About three weeks ago as
of this writing, I learned, via a Google search to see what he had been up to
lately, of the death of Charles Rosen some four months earlier, on December 8
of last year. The fact that I had to
wait so long to hear such news, and had to come upon them in such a
fashion—that I did not have them bumptiously thrust into my ears after the
manner of, say, the news of the death of that guy from the Beastie Boys (which
I recall forming the immediate post-jingle contents of a certain 2010 or 2011 afternoon’s
All Things Considered)—constitutes the principal impetus of the present
essay. Whether that fact has a right to
constitute that impetus is, to say the least, debatable. For I certainly cannot aver in good faith that
the news of the death of Glenn Gould were bumptiously thrust into my ears at
any point at all, and certainly not on Gould’s death date of October 4,
1982. No: I learned of Gould’s death at
the earliest in spring of 1983, with the arrival in my family’s mailbox of that
year’s Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia yearbook, in whose obituary section it
(the death) was announced. Before that
day I had never heard of Glenn Gould (or, let it be said, Charles Rosen),
although I most certainly had heard of the likes of Leonard Bernstein, Eugene
Ormandy, and even Gould’s (and Rosen’s) fellow pianist-cum-near exact
contemporary, Gary Graffman. I apologize
for all the name-dropping, and for starting off on such a flamboyantly
autobiographical note, which are both really just by way of by way of
calibrating the scales as precisely as possible in advance, of taking as little
as possible for granted vis-à-vis the duo or diptych upon which I am about to
expound. You see, DGR, when all is dead
and son, at the day of the end, when the downs are chips, when shove is come at
by push, fame is a front-bottomishly difficult quality to gauge or maysure. Yes, as I learned some years ago via
You-Tube, Glenn Gould’s death may have made nationwide television news on
October 4, 1982, but the nation whose width was and is in question was (and is)
Canada, a country of (then) no more than twenty million souls; one imagines
that the death of any Canadian musician of any international stature would have
secured him or her such a posthumous mention.
And while one assumes Glenn Gould’s recording sales figures handily
outstripped Charles Rosen’s, one likewise assumes that the Beastie Boys’ sales
figures were something in the neighborhood of Gould’s to the power of
Rosen’s. Such that to assert as I would
like to do, and to devote several thousand words in defense of such an
assertion, that Rosen deserves to be regarded in the same light as Gould, that
the amount and kind of attention devoted to him looks like outright neglect
when juxtaposed with the amount and kind of attention devoted to Gould, cannot
but in the so-called grand scheme of things smack of petulance (or, perhaps,
given that the person whose reputation I would thus boost is deceased and neither
a friend nor a relation, something much more perverse and less laudable than
petulance).
In a way I now find myself
in the much the same sort of anomalous position I found myself in four years
ago when trying to drum up enthusiasm for Haydn on the back of a complaint
about the to-my-mind excessive praise lavished on Mozart, with the difference
that I admire the lavishee every bit as much as I do the neglectee. (“Still on that old Mozart-bashing kick of
yours, eh? How very Gouldian of
you.” Indeed, but more on that in its
proper place.) But in a way my position
is very different, because whereas in taking up the cudgels in defense of Papa
Haitch I was aligning myself with an established (albeit minority) faction, in
that Haydn and Mozart had (and have) always gone together like peanut butter
and jelly or Abbot and Costello, such that no matter how little you admired one
of them, you could not say word one about the other without mentioning him (if
only and as if, indeed, by way of scraping a P&J sandwich clean of the
offending half of the filling, or splicing all the Abbotian or Costellan bits
out of A&C Meet Frankenstein); whereas Rosen and Gould have never
been mentioned together in any of the scores if not hundreds of essays I have
read on one or the other of them. To be
sure, it would surprise me very much if I turned out to be the only person who
had ever thought it worthwhile to juxtapose Gould and Rosen, but it would
surprise me even more if I suddenly discovered a massive trove of Plutarchian
literature on Gould versus Rosen dating back to the early 1950s. So perhaps what is really peeving me and
impelling me to write is not so much that Charles Rosen’s death was not covered
by the meejia in a fashion that I could not manage to overlook as that this
death did not release the torrent of comparisons to Gould that I had always
regarded as Rosen’s due but whose absence I had always (at least so it now
seems) attributed to the sort of reticence that keeps (or should keep) a
municipality from renaming a street or a building after its most illustrious
athlete before his retirement. According
to that NPR TV critic with an Italian last name whose proper spelling I cannot
be bothered to look up, Patrick Stewart, one of the half-dozen greatest male interpreters
of Shakespeare since Olivier, is resigned to being called “second captain of
the Enterprise ” in the headlines of all his obituaries. Whether Charles Rosen, one of the half-dozen
greatest male North American pianists since the invention of the Hammerklavier,
was while alive resigned to being hailed with parallel necrological monotony as
“the author of The Classical Style,” I do not know. But if he wasn’t—well, SITS, at least one
coffin in a certain presumptively Manhattanite presumptively (orthodox?) Jewish
cemetery will be stuck in spin cycle for some time to come. Immediate posterity has seen fit to remember
Rosen first and foremost as a writer and a scholar, and more specifically as a writer
about and scholar of the music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. But is that such a bad thing? Did I not myself first encounter Rosen as a
scholar, and, indeed, as the author of that selfsame obituary-superscribing
book? Ought I not, as a man of the pen,
to consider scholar or writer a nobler honorific than pianist,
a designation that by default seems to designate a verbally illiterate Musikant,
a figure whose self-absorbed intellectual incuriosity is second in proverbiality
only to that of the OED-enshrined (or, rather, -stigmatized) prima donna? Would Glenn Gould himself not perhaps have
given this or that unmentionable organ to have been memorialized principally as
the mere author of Arnold Schoenberg: A Perspective rather than as “a brilliant
but wildly eccentric pianist”? Well,
perhaps. But in a way, these demurrals
simply add fuel to my (f)ire, the actual site and nature of which I am only now
beginning to descry. I think my main
beef with the as-yet-slender dossier of Rosen career retrospectives considered
in juxtaposition with their by-now voluminous Gouldian counterparts, is that by
default they have allowed a handful of trivial biographical divergences to
continue to trump a far greater number of biographical convergences, and
thereby to continue to obscure and in fact completely obliterate all
recognition of these two men’s shared and perhaps singular (“singular”=“unique”
in churlspeak, by the way) achievement.
