Re: dumb question

[Dominic Lesnar <domjin@earthlink.net>]

On Thursday, March 08, 2001 at 8:25 PM
Pooya Woodcock wrote:

>So did Gould really physically die when he was 49? (4+9=13
> issue...) I think Gould had some fear of this age. Is this true? i.e., is
> there any documentation for this?


While GG certainly would have appreciated the 49/13 numerology
and its superstitious associations, he died in fact at the age of 50,
not 49 (September 25, 1932 to October 4, 1982), having suffered his
stroke just a couple of days after his birthday and being removed from
life-support a few days after that.

While I do think he feared turning 50, there is no reason to
believe that he did not fear turning 49, and consequently would have not
liked 51 too much either, considering his penchant for anxiety.

OK, so he often stated that he would stop making piano recordings at age 50,
and ANYONE who reaches fifty would be excused for any such emotions
(I'm not there yet, but I can imagine... ), but it does lend an eerieness to
it all.
And let's not forget that he did die on October 4, 1982 and that he had just
re-released his new recording of the Goldberg's, BWV 988 which is catalogue
number MK37779 and that it was his 2nd studio recording of that work
(1+0+4+1+9+8+2+9+8+8+3+7+7+7+9+2)=85 which is 8+5=13... WHOA!!!!

But enough of that hocus pocus-try, better to wonder what the rest of his
recording career would have been like as a conductor. Any comments?
I know that one member of this list thinks that GG's later Bach recordings
were more "Glenn Gould's Bach" and less "Bach by Glenn Gould". Any
reason to believe that his recordings as conductor would have been
different?

Inclined not to think so,
Dominic Lesnar