# Goldberg variations CD



## andreasr

Hi, 
I really like bach's goldberg variation. Do you have suggestion which record should I get (CD)?
Thanks.


----------



## KenOC

You'll get a hundred different suggestions! Ignore them and get the 1981 Gould recording...


----------



## DavidA

No question - Gould 1955 as an introduction


----------



## KenOC

OK, OK, get 'em both. http://www.amazon.com/State-Wonder-...qid=1374910419&sr=1-1&keywords=gould+goldberg


----------



## brotagonist

Do you want harpsichord or piano?

Harpsichord is exactly or close to what they played in Bach's time. It has that unusual rasping sound that is quaint and antique, but some people hate it. Trevor Pinnock is very respected. I would suggest choosing harpsichord as a second version, if you like the piece enough to have more than one version. I don't know any others, but I am sure there will be many other suggestions.

Piano has a cleaner sound, so it is easier to follow the notes and melody. I used to have a Glenn Gould recording, but it was played so fast that I felt it sounded rushed. I now have a recording by Andrei Gavrilov that I really like. I was also considering the András Schiff recording. I already owned recordings by each of these artists. I suppose I could have tried someone new, but I used my head and got the least expensive of the two 

You can also listen to samples on Amazon and sometimes entire works on You Tube. If you pick famous pianists or major labels, they will all be fine, but I would stay away from live recordings, unless you don't mind an occasional coughing fit. If you pick up an album that was recorded in the '60s to '90s, you should be able to get it for under $10, as they are always being repackaged and reissued. The sound quality will be as good as the latest recording by the _up-and-comingest_ star.


----------



## andreasr

It's the piano version that caught me


----------



## Bas

I don't like the 1955 Gould version, actually, so fast, so emotionless, I don't know, it is like it aint Bach anymore... I bought the 1981 version on eBay, because I know Gould as a fine interpreter of Bach (if it is your thing) based on several other recordings (i.e. the violin sonatas, with Jaime Laredo), he gets another chance.

I like Staier:







(That is a harpsichord recording)

You might like this one (although I'm not very fond of the tone color of the instrument - it is not stacatto enough, with some reverb, sustain).









All three of them can be prelistened on Amazon.


----------



## DavidA

Perahia gives a wonderful performance. Probably the best all round 'central' performance.


----------



## kv466

I don't know about 'central', Dave, but I'd rather be a little crooked and listen to Glenn do Bach 'the right way' than anyone else. And yes, I have heard the mere mortals attempts...not very impressive. And to whoever thought the '55 recording is too fast,...did you ever stop to think you might be hearing too slow? Just a thought...


----------



## realdealblues

KenOC said:


> OK, OK, get 'em both. http://www.amazon.com/State-Wonder-...qid=1374910419&sr=1-1&keywords=gould+goldberg


I personally prefer Gould's 2nd recording, but I agree with KenOC to get them both. Get them both in either the State Of Wonder set posted in the link he posted or they also have a new edition with both recordings. There have been some other recordings that are really well done. I also like Perahia, but for a first jumping off point I always recommend getting both Gould recordings. It gives you two distinctly different interpretations by the same man who was one of the best for Bach.


----------



## Guest

Gould definitely should not be missed (I prefer his 80's recording to '55), but not where I would start. If you decide to go with Gould, beware - he hums and makes numerous noises throughout. For me, it got very distracting. The first time I heard it, I did not expect it, and initially thought there was an issue with my speakers, until I finally discovered that it was Gould himself making all the noises.

Personally, I love Perahia's recording. It is wonderful, and I would recommend it to anybody, not only as a first recording, but as THE recording to have. If you then want a harpsichord version, Pinnock is good, as is Masaaki Suzuki. If you want something different, you can listen to them transcribed for organ and played by Jean Guillou. Or if you would like to hear them transcribed for a string ensemble, then Fretwork has a wonderful recording. But I would still go with Perahia first.


----------



## Ukko

kv466 said:


> I don't know about 'central', Dave, but I'd rather be a little crooked and listen to Glenn do Bach 'the right way' than anyone else. And yes, I have heard the mere mortals attempts...not very impressive. And to whoever thought the '55 recording is too fast,...did you ever stop to think you might be hearing too slow? Just a thought...