It is difficult to specify this achievement without immediately
conjuring up a string of names apparently falsifying its singularity, but here
goes: both Gould and Rosen managed to impart to non-musicians an understanding
of music from the point of view of a performer-cum-listener of penetrating
technical insight who was also a man of the world—a musician whose insight was
no less penetratively actuated by history, literature, philosophy, cinema, geography,
pure unfettered flaneurie, and gosh knows what else; an understanding
that was accordingly from soup to nuts impervious to all charges of being prey
to such boffinish-cum-monkish vices as “sterility,” “aridity,” and
“hermeticism.” “But what about Leonard
Bernstein?” you ask, conveniently sparing me a great deal of work by adducing
as your first counterexample the counterexample that subsumes and excels all
other counterexamples. Well, in the
first place (I answer), Leonard Bernstein, although trained as a pianist,
practiced mainly as a conductor; accordingly, his favored medium of impartment was
the moving audio-visual image, and his favorite way of illustrating a point
with a musical example was to lower his baton and thereby set the butcher’s eight-dozen
or so instrumentalists of the New York Philharmonic playing a butcher’s two-dozen
or so un-scaled-down measures from the symphonic repertoire. Consequently, he seldom gave one a sense of
music as something that needed to be perceived first albeit not foremost
visually, as notes on paper, or that needed to be played in the most direct,
tactile, so-called hands-on sense. Both
Gould and Rosen, by contrast, were by calling and lifelong practice (Gould’s
single late-life foray into conducting notwithstanding) pianists—masters and
intimates of an instrument via which most of the elements of music, and,
indeed, most music tout court, could be intelligibly presented from all
points of view, hearing, and touch.
Accordingly, they had no need of videos to get their so-called messages
across; indeed, for this purpose they did not even really need audio
recordings. For being prejudiced as they
were towards the literature written or transcribed for their own instrument, when
they needed to illustrate a point with an example they could simply quote—in
print—a few Photostated measures of a piano score, confident that a substantial
proportion of their readers would be able to bash out the quoted measures
however clumsily on some sort of well-tempered (if not necessarily well-tuned)
keyboard instrument.
In the second place (I
continue), Bernstein mainly viewed his public extra-official role as that of a teacher
in the narrowest and humblest sense of the word: he thought he should be
devoting the bulk of his public extra-official energies to bringing the good
word about great music to the same demographic as was serviced by the Pre K-to-Grade
5 schoolmarm—viz. prepubescent children;
accordingly he spent an awful lot of time explaining the very basics of music
in very basic terms. Now don’t get me
wrong, DGR: I have no wish to impugn or call into question the worthwhileness
of old LB’s pedagogic mission, to which I certainly owe a good chunk of my own
germinative enthusiasm for so-called classical or serious music; indeed, I have
no wish even to aver that a semi-saber toothed oldster steeped for three
decades or more in the classical repertoire and the secondary literature
thereon has little to learn from LB the male schoolmarm—for indeed, not more
than six months ago, I picked up from one of LB’s Young People’s Concerts
a definition of so-called classical or serious music that superseded and put
paid to every other such definition I had ever heard: “Classical music,” LB
intoned, to a fifteen-hundred strong Carnegie Hall-swelling mob of restless,
nose-picking, seat-watering tots, in that inimitable baritone of his (richly
burnished and popcorn-stucco’d by a 500-a day [insert most carcinogenic brand
and make of 1950s cigarette here] habit), “in contrast to jazz, pop, and folk,
is music that has to be played exactly as it is written.” But to reach this epiphanic formula I had to
sit through many an hour of instruction that I had effectively already sat
through in my own tot-dom, couched in a showroom stock of allusions and
anecdotage better attuned to my parents’ childhood selves than to my own.