Glenn Gould

[Holden]

I tend to doubt that Gould was autistic--although perhaps he had ADHD and he certainly had some behavioral traits that need an explanation of some sort.  If he was autistic, then he would probably be classified as PDD-NOS (Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified), which is the mildest category on the spectrum.

The reason I think he was on the spectrum is that his speech and body language, from what I've seen/heard,  are neurotypical (that is, like a "normal" person) and not like a autistic person.   His voice was not a monotone, and he had the usual gamut of body language, and he could look people in the face while talking.   I'm autistic (which is why I have a special interest in this question), and my normal speaking voice (if I'm not intentionally trying to inflect it) is a pure monotone, and my body language is almost non existent.   And if I try to maintain eye contact while speaking with a person,  I end up either completely muddled or fall silent--my brain can't handle both those things at the same time.

If you have access to the interview he did with Tim Page (who is an aspie) when he released the second recording of the Goldbergs, compare Gould's way of talking to Page's.  (It's the third CD on the set titled "A State of Wonder", which bundles the 1955 and 1981 recordings together; I don't know if it's available in other formats.)  The differences will help you understand what I'm talking about.

I missed this post from Jeffrey and would like to elaborate. I've worked with many kids who are ASD and the most common is Aspergers Syndrome (Aspie). The monotone voice that you mentioned Jeffrey is not usually an indicator of most Aspie kids. The eye contact is one of the things that you do see until they get to know you and after this it's not an issue.

What does stand out is the obsessions. Yes, we are all OCD to an extent but ASDs tend to exhibit this very strongly. When you look at Gould and his Chickering Piano, his 'chair', his belief in recorded over live performances, (I could go on), to me I see someone on the ASD spectrum. This movie    just confirms for me that he was an Aspie. Hearing him talk to the cab driver was enough to convince me and the reactions of the studio techs took this even further.

[Cato]

I missed this post from Jeffrey and would like to elaborate. I've worked with many kids who are ASD and the most common is Aspergers Syndrome (Aspie). The monotone voice that you mentioned Jeffrey is not usually an indicator of most Aspie kids. The eye contact is one of the things that you do see until they get to know you and after this it's not an issue.

What does stand out is the obsessions. Yes, we are all OCD to an extent but ASDs tend to exhibit this very strongly. When you look at Gould and his Chickering Piano, his 'chair', his belief in recorded over live performances, (I could go on), to me I see someone on the ASD spectrum.  Just confirms for me that he was an Aspie. Hearing him talk to the cab driver was enough to convince me and the reactions of the studio techs took this even further.

Oh yes!  As a teacher (almost 4 decades now) I have had a good number of such kids (some of them now in their 50's!).  Gould fit the definition: amazing how some people miss all the symptoms!  Back then of course he was an artist and artists are supposed to be eccentric, if they are successful.  Otherwise they are just weird.   0:)   I once had a student in high school who "screamed" Asperger's, but it was nowhere in his records.  When I met his father at a Parents' Night, who "screamed" the same symptoms, and who wondered about his son socially, I gently inquired about professional testing for the syndrome.  The father - a physician! - says: "Well, I have wondered about that!  And you know, I think I see that in me as well."   

[Karl Henning]

. . . Otherwise they are just weird.   0:)

Hey, buster! : )

[Cato]

   

. . . Otherwise they are just weird.   0:)

Hey, buster! : )

He-He!  I am reminded of (formerly) famous comedian Red Skelton, who claimed that without his hefty bank account he would have been committed to a mental hospital.   

[Karl Henning]

Well, and you see? I haven't got The Skelton Buffer!

[Herman]

James is (and I am) listening to the music Gould was able to bring out in Bach that no one had heard before.*

you mean the singalong stuff, or the rhythms manipulated so as to resemble catchy jazz?

[prémont]

you mean the singalong stuff, or the rhythms manipulated so as to resemble catchy jazz?

Neither is Gould my cup of tea, but I have ceased discussing him in forums, because you can not argue against religion.

[Wakefield]

Neither is Gould my cup of tea, but I have ceased discussing him in forums, because you can not argue against religion.

Of course, it's difficult to discuss when you think your adversary doesn't have rational arguments to support his position. 

[Holden]

Of course, it's difficult to discuss when you think your adversary doesn't have rational arguments to support his position. 

..and he's not necessarily my cup of tea either but he does have a certain fascination as a musician so I'm happy to discuss him. We had a poster here a few years back who thought that Gould was the best thing since sliced bread and his posts displayed what you've suggested. He wasn't a troll, just a blind acolyte. He left me with a jaundiced view of Gould though I've since come around from that point of view and while not totally convinced I certainly like much of Gould's musicianship.

[Karl Henning]

. . . just a blind acolyte. He left me with a jaundiced view of Gould . . . .

Yes; the bottom line is, that the Kool-Ade-besotted groupies ultimately do the artist a disservice.

[prémont]

Of course, it's difficult to discuss when you think your adversary doesn't have rational arguments to support his position. 

Think? - I would say experience. 

[Herman]

For example:

He's simply the most important thinker in my life

[kishnevi]

I've mentioned this before, but even those who don't particularly like Gould's recordings will probably find this one interesting.  I rather hope there's plans to republish it.