It is absolutely essential to hear both the 55 and the 81. The 55 is neither too fast nor 'emotionless' (the meaning is subtly different from unemotional BTW) _for its time_. The 81 reflects the added maturity of both the man and his understanding of Bach.


----------



## WJM

At least one of Gould's recordings is a must-have in my opinion. I prefer the one from 1981, but others are great too. Apart from the well known recording from 1955, there are also two other Gould's Goldberg Variations recordings - live in Salzburg 1959 and radio recording from 1954 .

I would also reccomend Andars Schiff. Wilhelm Kempff is worth listening, he have totally different approach and omits some notes in the Aria, but it's really beautiful playing. Trevor Pinnock's recording is great harpsichord version.

If I had to pick only one, it would be Gould's 1981 recording.


----------



## Guest

I love all the talk of people "understanding" Bach, and playing the Goldbergs the "right" way. Bach died in 1750. To my knowledge, no recording of this work by the master exists. We can study Bach, and give our best approximation - but that is it.

I think there are certain recordings that we tend to romanticize - partly because of the recording itself (which are usually very good, don't assume I am implying otherwise), and partly because of almost a cult status developing around the performer. Gould is one of those. Furtwangler, I think, as well. Jacqueline du Pre and her recording of the Elgar Cello Concerto. There are others as well. Not to disparage the recordings, but the reputations seem to be coming from more than just the performance itself. Gould's Bach is definitely not to be missed, but it does have its problems - and for me, it is the fact that it can sound very dry at times, and also the incessant damn humming.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Another vote for Gould 1955 (my first Goldbergs) and Murray Perahia (my last Goldbergs).


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> I love all the talk of people "understanding" Bach, and playing the Goldbergs the "right" way. Bach died in 1750. To my knowledge, no recording of this work by the master exists. We can study Bach, and give our best approximation - but that is it.
> [...]


Hah. I had suspected during our several debates that you had issues with understanding, _DrMike_. Now it is more than mere suspicion.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hah. I had suspected during our several debates that you had issues with understanding, _DrMike_. Now it is more than mere suspicion.


What was that? I was listening to Gould play, and all his humming was distracting me.


----------



## brotagonist

DrMike said:


> I think there are certain recordings that we tend to romanticize - partly because of the recording itself (which are usually very good, don't assume I am implying otherwise), and partly because of almost a cult status developing around the performer. Gould is one of those.


Exactly. Gould is held in such awe by many people that they say he _is_ God, despite the bothersome humming and noises, despite the many great recordings by other great performers, etc. Once a performer is elevated to cult status, it is almost impossible for anyone to even suggest any other performer without losing face, such is the pressure to conform.


----------



## moody

brotagonist said:


> Exactly. Gould is held in such awe by many people that they say he _is_ God, despite the bothersome humming and noises, despite the many great recordings by other great performers, etc. Once a performer is elevated to cult status, it is almost impossible for anyone to even suggest any other performer without losing face, such is the pressure to conform.


I don't like anything of his at all.


----------



## DavidA

brotagonist said:


> Exactly. Gould is held in such awe by many people that they say he _is_ God, despite the bothersome humming and noises, despite the many great recordings by other great performers, etc. Once a performer is elevated to cult status, it is almost impossible for anyone to even suggest any other performer without losing face, such is the pressure to conform.


But that is the idiocy of the 'one way' approach. For me it's not Gould or Perahia or Hewitt. I may have preferences but can appreciate them all.


----------



## Ukko

brotagonist said:


> Exactly. Gould is held in such awe by many people that they say he _is_ God, despite the bothersome humming and noises, despite the many great recordings by other great performers, etc. Once a performer is elevated to cult status, it is almost impossible for anyone to even suggest any other performer without losing face, such is the pressure to conform.


There have for many years been attempts to explain Gould away, many of them using this 'his fans are fools' tactic. Note that our resident curmudgeon takes the direct route.


