# Thoughts on "Zenph Re-Performance" of Gould 1955.



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

What are your thoughts on the "Re-Performance" of Gould's 1955 Goldberg Variations recording? In my opinion, it lacks the energy and sometimes percussiveness of Gould's playing. The 1955 recording sounds much more pure, whereas this sounds bland. I also think there is no need for it - we have a great 1981 recording with good sound and the 1955 sound is not _terrible_, like Rachmaninoff or Furtwangler's recordings. I just think it's a waste of time.
What are your thoughts?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Which version, the surround stereo or the binaural stereo?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Gould without the groans. At least that's a plus.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

BenG said:


> What are your thoughts on the "Re-Performance" of Gould's 1955 Goldberg Variations recording? In my opinion, it lacks the energy and sometimes percussiveness of Gould's playing. The 1955 recording sounds much more pure, whereas this sounds bland. I also think there is no need for it - we have a great 1981 recording with good sound and the 1955 sound is not _terrible_, like Rachmaninoff or Furtwangler's recordings. I just think it's a waste of time.
> What are your thoughts?


Totally agree. In the re-performance, some of Gould is missing in action. It's sort of Gould for those who don't really like his music-making.


----------



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

Barbebleu said:


> Which version, the surround stereo or the binaural stereo?


The one I attached to my post


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

I'll just say: Gould is an idiot, and so are the people that buy into his myth.

There.

I said it.

PS. He may have been a _talented_ idiot, in that he knew how to move his fingers in time, but he knew stuff-all about Bach, how to perform Bach, or how to perform anything at all without making himself the centre of attention.

I sweep up Gould lovers in the same bucket as UFO believers. They both have about as much tenacious hold on reality as each other.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I'll just say: Gould is an idiot, and so are the people that buy into his myth.
> 
> There.
> 
> ...


Your comments are irrelevant to this thread's theme as well as being ridiculous and insulting to some other TC members.


----------



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I'll just say: Gould is an idiot, and so are the people that buy into his myth.
> 
> There.
> 
> ...


Wow, even Hurwitz wouldn't go this far...


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I had not heard of this "re-performance" technology, which sounds promising. It might be interesting to take the new recording and "age" it for a side by side test. (The obvious improvement in sound would make it hard to do a test in the opposite direction.) It may well be that they need some refinements, which will take time and practice. (I found an article that offered an original 1926 recording and the new performance, but I could not get them to play.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I have enjoyed the Zenph "reperformance" of Gould's 1955 Goldbergs for many years and prefer it to the original recording. Much better sound and nothing of Gould missing except (thankfully) his voice. Zenph also did a "Rachmaninoff plays Rachmaninoff" album which is worth hearing.

Zenph seems out of this business, or at least zenph.com now redirects to a Steinway page advertising their _Spirio_ player piano. I have always thought that they expected their technology to be quite easy to implement -- you know, let the computer do all the work -- and then found that a whole lot of tedious manual work was required to get the results they wanted. In other words, the economics just weren't there.

I have UFO news as well, but will post that in the appropriate forum.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Pointless.



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I'll just say: Gould is an idiot, and so are the people that buy into his myth.
> 
> There.
> 
> ...


Idiotic comment.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

BenG said:


> The one I attached to my post


Zenph did two versions of their re-performance. The one you've posted sounds like the "surround stereo" version. The "binaural stereo" version sounds a bit different. More airy and a little more reverby. There you go, a new word for the lexicon.

Btw my preference is for the original because it was the one I grew up with and the one that made me love Glenn Gould's playing. Although it's nice to hear it without the clicks and hisses!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I'll just say: Gould is an idiot, and so are the people that buy into his myth.
> 
> There.
> 
> ...


Clearly he wasn't as big an idiot as you. AbsolutelyBaching? More like Absolutely Barking!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> Your comments are irrelevant to this thread's theme as well as being ridiculous and insulting to some other TC members.


Well, I'm insulting Gould, not members of this forum. If there are members of this forum who like Gould and find my description of their tenuous hold on reality as equivalent to Area 51 fans insulting, then... well, so be it. I don't retract a word.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

BenG said:


> Wow, even Hurwitz wouldn't go this far...


I think he might, actually! (Not on Gould perhaps; but he goes quite far on any number of icons)


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> Pointless.
> Idiotic comment.


Right back at ya!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Barbebleu said:


> Clearly he wasn't as big an idiot as you. AbsolutelyBaching? More like Absolutely Barking!


Oh clever. You worked out the source of my handle/name!

Meanwhile, Bernstein wasn't a fan. And Gould thought Mozart had become a bad composer in his later years. And I'm not the first to have called Gould idiotic.

But whatever floats your boat, I guess.

