Re: later style

["Jörgen Lundmark" <jorgen.lundmark@sundsvall.nu>]

Hello all!

I know I've been down this road before, but I cannot let Bradley's statements go
unquestioned. But before that, let me just say that I -- as many others have
professed -- find Bradley's comments always very interesting, to the point and
very knowledgeable.

This is partly why I so strongly object to one aspect of his answers: to go beyond
musical analysis, into musical estethics without defining the line between the
two. In his last reply there's especially one opinion that I cannot in agree with;
a statement that I think should not be argued as facts:


> yet he still sounds aimless and indecisive about the "big picture" of the
> piece.  He admitted to his producer that he wasn't sure which overall
> approach to use.  That indecisiveness is rare for GG.
>

This definition of the performance goes absolutely contrary to my own experience
with it. I cannot think of any other Bach performance, except the late Goldbergs,
that has a more fulfilling sense of unity; and yes, this also goes for staccato
second subject!

To equal this fugue rendition to aimlessness is for me beyond understanding. This
categorization does imply an objective deficiency in the performance itself, and
this is utterly unjust. If someone doesn't appreciate the deadly seriousness, the
introspective sadness of Gould approach, so be it! But that is something
completely different.

/Jörgen