# Gould's Bach



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

I was looking at his Goldberg, and I was wondering: how faithful is Gould to Bach? Is it Bach we're hearing, or Gould?

(Beyond the harpsichord problem. I mean as faithful as a piano performance of Bach can be.)

I don't read or play music, so I would appreciate it if someone told me if he's faithful on a technical level.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Gould recorded two commercial sets of Goldbergs, a quarter century apart. They're quite different. Is one "faithful" and the other not? And what does "faithful" mean? How fast did Bach play them? How much ornamentation? How did he handle repeats? Obviously nobody knows. Certainly Gould plays the notes that Bach left us...


----------



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

Okay, but when you hear it, do you think: "Bach, the genius!!" Or does Gould steal the limelight with his idiosyncrasies, causing the listener to forget about Bach's accomplishments, and one only thinks of Gould?


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

The music you hear on those recordings is, more or less, Bach. The persistent humming and howling in the background, now that's Gould.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Gould takes certain liberties: he observes only selected repeats and he doesn't play all the trills. There's an ornament in the final bar of the Aria, an appoggiatura, which Gould, in his 1981 recording, plays differently in the opening Aria and the closing one. In the opening one he uses the ornament to create a dissonance on the final beat, whereas in the closing Aria he changes it to a consonance. But all this might be well within the limits of baroque-style interpretative freedom. And I think Bach would have been absolutely delighted by Gould's playing.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

No one knows how Bach would have played it, so we cannot know whether or not Gould is playing it as Bach would have wanted. But I think that Gould is good to listen to if you want technical genius.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Notung said:


> Okay, but when you hear it, do you think: "Bach, the genius!!" Or does Gould steal the limelight with his idiosyncrasies, causing the listener to forget about Bach's accomplishments, and one only thinks of Gould?


You must need be conditioned to 'One Way To Play Bach' in order for that to even come up 

I hear Bach there, very much so. I don't hear anything 'imposed' upon Bach.

(Wanda Landowska, for a while, was thought to play Bach 'as Bach.' Later musicology has it that Landowska playing Bach is filled with "Landowskaisms." LOL.)

I find Angela Hewitt's performances of Bach tremendously affected, safe, and precious. Some people seem to think that is Bach.

The trouble, and the beauty of it, is that so much of Bach's music was without markings, tempo markings, and ornaments were left to the discretion of the player. We'll never know exactly how Bach would have played it.


----------



## Namito (Oct 12, 2012)

I find simple changes, thrills or such of the pianists good while listening to famous composers' works. But I like Koopman more.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Gould introduced me to Bach on the piano. His playing was utterly captivating and exciting. Of course, it's not the only way of doing it. Gould had a habit of playing the music many different ways when recording then picking the one he liked at the time. It is a tribute to his technique that he could do this. Over the years I also have Bach by Richter, Hewitt, Perihia, etc. but GG has a special place.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

Along the same strain of thought. I have heard recordings of Bach played like Chopin and there are performers who play historically informed baroque pieces with molto rubato. I personally dislike this sort of performance. I think that Bach would have played his pieces not meccanico but with bits of improvisation this being supported by the use of mordents and turns. So while the music is fluid, it is not romantic like Chopin would be.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The idea that we should like Bach only as he would have played it is, to me, strange. First, we have no idea how he played it. Second, Horowitz plays some late Haydn sonatas as if they were Chopin, and it works quite well to my ears!


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I think Gould has enough personality that you hear both him and Bach, which is good. I've heard musicians play so uninspired, I hardly even heard Bach.

I remember back in the day Harnoncourt looked at Gustav Leonhardt and said, "He _is _Bach." I'm not sure I agree with his Goldberg interpretation, but you can compare Gould to Leonhardt and see if one sounds more authentic than the other, in spite of the harpsichord.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> I think Gould has enough personality that you hear both him and Bach, which is good. I've heard musicians play so uninspired, I hardly even heard Bach.
> 
> I remember back in the day Harnoncourt looked at Gustav Leonhardt and said, "He _is _Bach." I'm not sure I agree with his Goldberg interpretation, but you can compare Gould to Leonhardt and see if one sounds more authentic than the other, in spite of the harpsichord.


Leonhardt's Goldbergs are still my favorite harpsichord version. Due to my age, no doubt.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The performer needs the freedom to illuminate the work in his own way. Otherwise, we could just get machines to play music for us.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The idea that we can know how Bach played his music is somewhat of a myth. True there is only a certain extent historical research can go. The idea of his passions as one to a part is extremely dubious. If he did perform like that it was perhaps out of necessity, due to lack of singers, rather than desire. They are choral works. 
Hence to say that something is authentic Bach is in itself and inauthentic statement.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Leonhardt's Goldbergs are still my favorite harpsichord version. Due to my age, no doubt.