*Edited to add*: The New York Times is behind a paywall for most, I expect, but one of their 2007 articles on Gould is of interest, so I've also made a copy available on my website.. It calls Gould fandom a 'cult'; has quotes such as "That he played these pieces at such blinding speeds was not necessarily because he should have; I think he just wanted us to know that he could." or "In the "serious" music usually associated with him - Bach, Beethoven and (a reluctant pursuit) Mozart - Gould was happy to visit outrage on received wisdom. Yet he played Grieg and Brahms with docile acceptance of tradition." or (my personal favourite): "He is the most interesting Bach player in memory, but when taken as a model of how Bach should sound, he is a catastrophe". Or " What about Glenn Gould? Very interesting, but he has no education". Or "Gould's concepts can be horrifying - like ice water thrown in the face"

And in a nice summation: "Revolutionaries get our attention, and often for the better, but whom would you want running New York City, Mayor Bloomberg or Che Guevara?"


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Oh clever. You worked out the source of my handle/name!
> 
> Meanwhile, Bernstein wasn't a fan. And Gould thought Mozart had become a bad composer in his later years. And I'm not the first to have called Gould idiotic.
> 
> But whatever floats your boat, I guess.


Bernstein _was_ a fan.

"There is nobody quite like him, and I just love playing with him."

"Any discovery of Glenn's was welcomed by me because I worshipped the way he played: I admired his intellectual approach, his "guts" approach, his complete dedication to whatever he was doing, his constant inquiry into a new angle or a new possibility of the truth of a score. … He was not trying to attract attention, but looking for the truth. I loved that in him."

Edit: Did you read the transcript you linked? I don't know how you could possibly take this as evidence that "Bernstein wasn't a fan" of Gould.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> Bernstein _was_ a fan.
> 
> "There is nobody quite like him, and I just love playing with him."
> 
> ...


How many conductors do you know so strongly disagree with the soloist's interpretation of how to play a particular concerto that they pen a little speech to be given live before the performance? A speech in which Bernstein declares the performance is 'unorthodox', asks 'what am I doing conducting it', reluctantly concedes that 'Gould's conception is interesting enough that you should hear it' (which is why he hasn't walked off the stage). Paraphrasing, the only other time Bernstein came across a soloists whose conception of a work he considered utterly wacky was... Glenn Gould.

Bernstein admits he contemplated engaging a different soloist. He crosses out that he is "delighted" to present a new conception of the work, and instead says merely that he is "glad" to do so. He also crosses out the accusation that Gould 'tries new things out just for sport'. Clearly, the thought had occurred to him.

He's too polite to say "Glenn Gould is the daftest pianist I've ever come across", but he's as close to saying it as politeness allows him to be.

Edited to add: perhaps I should have said originally, Bernstein wasn't *always* a fan. I don't know the timing or context of the other quotes you attribute to Bernstein on the subject (the use of the past tense makes me wonder if they were comments made after Gould's death, in which case they can be largely discounted, because people tend not to speak ill of the dead), but yes, I read the documents I linked to and I think the conclusion to draw about his feelings in April 1962 is pretty obvious.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The 1981 recording was too slow by comparison. With the Zenph, at least we now have a high fidelity version of the brisk, lively 1955 version.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Never bought into the Gould myth in standard repertoire, but ever listen to his Schoenberg Op. 23? He really stood out there to me. I find it strange he is always cold to me in music with traditional harmony. But in atonal music he was really expressive. I found it the most expressive version by far!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> Never bought into the Gould myth in standard repertoire, but ever listen to his Schoenberg Op. 23? He really stood out there to me. I find it strange he is always cold to me in music with traditional harmony. But in atonal music he was really expressive. I found it the most expressive version by far!


I don't know, really. I have the Pollini and Boffard versions of those. I wouldn't like to say one was more 'expressive' than another (largely because the music leaves me cold anyway, and I have no basis on which to form a judgment accordingly, I'm afraid).


----------



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> How many conductors do you know so strongly disagree with the soloist's interpretation of how to play a particular concerto that they pen a little speech to be given live before the performance?


Bernstein gave the speech because he was afraid that the audience would be bewildered, and even walk out of the performance - Gould agreed with him that it was a good idea in an exchange they had before his speech. It wasn't out of distaste of Gould, or _because_ he strongly disagreed with the interpretation. (although he did).



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> A speech in which Bernstein declares the performance as 'unorthodox', asks 'what am I doing conducting it'


Out of context. This was a rhetorical question, which he then answered, saying that as Gould was a serious artist, he must take seriously Gould's intentions. Bernstein had great respect for him, as an artist.



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Paraphrasing, the only other time Bernstein came across a soloists whose conception of a work he considered utterly wacky was... Glenn Gould.