----------



## KenOC

For those who are put off by Gould's 1955 performance because of the mediocre sound and/or Gould's humming, there is an alternative. Zenph "recreated" the performance using computers and a fine modern grand, and recorded it in excellent sound. I admit that this is the version I normally listen to! It's quite controversial, of course.

http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Goldberg...F8&qid=1375124196&sr=1-1&keywords=zenph+gould


----------



## Ukko

How does the hummingless recording affect the interpretation? I have thought that the humming was _part of_ the interpretation.


----------



## moody

Hilltroll72 said:


> There have for many years been attempts to explain Gould away, many of them using this 'his fans are fools' tactic. Note that our resident curmudgeon takes the direct route.


Oh yes,and that as well of course.


----------



## DavidA

Hilltroll72 said:


> How does the hummingless recording affect the interpretation? I have thought that the humming was _part of_ the interpretation.


Even the humming is sacred to a Gould worshipper!


----------



## quack

Hilltroll72 said:


> How does the hummingless recording affect the interpretation? I have thought that the humming was _part of_ the interpretation.


In the same way the chef's uncontrollable dribbling is part of the soup?


----------



## Ukko

quack said:


> In the same way the chef's uncontrollable dribbling is part of the soup?


I tend to consider the humming as a continuo part.


----------



## aszkid

My vote for Gould 1981.

1981: grown up, mature and superb Gould. THE Golden, domination and perfect execution.


----------



## KenOC

Hilltroll72 said:


> I tend to consider the humming as a continuo part.


If he could hum in tune...perhaps.


----------



## Ukko

KenOC said:


> If he could hum in tune...perhaps.


As the lawyers say, "Due dissonance."


----------



## kv466

DrMike said:


> I love all the talk of people "understanding" Bach, and playing the Goldbergs the "right" way. Bach died in 1750. To my knowledge, no recording of this work by the master exists. We can study Bach, and give our best approximation - but that is it.
> 
> I think there are certain recordings that we tend to romanticize - partly because of the recording itself (which are usually very good, don't assume I am implying otherwise), and partly because of almost a cult status developing around the performer. Gould is one of those. Furtwangler, I think, as well. Jacqueline du Pre and her recording of the Elgar Cello Concerto. There are others as well. Not to disparage the recordings, but the reputations seem to be coming from more than just the performance itself. Gould's Bach is definitely not to be missed, but it does have its problems - and for me, it is the fact that it can sound very dry at times, and also the incessant damn humming.


Some folks have no problem eating the prime-aged filet or bone-in Delmonico served on a picnic table inside a trailer by a lousy waiter in jeans and still take in the goodness of the product.

Others prefer to be served with high quality standards and on the finest tableware without any distractions in an opulent bistro, only to order the chuck burger. And they like it. They really like it.

This is what _I_ love.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> I tend to consider the humming as a continuo part.


Yes, just like the people coughing during the opera arias on live recordings. If only we could have more distractive sounds during performances, imagine how much better the experience would be.


----------



## Guest

kv466 said:


> Some folks have no problem eating the prime-aged filet or bone-in Delmonico served on a picnic table inside a trailer by a lousy waiter in jeans and still take in the goodness of the product.
> 
> Others prefer to be served with high quality standards and on the finest tableware without any distractions in an opulent bistro, only to order the chuck burger. And they like it. They really like it.
> 
> This is what _I_ love.


So it is either or with you? You can either have excellent skill with terrible recording (superfluous noises, etc.), or flawless sound with mediocre ability? I reject that false dichotomy. Recording abilities are one thing. Gould is the equivalent of a fine prime-aged filet prepared by a chef who, in full sight of the customers, coughs on the food, fails to wash his hands before cooking, and serves it to you on a plate that hasn't been washed. You want to enjoy that food, but are too distracted by all the distasteful things that accompany it. I don't care how skilled the chef is supposed to be. The experience should be an enjoyable one. I shouldn't have to go searching for the beauty amid the distractions - distractions that could be avoided by the artist himself. Did nobody tell him, "Hey, Glenn, you know that the microphone picks us your humming? Maybe since we are recording this, you could lay off the humming . . . just this once."


