin Murphy
Concordia University, Montreal
	--------------

The absolute requirements of literary labour not unfrequently compel an 
irregular distribution of time, and with it irregular social and moral 
habits. (J.W. Kaye)