This was clearly a joke - humour to break the tension before the performance.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I suspect Bach wouldn't approve of Gould, but Mozart might, if he was as portrayed in Amadeus. His K.331 sounds like a joke at the beginning with the slow tempo, but I felt he did imbue it with drama as the movement wore on.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

* Thoughts on "Zenph Re-Performance" of Gould 1955.*



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> ... I sweep up Gould lovers in the same bucket as UFO believers. They both have about as much tenacious hold on reality as each other.


I plan to post my comment to this thread's issue as soon as the Zenph Re-Performance of my comment is available for posting. Meanwhile, I'm back to hunting for flying saucers. I'm certain there is one in the neighborhood. I heard this strange humming sound while playing my Glenn Gould records last evening.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

BenG said:


> Bernstein gave the speech because he was afraid that the audience would be bewildered, and even walk out of the performance - Gould agreed with him that it was a good idea in an exchange they had before his speech. It wasn't out of distaste of Gould, or _because_ he strongly disagreed with the interpretation. (although he did).
> 
> Out of context. This was a rhetorical question, which he then answered, saying that as Gould was a serious artist, he must take seriously Gould's intentions. Bernstein had great respect for him, as an artist.
> 
> This was clearly a joke - humour to break the tension before the performance.


Well, you can parse it any which way but Sunday, but a plain reading of the text makes it clear that Bernstein thought Gould's performance willfully fanciful, not something to be taken seriously, and not something he particularly wished to be associated with.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> I suspect Bach wouldn't approve of Gould, but Mozart might, if he was as portrayed in Amadeus. His K.331 sounds like a joke at the beginning with the slow tempo, but I felt he did imbue it with drama as the movement wore on.


And my point is that if Bach wouldn't have approved of Gould, no-one else should be doing so either. He's a 'Get Me Out Of Here, I'm A Celebrity" pianist, not someone who actually was profoundly musical.

He's in the same league as Stokowski. Big noise, big look-at-me, little actual music understanding, little actual conveyance of musical insight... and I simply don't get why otherwise intelligent people indulge him in his nonsense.

Especially since he's dead and intelligent people ought to know better. (And plenty do, so dismiss me as an idiot if you like, but that doesn't make the substantial body of criticism of him disappear).


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> And my point is that if Bach wouldn't have approved of Gould, no-one else should be doing so either. He's a 'Get Me Out Of Here, I'm A Celebrity" pianist, not someone who actually was profoundly musical.
> 
> He's in the same league as Stokowski. Big noise, big look-at-me, little actual music understanding, little actual conveyance of musical insight... and I simply don't get why otherwise intelligent people indulge him in his nonsense.
> 
> Especially since he's dead and intelligent people ought to know better. (And plenty do, so dismiss me as an idiot if you like, but that doesn't make the substantial body of criticism of him disappear).


How on earth do you know that Bach wouldn't have approved of Gould? Are you in direct communication with him? Is he one of "the voices" in your head? Are they telling you these things?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Has any one ever noticed that people who go out and commit desperate crimes and blame it on “the voices“ in their head never say that “the voices” told them to do the ironing or wash the car?


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> How many conductors do you know so strongly disagree with the soloist's interpretation of how to play a particular concerto that they pen a little speech to be given live before the performance? A speech in which Bernstein declares the performance is 'unorthodox', asks 'what am I doing conducting it', reluctantly concedes that 'Gould's conception is interesting enough that you should hear it' (which is why he hasn't walked off the stage). Paraphrasing, the only other time Bernstein came across a soloists whose conception of a work he considered utterly wacky was... Glenn Gould.
> 
> Bernstein admits he contemplated engaging a different soloist. He crosses out that he is "delighted" to present a new conception of the work, and instead says merely that he is "glad" to do so. He also crosses out the accusation that Gould 'tries new things out just for sport'. Clearly, the thought had occurred to him.
> 
> ...


Oh, come on. You expect me to believe that? I'm really having a difficult time believing that the conclusions you drew from this speech are that Bernstein dislikes Gould or finds him daft. I think you're just arguing for the argument's sake now.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

flamencosketches said:


> Oh, come on. You expect me to believe that? I'm really having a difficult time believing that the conclusions you drew from this speech are that Bernstein dislikes Gould or finds him daft. I think you're just arguing for the argument's sake now.


You have to play it backwards.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> Oh, come on. You expect me to believe that? I'm really having a difficult time believing that the conclusions you drew from this speech are that Bernstein dislikes Gould or finds him daft. I think you're just arguing for the argument's sake now.


I suspect Bernstein may have had a similar view of Gould as Szell. Szell never performed with him after arguing over the pedal in a Beethoven concerto but did say the "nut's a genius".


