GG: The performer in the work

[Mary Jo Watts <mwatts@rci.rutgers.edu>]

Hello everyone,

I'm a little surprised that there have been so few comments about Kevin
Bazzana's dissertation-turned-book, _Glenn Gould: The Performer in the
Work_.  Perhaps its density has something to do with our collective
silence on the subject.  Maybe it has to do with the fact that it was
_just_ released in the USA.  But now it should be available to most of
us, so I'll start the discussion with my impressions and I hope others
of you will post soon.

I've only just begun reading it but I find it to be fairly compelling so
far.  Certainly it's the most rigorous look at GG's aesthetics and so
far it's the only real "close reading" of GG's recorded performances
available to English speaking audiences. Bazzana's training as a musical
historian allows him to view Gould as an historic figure, one who was a
product of his time-- & not some transcendent genius for the ages.
Bazzana's critical perspective makes his book potentially quite
interesting.  

Chapter one traces the influence of Schoenberg on GG's adament musical
idealism.  For Bazzana, Gould (Tureck, too) is absolutely modernist in
his approach as an interpreter.  Their Bach could only have developed
out of German Romanticism. I found Bazzana's argument in this short
chapter interesting and convincing. And this is as far as I've gotten.

I would like to mention that there is a disturbing aspect of the book
that I can't quite put my finger on yet and may have as much to do with
my own feelings about Gould as anything else.  Bazzana obviously wants
to reveal Gould in a sense-- 'for what he is' as a performer.  His
introductory sections (along with credits and thanks to many people,
some of whom are listmembers) detail the extent of the posthumous Gould
cottage industry.  For example, Bazzana mentions that GG is the subject
of gossip and chat on the internet (that's us folks!) and a forthcoming
CD-ROM (hi Katherine!) He seems uncomfortable at Gould's status as a
Canadian 'hero' and cynical at the 'inappropriate' homages to Gould
(like the various piano competitions we've all scoffed at.) Bazzana
seems very much to want to seperate himself from any hint of uncritical
admiration for Gould's accomplishments (as did Friedrich especially) and
I think this is a fine thing, especially for a scholarly work. 

But in his Introduction Bazzana sets up a big brick wall of a binary
between what he calls the "cultish and sentimental" elements of
attention to Gould paid since his death and the "serious study" which
has also followed that I can only wonder why he felt the need to
proclaim this distinction so vehemently.  In my mind Gould is the sort
of figure who does warrant serious study as well as well... fun
conversations and whimsical ponderings. Those 'cultish and sentimental'
attentions are probably the best adept to deal with GG's painfully goofy
yet sometimes wildly entertaining side.  Bazanna makes note of the fact
that GG didn't graduate from high school, that he was not particualy
learned in many musical disciplines, that he mispronounced words (see
how he mangles 'Borges' in the _Idea of North_, how he says 'fil-um'
instead of 'film') and misspelled them. (This reminds me of Edward
Said's qualification that Gould lacked intellectual sophistication-- I
paraphrase but that was the jist) OK... so what? Maybe that's part of
his wide appeal.  In his own round about way wasn't Gould a kind of
musical populist? An iconoclast but not a snob? At least in the
beginning of the book, Bazanna takes Gould *much* more seriously than
Gould took Gould.  He almost sounds like one of the panelists on the
Silver Jubilee LP-- one of the critics that GG so feared. (A valium,
please!) I'd like to see Kevin do a piece for the _Glenn Gould_ magazine
along the lines of "Face it Mr. Bazanna, You Do Have Doubts about Glenn
Gould."  I'd love it!

So those are my initial impressions which I reserve the right to revise.
Anyone want to share theirs?

-Mary Jo