[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Goldberg opinion

Well, having now had an opportunity to listen to the Goldberg Remake-themed radio interview with Gould hosted by Tim Page (thanks to David Daniels, a prince among men :-) I have had my memory refreshed as to the pros and cons of both Goldberg recordings, the interpretive state of mind behind both, and the personal preferences of Gould himself, and I can honestly say that... 

...uh, what was the question?

Oh yeah... Goldbergs. Uh, I agree with Leslie Arin; it depends on the mood I'm in. Sometimes you need the chomping-at-the-bit energy and enthusiasm of the young Gould, the one who was so eager to show the world exactly who they were dealing with that he raced through the 'Bergs like a thoroughbred at the track. Everything about the first recording is so showy, I can understand why Gould expressed polite embarrassment at hearing them 25 years later. (Even the liner notes were aggrandized, who else but Gould could get away with 
        "Rather, its suggestion of perpetuity is indicative of the essential incorporeality of the 'Goldbergs,' symbolic of their rejection of embryonic inducement." 
Powerful stuff from a green 23-year old!) Then on other occasions the more refined Gould is in order; the one who could approach the Goldbergs a second time, with fresh insight and nothing to prove to anyone but himself. I identify with the melancholy Bruce Powe gets from the 81 'Bergs, they do sound like a farewell, even if only the farewell from the piano that Gould might have envisioned them to be (assuming he meant to keep good on his promise to retire from the piano at 50.) To me, both recordings are wonderful.


John Roberts, a lifelong friend of Gould's, tells of a visit to his home by Gould himself. The pianist arrived at night, late, at the door. John Roberts asked who was there. Gould replied, "I'm John Roberts."  - Bruce w. Powe