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Barbebleu said:


> How on earth do you know that Bach wouldn't have approved of Gould? Are you in direct communication with him? Is he one of "the voices" in your head? Are they telling you these things?


You need to learn how to build better strawmen.

Or perhaps just to read.

Phil Loves Classical wrote: _I *suspect* Bach wouldn't approve of Gould_
To which I replied: _*if* Bach wouldn't have approved of Gould_

The first statement was not by me and was clear in the idea that the thought was a 'suspicion'. Phil Loves Classical wasn't saying he had a hotline to Bach, but merely an intelligent mind that's nevertheless capable of making critical judgments.

The second statement was by me and began with an "if".

No-one's hearing voices, but some of us seem to be able to think more clearly than others.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> Oh, come on. You expect me to believe that? I'm really having a difficult time believing that the conclusions you drew from this speech are that Bernstein dislikes Gould or finds him daft. I think you're just arguing for the argument's sake now.


I don't expect you to believe or do anything particularly.

The words are there in black (and red) and white and you are free to draw your own conclusions. Or not, if you've already bought into the Gould cult.

And, incidentally, yes, the words you quoted Bernstein subsequently saying about Gould came from Bernstein's obituary about Gould, when we can confidently expect people to say the nicest things possible about the deceased (and thus take them with a large spoonful of salt).

I have expressed a view about Gould. I've backed it up with a variety of sources and evidence that suggests at the minimum that I'm not alone in my view of Gould. You don't have to like it; you don't have to accept it; but spare me the childish "oh I bet you're only saying it to be provocative" line of argument. That sort of thing is precisely what Gould did throughout his performing life. It's not what I've done here.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

^Perhaps not, but the cherry picking you've laid out in your previous post seems so far fetched that it left me with the impression I was being trolled. I refuse to believe your reading comprehension skills could be so lacking. You're a smart guy (despite your initial post in this thread, which I maintain was idiotic ...)

For the record, I haven't bought into any cult. I love some of Gould's recordings, and dislike some of his recordings. But it's wrong to dismiss him as a major artist of the 20th century, and to invoke your misinterpretation of words from other major artists to do so.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> ^Perhaps not, but the cherry picking you've laid out in your previous post seems so far fetched that it left me with the impression I was being trolled. I refuse to believe your reading comprehension skills could be so lacking. You're a smart guy (despite your initial post in this thread, which I maintain was idiotic ...)
> 
> For the record, I haven't bought into any cult. I love some of Gould's recordings, and dislike some of his recordings. But it's wrong to dismiss him as a major artist of the 20th century, and to invoke your misinterpretation of words from other major artists to do so.


By way of a fairly obvious come-back, they are misinterpretations in _your_ mind, not mine.

It's an opinion I hold, in other words, based on various forms of evidence, some of which I've laid out here. If you read one piece of that evidence one way, I don't have a problem with that. I do begin to have a problem with you attempting to prohibit me from reading it another way, or declaring that to do so must and inevitably be a 'misinterpretation'.

For my sins, I have a degree in history: I know how to read documents and to put them into context. It doesn't mean my readings are papally infallible. But it usually means there's at least some substance behind them, at least.

And for the record, too, I simply don't regard him as a major artist of the 20th Century. I regard him as a musical idiot savant. And I genuinely find it difficult to believe that anyone listens to _any_ of his recordings and hears Bach, Beethoven or Mozart instead of hearing exactly what he intended you should hear: Gould.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> By way of a fairly obvious come-back, they are misinterpretations in _your_ mind, not mine.
> 
> It's an opinion I hold, in other words, based on various forms of evidence, some of which I've laid out here. If you read one piece of that evidence one way, I don't have a problem with that. I do begin to have a problem with you attempting to prohibit me from reading it another way, or declaring that to do so must and inevitably be a 'misinterpretation'.
> 
> ...


Since our argument has descended into the realms of the subjective, we're going to agree to disagree and leave it at that, but I leave the following recordings for anyone reading to consider. I challenge anyone to listen to these and _not_ hear Brahms, Beethoven, or Berg in this music, but only "Gould"...:


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

And I'm going to again say, I presented evidence. The subjectivity is only in your reluctance to take a plain meaning from a document, because you dislike the obvious implications of that meaning.

