GG: Part II, Here's more...

[elisha-jt@juno.com (Elisha J Tseng)]

		--Part II--
V. TOVELL

I have a bad, bad habit, I confess, and I've demonstrated it - - - I'm
fond of alliterations as a way of organizing my own thinking. I spoke of
commitment and concentration and courage - the three "C's". May I add a
fourth? Glenn was extraordinarily canny. I don't think I have ever known
anybody so canny. Now, it could become extreme at times, to a degree of -
- - well, anxiety or suspicion, whatever word you want to use about the
possibilities of mishap or whatever it might happen to be on the negative
side. Hence! Stop flying.

I had an extraordinary experience of that. In the early sixties, I had
occasion to go to Montreal for a couple of days of work, and Glenn knew
when I was going and where I would be staying. You may recall that in the
early sixties Air Canada had a most terrible crash, just outside Dorval.
I was scheduled to be on that plane. Glenn knew that. As it happened, I
had got caught in downtown traffic and heavy fog and didn't get to the
airport; I returned to the hotel where he knew I was staying. As it
turned out, the news of the crash soon got on the air. It was a fatal,
... 100/200 I don't know how many people. That news got out at ten or
eleven at night. But no lists. Then I got a call in my hotel room at
three o'clock in the morning (I had by that time gone to sleep having
watched on television what there was to see) and it was a very angry
Glenn. It is the right word. Angry. Glenn, rarely if ever in my
experience showed anything that I could call anger. He was angry with me.
Because he had warned me never to fly. He had given up flying by then.
And he had his reasons. Now, driving in a car with Glenn, believe me, was
far more frightening to me than any plane ride I have ever taken, and
I've flown since I was twelve (which is a long time ago - in the middle
thirties). But in a certain sense, he never forgave me. I said to him ...
well I'm here. It has happened. It is a tragedy. But, by chance, I had
missed that plane. Some part of Glenn was profoundly disturbed by that.
Not unreasonably. And his reaction was compounded by the fact that
somebody with my surname - by pure chance, a distant relative - had been
on that plane, and the name had been announced but with no initial on the
three A.M. radio news. That incident has stuck in my mind because it
showed me something about Glenn that I could not forgot.

If I may be personal again, for just a moment. Glenn was ten years
younger than I. I was aware that there were many things I had had
experience of which Glenn had not experienced. To some extent, I became
conscious that he lacked an older brother. Perhaps more than one older
brother. He lacked people who had gone a little ahead of him through
certain kinds of experiences, with whom he could share some of his own
anxieties, his own experiences. He would share his pleasures joyfully,
exhuberantly, as John will testify, but ...

My mother died rather suddenly, and Glenn was very upset by this, on my
behalf. He had not met her, but we had talked about her, and as a matter
of fact it is pity that they didn't meet because they would have got
along extremely well. And he knew that. But it hadn't happened. I will
never forget his solicitude. It was in a sense as though he were sharing
in an intimate family experience which had been denied him. That exposed
to me a part of Glenn I never forgot: how vulnerable he was to the
ordinary vicissitudes of life; how anxious he could be; how deeply
concerned he was about what went on around him - about people he knew and
the world he was living in.

Glenn's three o'clock telephone conversations (three a.m. that is) were a
form of exuberant interchange. But, I think, they were also a form of
reassurance for him, because he was not detached from the world. He
needed to be detached to understand and to see and to do what he felt he
had to do. But, he wanted to share. Perhaps, as he got older, that became
more difficult for him, as his public life and his career commanded more
and more of his energies and time.

I think anybody who came to Glenn's memorial service, which John Roberts
had so much to do with organizing, will never forget that most of the
people in that huge church in Toronto (some three thousand people) had
never seen Glenn. Yet, they had shared something with him. The mystery of
his power of communication has stayed in my mind, ever since I first met
him. I've simply never known anybody with that extraordinary capacity to
arouse your interest, your curiosity, to involve you with argument, with
concern and with deeply felt passions of one kind and another about the
more intangible issues in life.