I'm afraid the harpsichord is one instrument I cannot get on with, especially as a solo instrument. I believe that Beecham referred to it as to the skeletons copulating on a tin roof!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Beecham always seemed to have the clever quip ready, as when he was asked if he was familiar with Stockhausen. Not really, he said. "But I stepped in some once."


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2013)

I always disregarded Gould's Bach but recently got hold of a CD of the Toccatas and I am hearing him with fresh ears he seems to have a delicacy of touch which I find refreshing.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I'm no expert on Gould in Bach. But speaking in general perhaps when we talk of faithfulness to the music we are talking about faithfulness to the work and not the composer. There may be different ways a piece of music can work, even more when they may be played on a different instrument to which it was originally intended. So if an approach works for people with a particular work then you could say it is being done with respect for the music. It's a performance art and the improvisatory capacity of such an art can't be denied, and I'm sure even many composers would accept that and find it exciting when a performer reveals something new in a work.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes; Gould is actually channeling the spirit of Bach, and Bach had frequent conversations with him about phrasing, how to handle tempo in certain areas, and told him to make glasses of iced tea when he got thirsty.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Beecham always seemed to have the clever quip ready, as when he was asked if he was familiar with Stockhausen. Not really, he said. "But I stepped in some once."


I was beginning to think you weren't going to post that this week.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Originally Posted by *KenOC* 
Beecham always seemed to have the clever quip ready, as when he was asked if he was familiar with Stockhausen. Not really, he said. "But I stepped in some once."






Crudblud said:


> I was beginning to think you weren't going to post that this week.


Really! "I smell a post coming!"


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> I was beginning to think you weren't going to post that this week.


Heard that one? Sorry! How about this?

When asked the difference between an alto and a contralto Sir Thomas Beecham replied, "I would guess about 50 pounds."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

His version of the Sinfonia No. 9 in F minor is second to none. This is what Gould does, and did, in 1955 with his _Goldbergs:_ he _reveals_ Bach to us for the _first_ time. Many players sound as if they are typing-through the pieces; Gould knows how to listen.
In this sense, he is expressing Bach as an aspect of his own being, from an inner compulsion; not merely presenting and performing them. Gould's Bach is an expression of being, of total empathy. He _becomes_ the music.

BTW, why these oddball interjections from KenOC? Usually I see some sort of motive, but he has lost me with these strange attempts at humor. ~giggle!~


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> This is what Gould does, and did, in 1955 with his _Goldbergs:_ he _reveals_ Bach to us for the _first_ time. Many players sound as if they are typing-through the pieces; Gould knows how to listen.
> In this sense, he is expressing Bach as an aspect of his own being, from an inner compulsion; not merely presenting and performing them. Gould's Bach is an expression of being, of total empathy. He _becomes_ the music.


I have this CD I will listen to night with more concentration.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Heard that one? Sorry! How about this?
> 
> When asked the difference between an alto and a contralto Sir Thomas Beecham replied, "I would guess about 50 pounds."


The ones about Stockhausen and harpsichords are so pervasive that I was beginning to think he was considered a wit par excellence on the strength of those two alone.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> The ones about Stockhausen and harpsichords are so pervasive that I was beginning to think he was considered a wit par excellence on the strength of those two alone.


Oh my no! From my vast collection of Beechamisms:

- "The English may not like music, but they absolutely love the noise it makes."
- "A musicologist is a man who can read music but cannot hear it."
- "Karajan is a sort of musical Malcolm Sargent."
- "Ladies, please try to sing this with more joy and less astonishment."
- "Jazz? Bah! -- nothing but the debasement of noble brass instruments by blowing them into mutes, hats, caps, nooks, crannies, holes and corners!"
- "Why do our British orchestras engage so many third-rate foreign guest conductors when we have so many second-rate conductors of our own?"

Yogi Berra had some good things to say about music, which I temporarily withhold.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I've always liked Gouldsbach, I think he's a great conductor.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

- "The English may not like music, but their food is terrible."
- "A zoologist is a man who can read music but cannot cross-breed it."
- "Karajan is a sort of musical German."
- "Ladies, please try to sing this with more joy and less flatulence."
- "Jazz? Bah! -- nothing but the debasement of white people trying to act black!"
- "Why do our British orchestras exist when we have so much better music provided by the musicians from India we colonized? "


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Beecham always seemed to have the clever quip ready, as when he was asked if he was familiar with Shepherd's pie. "Not really," he said. "But..........*fffrrrtt!"*


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

When asked the difference between an parrot and a cocker spaniel, Sir Thomas Beecham replied, "Unnngghh!" Plop!


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I think Bach would be extremely pleased to hear what Glenn did with his notes. The only other person whose performances of Bach I actually love is Don Dorsey. After that, I can tolerate Vladimir Feltsman but he stumbles on the extremely virtuoso sections. I thank bog for having given us the grand Canadian master for no other mere mortal can come close. Even guys like Gulda do Bach justice but never throughout a complete piece.


----------