So I'll leave it there too, except rather than a wall of recordings which prove nothing, I will simply compare this statement about Gould:
_
[Gould's is] a performance distinctly different from any I've ever heard or even dreamt of, in its remarkably broad tempi *and its frequent departures from Brahms' dynamic indications*_

With this one made by a real 'major artist of the 20th Century', Maria Callas:

_What [Serafin] said impressed me was, "When one wants to find a gesture, when you want to find how to act on stage, all you have to do is: listen to the music. The composer has already seen to that." If you take the trouble to really listen with your soul and with your ears -and I say soul and ears because the mind must work, but not too much also - you will find every gesture there. And it's so true, you know._

The one is offering two-fingered contempt to the composer's explicitly expressed intentions. The other is 'really listening' to determine what the composer's intentions were. It's chalk and cheese. And Gould is definitely cheesy.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> I suspect Bernstein may have had a similar view of Gould as Szell. Szell never performed with him after arguing over the pedal in a Beethoven concerto but did say the "nut's a genius".


Thanks for that quote. I was unaware of it previously.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> And I'm going to again say, I presented evidence. The subjectivity is only in your reluctance to take a plain meaning from a document, because you dislike the obvious implications of that meaning.
> 
> So I'll leave it there too, except rather than a wall of recordings which prove nothing, I will simply compare this statement about Gould:
> _
> ...


_You_ are the one neglecting to get plain meaning from the document. If Bernstein did not respect Gould's art, he would not be accompanying him, much less writing a speech to defend his unorthodox interpretation.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I really object to threads being hijacked to provide a platform for an obvious agenda. The thread was a discussion about the merits of the Zenph remaster not the merits of Gould as an artist. You’ve made your point Barking, now toddle off and leave the rest of us cultists alone.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Barbebleu said:


> I really object to threads being hijacked to provide a platform for an obvious agenda. The thread was a discussion about the merits of the Zenph remaster not the merits of Gould as an artist. You've made your point Barking, now toddle off and leave the rest of us cultists alone.


What possible agenda do you think I have?

The thread asked for opinions on the Zenph remasters. I gave mine. In case the subtlety missed you, as I suspect it may have done, my opinion on the Zenph remasters is that they are an improvement on the originals because they remove the Gould humming, but since Gould couldn't play Bach properly in the first place, it's not worth getting excited about.

How on earth is one supposed to assess the "merits of a recording" _without_ assessing the "merits of the artist"?!

If the artist is awful, the glorious 24-bit, 96KHz, 4-bit oversampling with <insert other audiophilia here>... still means you've got a bloody awful recording.

And I won't toddle anywhere, thanks all the same. If I see people discussing something interesting, and I have something I consider to be worth contributing, I'll contribute it. I really don't seek or need your approval to do otherwise, thanks all the same.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> _You_ are the one neglecting to get plain meaning from the document. If Bernstein did not respect Gould's art, he would not be accompanying him, much less writing a speech to defend his unorthodox interpretation.


He wasn't defending it. He was saying it's unorthodox and I don't like it, but it's probably something you, the audience, deserve to hear, no matter how willfully deviant from Brahm's expressed intentions it might be.

I'm not going to keep arguing the point. I've said what I read from that document in quite some detail, quoting at length. All you keep doing is saying "you're reading it wrong" without any attempt to go beyond mere assertion. It's pointless going on about it when you refuse to address the evidence in front of you.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> He wasn't defending it. He was saying it's unorthodox and I don't like it, but it's probably something you, the audience, deserve to hear, no matter how willfully deviant from Brahm's expressed intentions it might be.
> 
> I'm not going to keep arguing the point. I've said what I read from that document in quite some detail, quoting at length. All you keep doing is saying "you're reading it wrong" without any attempt to go beyond mere assertion. It's pointless going on about it when you refuse to address the evidence in front of you.


I have some evidence for you that Bernstein admired Gould:

https://www.loc.gov/resource/lbtep.0062.0/?sp=1

"Mr. Gould is so valid and serious an artist that I must take seriously anything he conceives in good faith."

"There are moments in Gould's performance that emerge with astonishing freshness and conviction."

"We can all learn something from this extraordinary artist, who is a thinking performer." (Bernstein's emphasis, not mine)

Reads like a defense to me and, I reckon, most who have read or heard the speech.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> What possible agenda do you think I have?
> 
> The thread asked for opinions on the Zenph remasters. I gave mine. In case the subtlety missed you, as I suspect it may have done, my opinion on the Zenph remasters is that they are an improvement on the originals because they remove the Gould humming, but since Gould couldn't play Bach properly in the first place, it's not worth getting excited about.
> 
> ...


Ah, you're confusing me with someone who cares!

Did Mr Gould upset you in some way that has provoked your ire at the fact that some of us here actually like his interpretations? Why did you think this thread was interesting? Was it because it gave you the opportunity to have a go at Gould and his fans? Or have you actually heard the Zenph and can assess its merits? If you have listened to it that begs the question, why? I tend not to listen to performers or performances that I don't have any affinity with, but that's my preference.

You clearly hate Gould with a passion so why listen to him?