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> Yes, just like the people coughing during the opera arias on live recordings. If only we could have more distractive sounds during performances, imagine how much better the experience would be.


The continuo part should not be a distraction. Yet again you are blowing smoke, _DrMike_. Since my post was already blowing smoke, it's getting pretty damn smokey in here.


----------



## JimX

Another vote for the Glenn Gould 1981 goldberg recording, or as Gouldberg, as I like to call it.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> The continuo part should not be a distraction. Yet again you are blowing smoke, _DrMike_. Since my post was already blowing smoke, it's getting pretty damn smokey in here.


EXACTLY! There should not be distractions from the music, least of all from the performer. And the fact that Gould should have known that, to me, makes it all the more annoying. If he was such a genius, he sure didn't show it in that aspect. Or maybe he was so full of himself that he thought he should be able to make whatever sound he cared to, and people should just accept that as the admission price for being privy to his genius?


----------



## DavidA

DrMike said:


> EXACTLY! There should not be distractions from the music, least of all from the performer. And the fact that Gould should have known that, to me, makes it all the more annoying. If he was such a genius, he sure didn't show it in that aspect. Or maybe he was so full of himself that he thought he should be able to make whatever sound he cared to, and people should just accept that as the admission price for being privy to his genius?


Interesting. I am one of those people who is highly allergic to distractions (eg coughing, rustling programmes, etc) during a performance. But I find GG's humming completely nudist reacting. It is almost part of the performance!

According to biographers on GG's humming came from his mother who taught him to sing as he played. Gould was, of course, full of himself, a vice he shared with countless others of his craft!


----------



## JupiterJones

andreasr said:


> Hi,
> I really like bach's goldberg variation. Do you have suggestion which record should I get (CD)?
> Thanks.


If you're open to a download instead of a physical CD, then you can't really beat the price of this one:

http://www.opengoldbergvariations.org/


----------



## Downbeat

Trevor Pinnock on harpsichord does it for me.


----------



## DavidA

Downbeat said:


> Trevor Pinnock on harpsichord does it for me.


I just don't like the sound of the harpsichord although the Goldbergs was written for one.


----------



## kv466

I'm with Dave. The harpsichord lacks in many aspects and Bach didn't have a piano to toy with although I am quite certain he would have preferred the more modern instrument. We're talking performance, though, and I do feel Trevor puts in a fine performance; much finer than most mentioned thus far. Except one.


----------



## Guest

I, too, don't often reach for harpsichord recordings of this masterpiece. Like many others, I enjoy harpsichord, but more as part of the continuo, rather than as a solo instrument. That being said, I have enjoyed several harpsichord recordings. I have the Trevor Pinnock recording (Archiv), the Masaaki Suzuki recording (BIS), and the Kenneth Gilbert recording (HM). If I am in the mood, I have enjoyed all 3 of these.


----------



## KenOC

kv466 said:


> I'm with Dave. The harpsichord lacks in many aspects and Bach didn't have a piano to toy with...


In later life he did, even signing on as a sales agent for Silbermann's fortepianos. One of his sales receipts survives...


----------



## Guest

Has anybody recorded the Goldbergs on a fortepiano?


----------



## quack

DavidA said:


> But I find GG's humming completely nudist reacting.


Autocorrect, or an insight into your listening habits?


----------



## DavidA

quack said:


> Autocorrect, or an insight into your listening habits?


Wretched autocorrect! Plus voice dictation.

It's usually too cold in England to enjoy naked Goldbergs. But this summer has been warm!

Apologies for error!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Perahia gives a wonderful performance. Probably the best all round 'central' performance.


I agree. I recently bought the out of print SACD version, which at $50 was a little pricey, but the playing and sound are superb.


----------



## fcslynnlin

Ignore them and get the 1981 Gould recording... ..

_____________________________
http://www.4runescapegold.com/
http://www.runescapewalmart.com/
http://www.mmotank.com/


----------



## DavidA

fcslynnlin said:


> Ignore them and get the 1981 Gould recording... ..
> 
> _____________________________
> http://www.4runescapegold.com/
> http://www.runescapewalmart.com/
> http://www.mmotank.com/


I have four Gould recordings. But to stick to only one interpreter is somewhat narrow. Others have built on Gould's pioneering work and come up with their own interpretations - valid alternatives not replacements.


