Glenn Gould: The Ecstasy and Tragedy of Genius

My difficulty with books on Glenn Gould is that there always seems to be two extremes so to speak: he was, to put it in colloquial parlance, either a "flake" ==or== that virtually everything he did was "understandable and even pardonable from the point of view of a genius." Question is, where is the middle-ground assessment of the man although it seems to be that every write-up on Gould from squib to article to hefty tome duly contains the word "eccentric" and essentially as a given from the get-go! Well, I incline towards Gould as highly eccentric yet there are those who would say that absent the piano, the word 'eccentric' could then be down-graded, as it were, to in fact an all around flake! He 'was' different, to be sure, and had no difficulty literally denigrating those great composers which he personally didn't relish as they didn't quite measure up to the Gould 'standard' [whatever that was!] .. like Mozart and Beethoven [Ohh yes!] and the Gould given 'reasons' for same. Even with the Bach "Goldberg Variations" hoopla, folks tend to forget that these renderings were as 'Gould' felt they should be and hence the standing joke, "Bach: As written by Glenn Gould." So too, Glenn could indeed be "very personable" at least up until the time the other person had an opposing view! That could easily set the stage for a rather rapid write-off ... by Glenn Gould. You know, those types where an opposing view no matter how diplomatically rendered is taken not as a simple disagreement or indeed one's prerogative to hold an opposite opinion for that matter but viewed as a literal personal 'insult' and de facto relegated forthwith as an 'uninformed speculation' at the very least. In effect, one had to continually walk on egg shells with Glenn Gould and many did while concurrently providing social crutches for Gould's bahavior and demeanor in the process or making mini eye-roll references to ad hoc bromides of "genius is often like that." Is it now? By whose definition? It seemed that those who remained on Glenn's "good list" so to speak were those who did not question his findings or revelations or pronouncements. Especially those dealing with musical issues. Even ol' Lenny [Bernstein], not one himself to embrace counter-arguendo with open arms either, felt so flustered by Gould he had to address the audience and reinforce that there were 'major differences of view' on the piece to be performed between conductor and interpreter. Remember that one? The go-alongs, shall we say, endured. Phone contact inclusive. You know, one "goes along to get along" kind of thing. Unfortunately, those not possessing a 'go along to get along' type of personality or demeanor themselves nor in any way dependent on Gould's good graces or his moods can find it particularly hard slogging. Or simply their own nature at play, so to speak, in refusing on principle to 'go along to get along' not to mention the egg-shell tolerations with other personalities. No matter who they are

I like this book inspite of its short comings. We know Gould was opinionated, and ostwald was patronizing but, Ostwald, Psychologist, musician and friend of Gould, who better to Write a book about him? Every thing is analyzed. Moreover, the pics are a great selection. Don't get me wrong, I think Psychology is art of Philosophy (psycho-babble), and not a science. For example Ostwald fails to mention Amphetamine-induced psychosis is clinically indistinguishable from paranoid schizophrenia, and many other symptoms could arise with the drug cocktails Gould was taking. But he was rite about Aspergers Syndrome, I had suspected that for years.

We are interested in Gould not because of his eerie behavior or his being a paranoid. We are JUST fascinated by his wonderful music. This book gives us some perspective of the psychic state and health of Gould, but it stress too much on them ,regardless the really good music Gould had move us, and it tells too little about how Gould make music, what's the connection between music and Gould, and what the meaning of life to Gould? After reading the book, I get the impression that Gould is but a tragic freak. But I ask myself, where does the music come from? The book tells us nothing. It does help me know Gould the guy, but doesn't help me penetrate into Gould the musician.

I found this book to be a helpful insight to someone whom I now class as my most favourite pianist. However biased some may view the book, I found it very informative and increased my understanding and love for this remarkable genius.

Fascinating novel of a great mysterious genius who's oddities made him a man to remember