And stop making smart-alex remarks like the one about subtlety. It wasn't subtle, just rude and boorish.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> I have some evidence for you that Bernstein admired Gould:
> 
> https://www.loc.gov/resource/lbtep.0062.0/?sp=1
> 
> "Mr. Gould is so valid and serious an artist that I must take seriously anything he conceives in good faith."


And you don't find the mention of Mr Gould conceiving of things "in good faith" slightly odd? I must take seriously anything he conceives in good faith can be read to imply, "but I ignore those things he conceives in bad faith".



flamencosketches said:


> "There are moments in Gould's performance that emerge with astonishing freshness and conviction."


And again, you don't find the mention of "moments" odd?

Not "Gould's performance is astonishingly fresh and utterly convincing". But "his performance has *moments* when those things are true".

What was that quote about Wagner? He has lovely moments, but terrible quarter-hours. One uses the word 'moment' when you're suggesting something other than what the superficial pleasantries might suggest to the unwary.



flamencosketches said:


> "We can all learn something from this extraordinary artist, who is a thinking performer." (Bernstein's emphasis, not mine)


That's another mealy-mouthed expression, isn't it: we can all learn something. Like how *not* to play Brahms, for example.If Bernstein had genuinely been keen on Gould and wanted us to learn positive things from him, he would have said more on what, precisely, those things were that we could learn. Bernstein was the supreme musical didact, after all.

The fact he said he was a thinking performer is fine. I'm not sure what it means, which is probably exactly what Bernstein was hoping for!



flamencosketches said:


> Reads like a defense to me and, I reckon, most who have read or heard the speech.


The specific quotes you've cited are so hedged about with obvious qualifications that no _fair_ reading of them could possibly be seen as a resounding defense, except of Bernstein's own decision to continue to conduct a performance he was so firmly in disagreement with.

You don't mention someone's good faith unless you're hoping to suggest their bad faith; you don't say someone has good moments unless you're hoping to draw attention to their long bad periods in between; you don't say 'we can all learn something', unless you're very carefully going out of your way not to mention what it is that we might learn.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

^The "good faith" Bernstein was referring to is _his_ (ie. Bernstein's) good faith, ie. faith in his colleague. He is not referring to Gould conceiving things in "good or bad faith", that doesn't really make any sense.

I have to run to work, but it's been truly a displeasure mincing words with you, AbsoluteBachKing.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Barbebleu said:


> Ah, you're confusing me with someone who cares!
> 
> Did Mr Gould upset you in some way that has provoked your ire at the fact that some of us here actually like his interpretations?


Not at all. I think you're sadly sucked in to a myth if you like his interpretations, and said as much, but I can't possibly hope to convince you otherwise, especially since you cannot argue the point in good faith, but instead merely resort to abuse and silly strawmen arguments.



Barbebleu said:


> Why did you think this thread was interesting?


Because there's a new version of 'cleaned up Gould' being discussed. That's all. No hidden agendas. Just a discussion about what a non-Gould Gould recording had to offer the world.



Barbebleu said:


> Was it because it gave you the opportunity to have a go at Gould and his fans?


Well, I admire the eventual honesty in describing yourself as a 'fan'. But no, I've described why I thought the thread interesting above.



Barbebleu said:


> Or have you actually heard the Zenph and can assess its merits?


Yes, I have heard it. Well, I should qualify that. I would never pay money for a Gould recording, no matter how much re-engineered, but I did listen to the Youtube version of it.



Barbebleu said:


> If you have listened to it that begs the question, why? I tend not to listen to performers or performances that I don't have any affinity with, but that's my preference.


Well, firstly you don't understand what 'begging the question' means. It does *not* mean "it prompts the question", which is what you are trying to say here.

And secondly, what you tend or tend not to do doesn't describe the entire sweep of humanity, does it?

I listened to it because it's (allegedly) Bach, and I adore Bach.



Barbebleu said:


> You clearly hate Gould with a passion so why listen to him?


I don't _hate_ Gould with a passion. I think him musically idiotic and I don't regard his music-making as anything other than opportunities to boost the Gould brand. And I feel sorry for people that don't recognise when they're being taken for that sort of ride.



Barbebleu said:


> And stop making smart-alex remarks like the one about subtlety. It wasn't subtle, just rude and boorish.


Who made you policeman about these parts? I will make whatever remarks I like, thanks very much. That you don't like them is something you will have to learn to live with, I'm afraid.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> ^The "good faith" Bernstein was referring to is _his_ (ie. Bernstein's) good faith, ie. faith in his colleague. He is not referring to Gould conceiving things in "good or bad faith", that doesn't really make any sense.