----------



## Bulldog

DrMike said:


> Has anybody recorded the Goldbergs on a fortepiano?


Yes Sir. Walter Riemer recorded the work on the NF-Audio label and it's a wonderful interpretation on a very attractive sounding instrument.

Favored Piano Versions:

Tureck (DG) - I love everything about this version.
Gould (81 - Sony) - Richer in emotional content than Gould's "55".
Schiff (ECM) - A version full of vitality and love. Much better than his earlier Decca offering where he's often reticent and pianistically subtle (a "sidelines" version).

Favored harpsichord versions:
Hantai (Mirare) - A more inward and deeper version than his earlier one on Naive (although exceptional in its own right).
Rousset (Decca) - Brash and crackling with energy.
Leonhardt (Various versions) - The inevitability of these interpretations is addictive.


----------



## ahammel

I quite enjoy Fabio Bonizzoni's harpsichord recording. The playing and the instrument are both top-notch. He's got the clarity required for Bach, and the skill to impart emphasis in a narrow dynamic range. The harpsichord sound is really great as well: enough bass in the sound to keep it from sounding irritatingly scratchy.

I once heard an arrangement of the Aria—in honour of GG—for orchestra and men's chorus (humming, of course!) Couldn't name the performers or the arranger, though.


----------



## LancsMan

I've got 6 Goldberg's; -

2 on harpsichord (Kenneth Gilbert and Pierre Hantai)
4 on piano (Glenn Gould 1955 and 1981, Angela Hewitt, and Rosalyn Tureck)

Find myself listening to the piano for pleasure and the harpsichord to educate myself in to what Bach actually would have heard.

In my rankings I award joint top place to the 1981Glenn Gould and the Rosalyn Tureck. 

I seem to be able to filter out from my mind Glen's vocalisations - he's just got so much to say in this music. Not that I agree with his approach at all times - he always holds my attention.


----------



## Bulldog

Bulldog said:


> Favored Piano Versions:
> 
> Tureck (DG) - I love everything about this version.
> Gould (81 - Sony) - Richer in emotional content than Gould's "55".
> Schiff (ECM) - A version full of vitality and love. Much better than his earlier Decca offering where he's often reticent and pianistically subtle (a "sidelines" version).


I just finished giving a few listenings to a newer version played by Beatrice Rana on Warner Classics and found it entirely stunning. It's a gorgeous performance with plenty of vitality when needed. The one word that I feel is most appropriate for this performance is "elasticity".


----------



## Klassik

I just purchased and listened to Maggie Cole's recording on harpsichord for Virgin Veritas Edition. It's quite good. I can't really compare it to any other versions, but I enjoyed listening to it. Some may not like that a French harpsichord was used, but at least it's not a piano version so I was satisfied enough with the recording.


----------



## AfterHours

Bas said:


> I don't like the 1955 Gould version, actually, so fast, so emotionless, I don't know, it is like it aint Bach anymore... I bought the 1981 version on eBay, because I know Gould as a fine interpreter of Bach (if it is your thing) based on several other recordings (i.e. the violin sonatas, with Jaime Laredo), he gets another chance.
> 
> I like Staier:
> View attachment 21803
> 
> (That is a harpsichord recording)
> 
> You might like this one (although I'm not very fond of the tone color of the instrument - it is not stacatto enough, with some reverb, sustain).
> 
> View attachment 21804
> 
> 
> All three of them can be prelistened on Amazon.


I like Gould's seminal rendition quite a bit as far as piano recordings, but I do think the Goldberg Variations reach a whole new level of exotic nuance, color and breadth when played well on the right harpsichord. I feel that Staier's is the very best version, that he is a harpsichordist (and forte-pianist) without peer. Perhaps the instrument is recorded too close for some but one can always lower the volume some if that's the case. And, you're spot on with including Schiff's Piano based recording. It's up there with Gould's for sure.


