On Glenn Gould — part 1
“I firmly believe that music is about expressing what we have and who we are”
He is a Canadian treasure. And he is considered one of the best pianists that ever existed. This is so true.
Glenn Gould was born in Toronto and was a very gifted child. The only teacher he had that we know about is Alberto Guerrero, that probably taught him the finger technique that made Gould Gould. He was an organist too, as his recordings of The Art of Fugue prove. His career was very successful and his famous Russian tournée in the 50s made him a legend. It is said that the hall got so crowded that the police had to get there and calm people down.
As everyone knows (if you didn’t, now you do), in 1964 he called his career to an end to focus on studio recording. But the truth is, he did much more than that. He composed, transcribed, wrote, and created a series of documentaries. Gould is one of those (few) pianists that are more than pianists. And he knew how to act to increase the perception of eccentricity that surrounded him.
One of the most intriguing things is that, as it often happens to legends, there is not much of an agreement on many aspects that surround him. Take women, for example. Some considered him asexual, others a puritan. Then, I read that a woman left his husband to entertain a relationship with him. And it seems that his sexuality was normal. This woman then reunited with her husband, but that is not what interests us here. The point is why all this mystery about him?
Not to mention doubts about him being affected by Asperger syndrome, contact phobia, and others. What seems true is that he would soak his hands in hot water for a long time beforeconcerts and refused to shake hands with fans. And it seems that he would make long calls with people, sometimes at night. Not exactly the portrait of an ordinary person. I think that Gould represents, in a paradigmatic way, the idea of the artist as someone unconventional, somehow isolated, eccentric. This makes me agree with that person (more than one perhaps) that said that we may have entered the era of technology, but our ideal of arts and artists is still very romantic.
Then, one gets to listen to his recordings. Before him, no one considered Golberg Variations to be standard repertoire. Nowadays, it is not uncommon to see big performers playing this milestone. The fact is, it was Gould that made Goldbergs what they are now. And, I have to say, his recordings (I love the 1955 version) keep speaking to my heart. I wouldn’t say that he did that almost seventy years ago. It sounds like yesterday, or I’d better say tomorrow. That is the point with Gould’s Bach (not just that). What he does is not even ordinary now.
If I had to choose an adjective to describe his playing, I would say “futuristic”. Something that hasn’t happened yet. It is like imagining a future world that we have in mind, but is not there, not now at least. It is hard to find other pianists that can equal him. I would say, Friedrich Gulda and Alessandro Deljavan. The first one from the recent past, the second very much active and alive (and Italian, let me show some national pride).
What I love about them, is that they play to please themselves and the audience is thrilled by this. It seems to me that they overcome (thank God they do!) that bad habit of playing “comme il faut” (as one has to), which is so common but so toxic too! When Gould plays, he does what he wants, and so do the other pianists I mentioned earlier. And when teachers say that Gould is not someone to take as a model, I feel bad. For sure, it is impossible to teach someone how to be Glenn Gould. Yet, we still see that few teachers teach students to express themselves. “As long as you are at school, you have to play as you are required to”.
I firmly believe that music is about expressing what we have and who we are. In music, there is (almost) no right or wrong, but there is research. Gould made this research his mission and contributed to our culture in an unparalleled way. He may have been provocative (and he was, very much so) in both his playing and his thoughts, but that was his persona. I see in him a true expression of the self.
Something we do not give him enough credit for is how good he was at speaking about music. When I listen to the programs he made for CBC, I am amazed. He captivates the audience. Why? How? I think because he is very idiosyncratic. He does not try to please, he says what he thinks and, of course, he provokes. But that’s what the general public wants. That’s what everyone wants actually. We don’t want classical music to be something “dusty”, for old and sad people. We want music of any genre to be alive, witty, and engaging.
Thank you, Glenn!
