Re: GG: Bazzana as academic

["Robert C. Kunath" <kunath@hilltop.ic.edu>]

Dear F-Minors,

	I haven't acquired Bazzana yet, but I do have a theory about his desire to
create a measurable separation between the Gould "cult" and his own
"serious study."  The book is, I understand, based on the musicology
dissertation that he wrote under Richard Taruskin at UC Berkeley (one of
the greats, by the way).  Though academics are quite susceptible to fads of
their own, they tend to look down on fads that they don't share. 
Musicology is certainly a discipline that has its share of daring,
cutting-edge thinkers (is it Susan McClary who does the feminist criticism
of Beethoven?) but it is also a discipline in which too pronounced a
deviation from the tried-and-true classics can raise eyebrows.  I assume
that Mr. Bazzana got a Ph.D. in order to qualify himself for academic jobs,
and I would think he would want to make it very, very clear that he is not
some demented Gould freak (as the more conservative musicologists might
view Gould enthusiasts) but rather a very serious musicologist doing real
analysis.  Whether his stated "seriousness" really represents his own
feelings might be open to question--for professional reasons I think he
pretty much has to present himself and his interest in Gould that way.

	Maybe someday we'll read "Kevin Bazzana interviews Kevin Bazzana about
Kevin Bazzana's view of Glenn Gould"!

Robert

----------
> From: Mary Jo Watts <mwatts@rci.rutgers.edu>
> To: f_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> Subject: GG: The performer in the work
> Date: Thursday, January 22, 1998 4:44 PM
> 
> 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