----------



## Pugg

Igor Levit is a new and modern recording, well worth checking it out.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Another vote for the Tureck DG recording. Before finding it I'd searched for a long time for the right piano recording. I'm still happy to hear other versions, but I now have one I can live with.


----------



## quietfire

No doubt Igor Levit.


----------



## NorthernHarrier

I have the 1955 and 1981 Gould recordings, which I like a lot, but I also want to put in a mention of another great Bach specialist who has now issued two different recordings of the Goldberg Variations that are both excellent: Zhu Xiao-Mei.


----------



## Bulldog

Klassik said:


> I just purchased and listened to Maggie Cole's recording on harpsichord for Virgin Veritas Edition. It's quite good. I can't really compare it to any other versions, but I enjoyed listening to it. Some may not like that a French harpsichord was used, but at least it's not a piano version so I was satisfied enough with the recording.


I haven't heard any complaints about the French harpsichord. Some folks consider Cole's interpretation not sufficiently imaginative, but I really like her straight-forward approach and crisp playing. I guess it's a keeper; I kept it.


----------



## Bulldog

NorthernHarrier said:


> I have the 1955 and 1981 Gould recordings, which I like a lot, but I also want to put in a mention of another great Bach specialist who has now issued two different recordings of the Goldberg Variations that are both excellent: Zhu Xiao-Mei.


I have her first recording. Is the newer one on Accentus appreciably different?


----------



## hpowders

andreasr said:


> Hi,
> I really like bach's goldberg variation. Do you have suggestion which record should I get (CD)?
> Thanks.


Piano or harpsichord?


----------



## Guest

I'm reading nothing but rave reviews of this new one on piano:


----------



## Bulldog

Kontrapunctus said:


> I'm reading nothing but rave reviews of this new one on piano:


Rana's version is so good that it could eventually become a classic.


----------



## NorthernHarrier

Bulldog said:


> I have her first recording. Is the newer one on Accentus appreciably different?


I think it is different. There are differences in the speed and timbre she uses in various places. I think her more recent performance might reflect a more mature, experienced reflection on the piece. She says something in the CD notes to the effect that the reactions of the audiences to her performances have changed her perceptions and her performances of the piece.

I don't think there is as much of a difference as in Gould's early and late recordings, but there is a definite difference.


----------



## Vaneyes

Something old, something new.


----------



## Barbebleu

The Rana is a wonderful pice of work. She very much lets Bach speak but still puts something of herself into it too.


----------



## Guest

I bought this today and give it my highest recommendation. Her playing is breathtaking and the sound is spectacular.


----------



## Pugg

Kontrapunctus said:


> I bought this today and give it my highest recommendation. Her playing is breathtaking and the sound is spectacular.


Birthday coming up in July.......
I can drop hints.....


----------



## AfterHours

Kontrapunctus said:


> I bought this today and give it my highest recommendation. Her playing is breathtaking and the sound is spectacular.


Generally, I prefer my Goldberg on harpsichord, but these comments are getting me intrigued to check this one out.


----------



## Omicron9

I have several Goldbergs; no declared favorite. I do like the Gould '81 recording. Just prepare yourself for the humming. His '55 recording sounds like he was double-parked during the recording sessions.

-09


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

These are good. 
Amazon also has the Little Big Bach Piano Box for $.99 with James Friskin on piano, which I vastly prefer to anything Gould.


----------



## nobleturtle

Another endorsement for Rana. Hers is a very bold, imaginative, and musical recording. Currently my favorite recording of this piece.

Hewitt's 1999 recording was my previous first choice before Rana's recording was released. Hewitt's playing is extremely elegant, and there is a healthy sprinkling of understated but creative touches.


----------



## DarkAngel

Setting aside the Gould recordings (I prefer his 55 style) my top choices for both piano and harpsicord:

















*Pierre Hantai - Harpsicord*
Very fluid and spontaneous as if the composer where playing, you are confident Hantai could improvise on the spot, I tend to like almost everything he does......like Gould he did a later (pix 2) more introspective take but I prefer his original more vibrant performance.

