So you say. He's referring to Gould's conception of musical works, says me and a plain reading of the English text with an understanding of English grammar. In the sentence immediately prior to the one this quote comes from, he writes about "Mr. Gould's conception". So I think you're clutching at straws on that one.



flamencosketches said:


> I have to run to work, but it's been truly a displeasure mincing words with you, AbsoluteBachKing.


It's a shame that when confronted with a contrary opinion backed up by documented facts, you're not alone in resorting to the ruse of personal abuse and attack, but I had hoped better from you.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Whether we like all of Gould's interpretations, or not, or recognize his musicianship, or not, I presume that we can all agree that he as so eccentric that some might think he was, personally, more than a little mentally unbalanced?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

He isn’t alone, particularly with regard to this forum.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

JAS said:


> Whether we like all of Gould's interpretations, or not, or recognize his musicianship, or not, I presume that we can all agree that he as so eccentric that some might think he was, personally, more than a little mentally unbalanced?


I can only speak for myself, but his eccentricity is so obvious, I too would presume we'd all agree on it.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

In response to part of post #48. 
“Well, firstly you don't understand what 'begging the question' means. It does not mean "it prompts the question", which is what you are trying to say here. “

With regard to your having a go at me for my supposed incorrect use of the phrase “begging the question” I think you’ll find that in modern vernacular usage, “begging the question” is often used to mean "raising the question" or "suggesting the question". Sometimes it is confused with "dodging the question", an attempt to avoid it. (With thanks to Wikipedia :tiphat
Welcome to the 21st century.

Your pedantry is no surprise given the breathtaking arrogance of your initial post and your subsequent responses to other posters on this thread. 

I am still curious as to why, regardless of the medium, you felt the need to listen to this recording again. It was clearly not some unreleased recording that you had never heard before so I can only assume that you were merely reinforcing your existing prejudice rather than hoping for some new revelation that would convince you that you had been wrong all along. 

I could do this all day but I actually have a life so I will cease responding. But sometimes I get so annoyed I have to retaliate.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I can only speak for myself, but his eccentricity is so obvious, I too would presume we'd all agree on it.


Which "begs the question", does this make Gould a musical idiot?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> Which "begs the question", does this make Gould a musical idiot?


Are you using "begs the question" in the modern vernacular sense or in the classical Aristotlean sense?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Barbebleu said:


> Are you using "begs the question" in the modern vernacular sense or in the classical Aristotlean sense?


I think it sort of works both ways in this case, but I used quotation marks just in case. As phrased, it works more in the modern sense.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Barbebleu said:


> In response to part of post #48.
> "Well, firstly you don't understand what 'begging the question' means. It does not mean "it prompts the question", which is what you are trying to say here. "
> 
> With regard to your having a go at me for my supposed incorrect use of the phrase "begging the question" I think you'll find that in modern vernacular usage, "begging the question" is often used to mean "raising the question" or "suggesting the question". Sometimes it is confused with "dodging the question", an attempt to avoid it. Welcome to the 21st century.


No, begging the question has always meant 'assume the premise you're trying to establish'. It's never meant anything other than that, except to people who are not educated enough to know the facts, or are educated sufficiently but simply don't care about it. I shall charitably deduce that you are in this latter category, though you've obviously quoted from the wikipedia article on the subject (without attribution), so maybe not. I can't tell. All I can say is that the 'vernacular usage' is what people call it when crowds are wrong.

*Edited to add*: It's good to see that subsequent to my making the above point about Wikipedia and a lack of attribution you went back and edited your post to add the attribution. I thought you'd left to get on with your real life, but obviously something delayed your departure: the belated correction is appreciated anyway.



Barbebleu said:


> Your pedantry is no surprise given the breathtaking arrogance of your initial post and your subsequent responses to other posters on this thread.


My responses to all posters in this thread has been polite and engaged and willing to discuss. The same cannot be said of you.



Barbebleu said:


> I am still curious as to why, regardless of the medium, you felt the need to listen to this recording again. It was clearly not some unreleased recording that you had never heard before so I can only assume that you were merely reinforcing your existing prejudice rather than hoping for some new revelation that would convince you that you had been wrong all along.


Never assume. It gets you into all sorts of difficulties. Like being wrong.



Barbebleu said:


> I could do this all day but I actually have a life so I will cease responding. But sometimes I get so annoyed I have to retaliate.


For it to be retaliation, I need to have attacked you first. I haven't done so, despite you accusing me of arrogance and 'being in direct communication with Bach', of 'hijacking a thread' and 'having an obvious agenda'; and telling me to 'toddle off' and to 'pipe down', as if you've got some self-annointed executive power about these parts.

You really should just try to calm down: there's someone out there who doesn't agree with you and is able to argue the case to some extent or other.