It is a pity, in a sense, that I'm making this sound so solemn, because,
if Glenn heard this he would say something ridiculously funny and send
the whole thing up. Glenn was deeply and profoundly serious about many
things, felt pain. Nonetheless, he had an irreverent uproarious sense of
the ridiculous. We haven't emphasized that tonight.

But anybody who knew him, I think, could confirm that. Go into a
television studio with Glenn and watch his switches of moods, his
enjoyment of working with people, his bringing a stray dog into the
control room because he had seen it on the street and got a hamburger for
it - because the dog looked hungry. He'd brought it in for company with
the technicians, and thought it the natural thing to do. You don't leave
a stray dog wandering around! You all know that two of Glenn's major
bequests were to the Salvation Army, for those who need help, and the
Humane Society, for those who need help.

M. PACSU

Could we talk a little bit about a word that you have all mentioned, that
is the need to control situations. Now, you just said exuberance, and
joy, and those are very positive qualities. However, this man was the
most controlled human being I have ever run into in my life. And when
that control started to slip, then, it seems to me, there was a worried
little boy that emerged.

One instance comes to mind - a curious situation in 1977. We did a radio
interview at CBC, a comedy sketch. Once again, I was the "straight" man.
Now, this was a taped situation, not live; you knew nothing could go
wrong because we could correct any mistakes. We could redo it a hundred
times. Thirty seconds before we were about to tape the sketch, Glenn
excused himself, went to the men's room, came back, and his hands were
bright red. I asked: "Glenn, what did you do to your hands?" And he said:
"Well, my hands were cold and I ran them under hot water". I replied "But
you're not playing the piano. We're doing a radio sketch here; we're
talking". And he said: "I suppose that is sort of odd, isn't it?" I made
no comment. It was not the moment to say, "Yes, that is very odd". But,
there was an instant when he was no longer going to control the
situation. There was a technician on the other side of the control booth
and he couldn't totally run my performance. And suddenly, here was a
person who was momentarily very anxious. He had dashed out and held his
hands under burning hot water and I didn't quite know what to make of it.

This need to control; it seemed to me it was there all the time. Now, you
gentlemen knew Glenn far better than I. But, I certainly was aware of it
in doing the Silver Jubilee album for CBS. We went over and over every
phrase until it was the way he wanted it and I never knew what way was
going to be the right way. I believe he tried to control people's
behavior by talking all the time. Yet here was this very warm spontaneous
person who was trying to burst out of all these control mechanisms.

Anybody have anything to say about that?

J. ROBERTS

Well, he had a problem with blood circulation; and I know it seemed very
eccentric, but he sometimes just did that. He would just disappear and
come back, and his hands would be red or pink, and it was quite obvious
that he had been soaking them in hot water. And, of course, he eventually
died of a stroke; well a whole series of strokes. It was an illness of
which there was a history on both sides of his family and he knew it.

But, while I think that it is very interesting and fascinating to perhaps
pursue the byways of people's lives and to explore their idiosyncratic
selves such things are really side issues. In the case of Glenn, I think
he managed to achieve very great distinction by doing important things
that were central to his life. He managed to make more than eighty
recordings. As a visionary, he projected a whole new future for music in
the electronic media, and, to try to answer Murray further, I think he
saw that, whether we like it or not, people are now very absorbed with
the electronic media. They are watching television for twenty-four hours
a week. In addition they are listening to radio for twenty hours a week.
Furthermore, they are listening to recordings on top of that and watching
videos. While we may be appalled, it cannot be denied that statistically,
the greatest cultural activity of Canadians - their greatest activity
after work and sleep - is watching television. Bearing this in mind, it
is not surprising that Glenn came to the conclusion that music and the
other arts too, were losing or might lose contact with emerging
generations of young Canadians, and that worried him very much indeed.
Obviously Glenn felt it was extremely important that ways and means had
to be found to present music in the electronic media and his whole life
was an exploration of just that; trying to find appropriate ways and
means. Naturally, some projects were more successful than others but it
can hardly be denied that he has left us an extraordinarily important
legacy as a result of his use of electronic technology.

