Don Satz wrote:

>Poor Gould.  First he hums, then he sings, then he's inconsiderate, and
>now he sings loudly.  By tomorrow, he'll be "bellowing".

Actually, I've heard Gould hum, I've heard him sing, I've heard him hum
and sing loudly (relatively speaking).  Gould himself -- in a recorded
conversation with CBS/Columbia producer James McClure -- acknowledged that
his ...ahhhh..."extra-musical vocalizations" ...  were 1) unintentional, 2)
uncontrollable and 3) rightly viewed by many as "inconsiderate" (his word).
I, however, would never characterize his vocalizations as "bellowing".
They have many of the qualities of a "bellow" I suppose -- they just aren't
loud enough to earn that term.

>It is an amusing notion that Gould's level of popularity, up or down, is
>based partially on his humming.

Amusing? Well, perhaps. And the operative word above would be, I think,
"partially".  The long, tortured history of this topic thread here is
ample evidence that Gould's vocalizations are a matter of, at the very
least, controversy.  Even in the small population represented by this list,
there have been those who have said they dislike, are "turned-off by" or
otherwise find it less than positive.  It's not too much of a stretch, I
think, that for the *general* Bach-recording-buying public faced with a
reading by, say, Andras Schiff and Gould, would opt for the recording
without the accompaniment.  Several here have said as much.

>Regardless of whether he's [Gould] good or not, he has a BIG name
>and reputation.

Well, that's an interesting statement from several points-of-view!  There's
absolutely no way I can argue with that.  And I think it sums up this
entire topic!

(P.S. I like much of what Gould did. He was a marvelous technician.)

Dave Pitzer