*Ekaterina Derzhavina - Piano*
The reclusive russian music professor gives a performance that seems effortless yet provides color and insight at every turn, I hear new things with every listen and marvel at her imaginative technique, an absolute pleasure........sadly oop CD is very expensive on used market now

I have the new Rana Goldberg many mention, it is good but nothing really exceptional for me, when I walk over to CD shelf I never think I must hear that Rana Goldberg again........


----------



## dillonp2020

81 Gould is the best, in my opinion. People complain about the humming, I enjoy it.


----------



## JSBach85

I want to deepen on Goldberg Variations, what would you consider the top recordings played on original instrument *harpsichord* ? (please, not piano recordings!!!!!!!).


----------



## Pugg

JSBach85 said:


> I want to deepen on Goldberg Variations, what would you consider the top recordings played on original instrument *harpsichord* ? (please, not piano recordings!!!!!!!).


See post 74 from Dark Angel.


----------



## Joe B

or








In my opinion, if you're looking for harpsichord versions you can't go wrong with either of these choices.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

There's a $.99 download floating around Amazon if you want a cheapie. I have no idea how good it is as I passed on it even at that price. That much harpsichord would have me removing my ears.


----------



## JSBach85

Pugg said:


> See post 74 from Dark Angel.


I miss this post. I already own Hantai and indeed is a good recording!.


----------



## JSBach85

Joe B said:


> View attachment 97036
> or
> View attachment 97037
> 
> 
> In my opinion, if you're looking for harpsichord versions you can't go wrong with either of these choices.


I never listened to Pinnock as soloist performer on harpsichord. I am really interested in it, thank you very much for your suggestion.


----------



## DarkAngel

JSBach85 said:


> I miss this post. I already own Hantai and indeed is a good recording!.


I prefer the Harpsicord for Bach keyboard works, especially if you can "cheat" and EQ the sound with added bass tilt to give it a warmer richer sweet tone, beautiful organic music flow that cannot be had with piano versions.......

Here are my other go to Goldbergs with Harpsicord.......all women Schornsheim, Rannou, and Frisch
























and a new one recently recommended here goes to top tier group, Pascal Dubreuil*







*

I usually really like Staier, but this just below top tier group, nice use of lute stop


----------



## Guest

I just ordered the Gould 1981 version on LP that derives from a recently discovered analog master tape (it's also available on CD). The engineers used analog and digital recorders at the same time, with the analog as a "safety" backup, but since the digital one had no problems, they forgot about the analog one! So, someone recently edited it to match the takes on the digital release. I have the digital-based CD, so the analog-based LP will make an interesting comparison! I'm guessing the LP will sound warmer and more natural.


----------



## starthrower

Kontrapunctus said:


> I just ordered the Gould 1981 version on LP that derives from a recently discovered analog master tape (it's also available on CD). The engineers used analog and digital recorders at the same time, with the analog as a "safety" backup, but since the digital one had no problems, they forgot about the analog one! So, someone recently edited it to match the takes on the digital release. I have the digital-based CD, so the analog-based LP will make an interesting comparison! I'm guessing the LP will sound warmer and more natural.


The analog master tapes of the 1981 recording were used for the A State Of Wonder CD set released in 2002. My question is are subsequent CD re-issues of the '81 recordings also re-mastered from the analog tapes? I ask this because I've been collecting the 2012 Gould re-mastered CD sets. I just like the looks of these CD sets. The photos, and Glenn's piano chair icon. If anybody knows, please comment. Thanks!


----------



## Itullian

Just got this this morning and listened to it twice already!
It is wonderful! Playing and recording.
And her Fazioli sounds fantastic!.
Very good notes.
Highly, highly recommended!


----------



## Guest

Itullian said:


> Just got this this morning and listened to it twice already!
> It is wonderful! Playing and recording.
> And her Fazioli sounds fantastic!.
> Very good notes.
> Highly, highly recommended!


I like it a lot, but I still think I have a narrow preference for her first recording of the Goldbergs.


----------



## Itullian

Baron Scarpia said:


> I like it a lot, but I still think I have a narrow preference for her first recording of the Goldbergs.


I'll listen to that one again.


----------