As Vincent said, I think it took a lot of daring to do that.

Exploring the piano repertoire was a major occupation, but Glenn
ironically was conservative in his choice of works for his recordings. We
find him playing mainly Bach but also Beethoven and, as Murray has
suggested, some other composers of less renown like Bizet and Sibelius
and Grieg and so on. But Glenn dared to look at the standard repertoire
and approach it in quite an untraditional way, indeed, in quite a new
way. For instance, Glenn said that music teachers were always shocked at
what he did because his technique and manner of performance seemed wrong
to them. And he felt when he played, for instance, the Goldberg
Variations, as a performer in a hall it was absolutely necessary to
adjust it in such a way that it would carry better. This meant that tempi
might have to be changed and other things as well, such as his execution
of ornaments. With his recordings, Glenn tried to encase a variety of
works in such a way that they would have relevance to a lot of people. He
was not at all afraid for instance, to perform the Bach Preludes in B
Flat Minor and E Flat Minor, which are often thought of as nocturnes, in
quite a radically different way. And this, of course, scandalized a lot
of people. His Mozart sonatas were also unorthodox as far as tempi are
concerned. Take Koechel 333, for instance. He frequently said unkind
things about Mozart, but it is very difficult to believe that someone who
plays that music so sublimely and with such conviction really dislikes
Mozart. If you review very carefully some of Glenn's comments, you will
find that he does have some kind things to say about Mozart. Glenn was
not always consistent in everything he said and did.

M. PACSU

Well Murray, it is your turn.

Also, it is coming up to 9:30, so maybe we should end this discussion,
Murray after you have a final say.

M. SCHAFER

Maybe we should end it before.

M. PACSU

I am sure there are people in the audience who would like to ask
questions. Did you have some pointed remark?

M. SCHAFER

No!

M. PACSU

So, if somebody has a question? Si vous avez des questions en frangais ou
en anglais, on voudrait bien commencer, n'hisitez pas. (This is my
translation: If you have questions in either French or English, would
like to begin, do not hesitate.)

GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE

As a boy, I recall my music teacher pointing out with glee how Glenn
Gould sang on his recordings. I wonder Mr. Tovell, if you have any
anecdotes of the lengths and measures which producers and technicians and
engineers took to get him to stop.

V. TOVELL

Well, I would imagine the people at CBS would have a catalogue of those.
All I know is that Glenn, frequently, and at least on one occasion I know
of in public (in the the Telescope series), spoke of how unhappy he was
that he did this. But, as John said, he grew up singing. And, you see, I
think - - - if I can offer, for what it's worth, a personal impression,
and I would be interested in Murray's thoughts about it because I sense
that Murray's views on this are worth of a lot more exploration than we
have had time to go into tonight - - - I think, deep down, Glenn was a
singer who happened to play a keyboard instrument and he was a terrible
singer, like many musicians. He really was!

It was like listening to Toscanini singing when he conducted! I mean, is
it coming from another room? What has that to do with what the musicians
are playing? But the fact is that Glenn was, I think in his sensual
nature, if one can speak of such a thing, a singer, and he couldn't stop
singing. Now John explained that it was partly the way his mother had
taught him. She taught him for the first years. It was partly that. But I
think it was something in his nature, and the sound of the human voice,
that fundamental instrument, was enormously important to Glenn.

I think Glenn was an oral person, not a visual person. It is curious
that, if he was not colour blind (and I am not suggesting that he was),
colour was certainly not a major part of his sensory life. In fact,
he.preferred the greys as we all know, greys and blues, which is fine.
Nothing wrong with that. But, the fact is, that he didn't like bright
colours. He said so over and over again. But he was a singer, even if he
didn't like Italian opera. He loved German opera, however. And Murray, I
don't know if you ever heard Glenn singing Richard Strauss, do a whole
performance of Elektra from beginning to end! An extraordinary
experience! And Glenn was not improvising, but singing all the parts!
That I think was something very fundamental in his nature. And perhaps it
is that quality, expressed through the instrument, that speaks above all
other qualities. I think of Glenn as a singing pianist. I don't mean
singing with his voice. Something happens. You hear some spirit moving
through it; it comes out, something deep inside him which is not just in
the fingers. It is something else in his nature. That is my own totally
non musical way of thinking about it. But I don't think I quite answered
your question.

