"Theological...etc.

[PROMONDE@aol.com]

Its not what you play, how you play it or who is playing it. It is about what 
you like. 

Glenn built himself this niche. He "recomposed" or finished composing what he 
thought the music was supposed to make you feel as well as hear. 

Everyone was doing Chopin, Rach, and Liszt when he arrived. How many were 
doing Bach? Very few. And on the piano? Fewer still!  He chose composers that 
matched his interests, talent and comfort levels. Sure there is a large: What 
if? Factor to his recorded work.  But how much Horowitz Bach is there? Or Van 
Cliburn Bach? I don't hear anyone giving short shrift to those gapping holes.

Sometimes I feel as if people wish to hear his Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninof of 
Chopin, just to see if he could do it. Some seem to imply that they think it 
would be awful and only wish it existed so they could heap more criticism on 
someone whose Mozart was a joke they "didn't get." 

I feel like Glenn's playing stands out as fresh, exciting, controversial and 
always, always, Glenn.  It is as if he knew what would ring "my" bell and get 
me to pay attention. Apparently, so do many others. If someone appreciates 
the technical or accuracy merits of another artists, then that is fine too.

There is so much music, played by so many artists, read through the same rose 
colored glasses of fealty to the printed note, that we should all feel a 
little grateful that there was a Glenn Gould and that he had the ability to 
read the same pages through a kaleidoscope, just so we could hear and feel 
different about the same old stuff. 

In any case, he was probably the first to realize the "phenomena"of Glenn 
Gould before anyone and did his best to exploit that particular option 
available to his career. 

He paved the way for subsequent artists in the classical world to take 
advantage of each successive advance in new media, as it became available. 
And in doing so, not only Glenn, but many other artists learned the 
importance of exploiting their personae into lasting images of visual and 
auditory programming of historical importance.  

I hope this adds something constructive to the debate.