RE: The Visionary

["Michael Lacey" <Mike.Lacey@Bigpond.com>]

Scott wrote....
> I am new to this list, so please forgive me if this discussion is already
> in progress or has been exhausted.
>
> Inasmuch as the commentary on Mr. Gould's musical accomplishments is
> necessary and rewarding, since primarily, he was a musician, I would like
> to offer another topic for discussion of all who are interested.
>
> I am interested in GG as a philosopher, communicator, writer and
> visionary.
> His work for CBC and his sound documentaries are nothing short of pure
> genius, regardless of what one has to say about the music, performance
> nuances, interpretation of composers works', etc.
>
> I look forward to hearing from other list members on this topic.
>

Scott -  you (and other list members may be interested in the first page of
Kevin Bazzana's chapter about Gould's relationship with the piano and his
other dabblings -

      Quote......GLENN GOULD WAS a pianist.  This is, of course, ludicrously
to state
    the obvious, yet it is worth emphasizing the point, for there have been
    persistent efforts, especially since his death, to exaggerate his
achievements in other
    realms, sometimes at the expense of his piano playing. (It is certainly
telling, given
    the age and size of the posthumous literature, that 1 am writing the
first monograph
    in English on Gould as a performer.) Gould himself must accept some of
the blame:
    he was always dismissing his instrument of choice as a mere workhorse,
denigrating
    its idiomatic resources, ignoring large parts of its repertoire.  But
his disingenuous
    claims to the effect that he was a writer, composer, and broadcaster who
played the
    piano in his spare time can only be taken as tongue-in-cheek polemic -or
wishful
    thinking-for he gave performances that testified in every measure to
pianistic gifts
    of the highest order.  He was a pianist who imported a wide variety of
ideas, musical
    and non-musical, into his metier, not a philosopher who happened to
express
    himself through the piano.  He may have preferred the latter view of
himself, and
    some in the Gould literature have accepted it uncritically.  But thirty
years' practice
    could not make him a better than mediocre writer, while he was, from the
    beginning of his career, as fluent, accomplished, and natural a pianist
as there ever
    was.  We need only watch him play once to recognize an almost effortless
mastery
of the instrument.  And we need only listen to him recall lovingly his
boyhood
    Chickering, or detail endlessly the technical minutiae of his favourite
Steinway (he
    was as fussy as Horowitz or Michelangeli or Kuerti about playing his
own, specially
    adjusted instrument), to realize how much he needed the piano-and not
just any
    piano, the right piano-to express his ideas.  Even at his most
pianistically eccentric,
    even where he seems almost desperate to convince himself and his
listeners that he
    is doing anything other than playing a piano, there is never a doubt
that he is truly
    at home on the piano, and only there.  He may in fact have been the most
pianistic
    of pianists, not the least-the pianist with the most intimate, not the
most remote,
    relationship to the piano.  As Jacques Driven, the most vocal opponent
of the cliche
    view of Gould as a kind of 'anti-pianist?, put it, there was no happier
pianist......unquote

Michael Lacey says....
I am as rabid a devotee as anyone regarding GG's pianism, particularly his
Bach readings and find some of his writing interesting and worthy -
particularly his views on performance as blood sport and the process of
recording.  But I must agree with Bazzana - were it not for his pianistic
genius, we would not get the chance to see GG in a wig masquerading as a
Teutonic conductor or in leather as a New York based "musicologist".  We
would, I submit, be even less likely to call these incarnations "genius".
I happily subscribe to the "Gould is God" theory regarding his playing of
the piano, but I don't care to deify him in any other regard.  Likewise, how
much would we know about Claudia Schiffer's "acting" were it not for her
appearance or Elle MacPherson's skills as a business-woman were it not for
her looks.  Sorry to degrade the argument, but I hope you see my point.

P.S.  This is not to say that I don't frequently read "The Glenn Gould
Reader"