ISBN-10: 0679731350
ISBN-13: 978-0679731351

It turns out Gould was a very good essayist, with one of the best prose styles I've encountered (and being a literature major in college, I've encountered more than a few), and are the best sort of music criticism--they make you think, so that even when you disagree with him,  you know why you disagree with him.  (A number of these essays were originally liner notes for some of his recordings, and at least one of them was actually awarded a Grammy or something similar, back in the days when Grammy cared about liner notes and such.)  Some of them are on related to technology or other topics more concerned with recording and performing music rather than music itself, and he is capable of some grade A snark (as we would say today) when he feels it warranted.     And, as I said, even if you don't particularly like Gould, you will probably find this book interesting to read.

[Herman]

Any musician  -  whether he's good or mediocre  -  who talks on tv, or even on stage, has an enormous advantage with the public over musicians who insist the music should talk for itself.

Gould was a one in a million. He had very good photogenic looks in his youth; he could play very well; he had catchy ideosyncrasies (the chair, the gloves); and he was natural bullshit artist employing the same crazy genius mode as other entertainers in America did up to John Lennon; he made classical music look hip. This is why GG is still a bestselling artist for Sony and lots of people regard him as a artistic hero rather than a very canny operator.

[The new erato]

Any musician  -  whether he's good or mediocre  -  who talks on tv, or even on stage, has an enormous advantage with the public over musicians who insist the music should talk for itself.

Gould was a one in a million. He had very good photogenic looks in his youth; he could play very well; he had catchy ideosyncrasies (the chair, the gloves); and he was natural bullshit artist employing the same crazy genius mode as other entertainers in America did up to John Lennon; he made classical music look hip. This is why GG is still a bestselling artist for Sony and lots of people regard him as a artistic hero rather than a very canny operator.

No comment; except to point at your moniker.

[Karl Henning]

I've mentioned this before, but even those who don't particularly like Gould's recordings will probably find this one interesting.  I rather hope there's plans to republish it.


ISBN-10: 0679731350
ISBN-13: 978-0679731351

It turns out Gould was a very good essayist, with one of the best prose styles I've encountered (and being a literature major in college, I've encountered more than a few), and are the best sort of music criticism--they make you think, so that even when you disagree with him,  you know why you disagree with him.  (A number of these essays were originally liner notes for some of his recordings, and at least one of them was actually awarded a Grammy or something similar, back in the days when Grammy cared about liner notes and such.)  Some of them are on related to technology or other topics more concerned with recording and performing music rather than music itself, and he is capable of some grade A snark (as we would say today) when he feels it warranted.     And, as I said, even if you don't particularly like Gould, you will probably find this book interesting to read.

That's been sitting on my desk, purchased in part thanks to your advocacy, Jeffrey. I've enjoyed the odd dip;  should probably, indeed, have devoured it, save that I have been a composing dynamo of late.

[Karl Henning]

Any musician  -  whether he's good or mediocre  -  who talks on tv, or even on stage, has an enormous advantage with the public over musicians who insist the music should talk for itself.

Gould was a one in a million. He had very good photogenic looks in his youth; he could play very well; he had catchy ideosyncrasies (the chair, the gloves); and he was natural bullshit artist employing the same crazy genius mode as other entertainers in America did up to John Lennon; he made classical music look hip. This is why GG is still a bestselling artist for Sony and lots of people regard him as a artistic hero rather than a very canny operator.

With surprisingly little adjustment, this paragraph could be ready-tailored to Stockhausen ; )

[Mandryka]

Any musician  -  whether he's good or mediocre  -  who talks on tv, or even on stage, has an enormous advantage with the public over musicians who insist the music should talk for itself.

Gould was a one in a million. He had very good photogenic looks in his youth; he could play very well; he had catchy ideosyncrasies (the chair, the gloves); and he was natural bullshit artist employing the same crazy genius mode as other entertainers in America did up to John Lennon; he made classical music look hip. This is why GG is still a bestselling artist for Sony and lots of people regard him as a artistic hero rather than a very canny operator.

Why do you say he was a canny operator, rather than an innocent, shy creative type  who was managed for profit?  I mean, was he the canny operator or was it just his agent?

And why do you say crazy genius "mode"?  On his wikipedia page you can see a quote from Cornelia Foss which suggested that he was pretty eccentric by nature. That it wasn't just a button he cynically pushed to please the public.


My feeling is that he could do more than he could play very well. I think there's enough evidence on record to suggest that he was a very fine and brave musician -- the early live Beethoven bagatelles, K475, the live Mozart recordings, some of the very final Bach recordings (AoF), some of the early Beethoven sonatas, the Beethoven variations and Op 126, the Beethoven concerto with Karajan, the Leningrad concert, the Beethoven/Liszt, the Hindemith,the Wagner transcriptions,  some of the early live concert and radio  recordings. And that this has to be part of the reason why he's so highly regarded.

None of these seem to me to be real "genius" recordings, far from it,  but they are suggestive. Like with William Kapell (who also had good looks and had a fan base and died young, but was less mouthy), we'll never know.

[Karl Henning]

Groupie talk.

[kishnevi]

a artistic hero rather than a very canny operator.

There's no reason a musician can't be both.  There are in fact plenty of performers and composers who could be described both ways. 

That's been sitting on my desk, purchased in part thanks to your advocacy, Jeffrey. I've enjoyed the odd dip;  should probably, indeed, have devoured it, save that I have been a composing dynamo of late.

Glad to hear that!  And composing will in your case excuse almost the neglect of almost anything.