M. PACSU

Murray, did you have a comment?

M. SCHAFER

It is just to say that the vibrations of making music are most intimate
in the throat before any other form. And when I talked about Gould's
tactility, I meant that the that tactile sensation is something one
experiences as a singer first of all and secondly when one picks up an
instrument. And I'll repeat that statement of Pierre Schaeffer's: "On
icoute avec les mains". He meant that unless you have an actual feel for
the sound, you don't understand the sound. You do not understand music
unless you make music, unless you play it, unless you can actually hold
the music in your fingers somehow, or in your throat. And, possibly, the
reason that today we've sunk into the kind of lassitude which permits
MUZAK, relaxed music that has no strength to it, no colour to it, no
vivacity whatsoever, is that people have stopped making music themselves.
And, yes, I think Gould was very much a person with a deeply personal
sense of music making. He was a soloist after all.

I think that is another thing one should remember about him. It hasn't
been mentioned, but he was not a musician who made music with other
people. He made music on his own. He didn't co-operate very well with
other people. That's well known too. I am not trying to criticize him in
that respect. It was a deeply personal thing, the kind of music that he
made. He was not noted for his chamber music repertoire. He abhorred
concertos. He didn't like playing with orchestras. He quarreled with
conductors, largely, one may assume, as to who was going to have the last
word in the interpretations. Because this is a general situation that
arises when you have two musicians of great power bidding for supremacy
on the podium. Who gets their own way, the soloist or the conductor? He
was a soloist very much and an egocentric.

M. PACSU

I think we have another question, Murray, over here, if I may.

QUESTION

I wonder if any of you up there could help me? Either you Vincent, or you
Murray. About twenty-five years ago I had a fascinating conversation with
Glenn Gould on the subject of audience development which in retrospect
must sound a little strange, seeing as he had given up on audiences and
he did not want to perform anymore. He knew that I was then very much
involved in bringing music to young people, and getting music and
children together. And for a half an hour, he propounded on how essential
it was to develop an audience. Now this must just have been at the
beginning of his decision not to play in public anymore. Unfortunately, I
didn't make any notes at the time, but I would love to know, can I find
out anywhere, in any article that he wrote, or anything, whether he
really put his thoughts to paper, because I am very sorry that I cannot,
I can only in the broadest of strokes recall what the talk was all about.
But it was instructive; it was, of course, brilliant, and for somebody
who then, pronto, gave up playing in public, rather fascinating. Can any
of you help me?

J. ROBERTS

I think that Glenn felt that, because of what had happened in terms of
technological developments, the explosion in the use of recordings which
seemed to be continuing into the future, that the way to develop
audiences was to try and reach them through the electronic media. Murray
will be very shocked to know, if he doesn't already (maybe this is in one
of his articles) that Glenn secretly thought that, if one could invade
MUZAK that maybe MUZAK could become a rather useful thing. MUZAK of
course, is full of clichis, and he thought if, subtly, one could get rid
of the clichis and put other things in, this would be a wonderful way of
educating people's ears and minds and avoiding the mental laziness which
comes from listening to MUZAK in stereotype form.

V. TOVELL

There is a serious examination to be undertaken before too long of the
links that connect the work of Murray Schafer, Harry Somers, Glenn Gould,
Marshall McLuhan, Northrope Frye, Harold Innis . .. you can go on, you
can make a list. And you could include some in Montreal (I happen to have
mentioned Toronto figures) and other parts of the country; the far west
and the prairies, they have all expressed in their personal ways
questions which seem to me to be very central to our time in Canada. 



PLEASE NOTE

Reproduced with permission of each individual speaker. Copyright for this
text remains with each respective speaker. No reproduction or amendment
to the texts may be made without permission of the speaker(s).