You like Gould: good for you. I think you've been duped. I think your enthusiasm is mis-directed. I think you've been done a disservice by someone who wasn't very musical, but was merely very dextrous at the keyboard. Live with the difference in views.

And feel free not to respond. I shan't mind. One bit.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> Which "begs the question", does this make Gould a musical idiot?


No, it merely prompts the question, and the answer to that question would be: no, I think he's a musical idiot regardless of his eccentricities or, potential, mental health issues.

Though of course it's always difficult to disentangle factors. So I wouldn't be prescriptive on the subject.


----------



## Machiavel (Apr 12, 2010)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> And my point is that if Bach wouldn't have approved of Gould, no-one else should be doing so either. *He's a 'Get Me Out Of Here, I'm A Celebrity" pianist, not someone who actually was profoundly musical.*
> 
> He's in the same league as Stokowski. Big noise, big look-at-me, little actual music understanding, little actual conveyance of musical insight... and I simply don't get why otherwise intelligent people indulge him in his nonsense.
> 
> Especially since he's dead and intelligent people ought to know better. (And plenty do, so dismiss me as an idiot if you like, but that doesn't make the substantial body of criticism of him disappear).


Jesus I hope you don't play piano because you should stop it at once. are you like 10 years old?

You have to be troll. Gould not profound musically.

Guess its time to listen to god André Rieu then.

The idioties you can read sometimes on this forum, just wow.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Machiavel said:


> Jesus I hope you don't play piano because you should stop it at once. are you like 10 years old?
> 
> You have to be troll. Gould not profound musically.
> 
> ...


Indeed.

I find Gould musically superficial and incapable of arriving at a true conception of the composer's intention for a piece -because he didn't _care_ what that conception was, he was only concerned with his own thoughts on the matter. Read my Bernstein v. Callas quotes again for a non-troll description of the actual problem. Post #38, if it helps).

No, I'm not 10. No, I don't play the piano, except really badly. No, I don't listen to André Rieu. And have you ever thought of checking someone's profile to determine some of the facts before you start lobbing 'troll' accusations around? Evidently not, it seems.

Are you representative of all Gould cult members? I only ask, because merely to mention criticism of the GG seems to summon forth a mountain of froth and bile directed at the critic, without any substantial intellectual arguments to back them up. It's a curious phenomenon.

I've got one person going through all posts on a topic he's never once contributed to and madly clicking 'like' for anyone with whom I have disagreed; and now you're telling me that if I don't think the Sun Shines out of GG's foot pedals, I should stop playing the piano. Well, it's a form of argument, I suppose. Barely.


----------



## Machiavel (Apr 12, 2010)

You quote Bernstein one of the most cheesecake and over the top sentimental conductor .lol

The conductor who conducts not Mahler but Bernstein interpretation of Mahler over the top.

Should have pick someone else than the Conductor who did his own thing. I will go fast there, slow there, f if the composer wanted something else, it’s me,me , me


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Machiavel said:


> You quote Bernstein one of the most cheesecake and over the top sentimental conductor .lol


Oh, I see. I call Gould an idiot, and that's beyond the pale, but it's OK to call Bernstein a cheesecake. These are interesting forum rules with which I was not previously familiar.



Machiavel said:


> The conductor who conducts not Mahler but Bernstein interpretation of Mahler over the top.
> 
> Should have pick someone else than the Conductor who did his own thing. I will go fast there, slow there, f if the composer wanted something else, it's me,me , me


OK. I'll quote someone else, since Bernstein's not doing anything for you (him being such a musical cheesecake, and all).

_His thoughts on music are often illuminating and yet sometimes he seemed to court controversy (and thereby publicity!) for its own sake.[...] He described [Beethoven]'s middle-period as the "supreme example of a composer on an ego trip". The stupendous fugue in the finale of the 'Hammerklavier' Sonata was for Gould "mathematical tomfoolery".

Opus 109 opens with a flowing tempo and quiet sense of purpose, but the right-hand is scrappy, the dynamics and rhythm not fully controlled, nor are the numerous tempo variations observed. Gould seems to want to suppress the huge expressive range of this startlingly original opening paragraph. There is a similar problem in the Prestissimo second movement, which lacks power and coherence. In the sublime finale - Gesangvoll, mit innigster Empfinding: Andante molto cantabile ed espressivo Gould - is elegantly superficial; there is no sense of innigkeit, and the tempo for the first Variation is far too fast and semiquaver figures are devoid of lightness, line and flow - one-dimensional and superficial. The magisterial command and profundity of Solomon (1951) or Kovacevich (1996) are nowhere to be found. Timings generally don't tell you much about the quality of a performance, but Solomon takes 13 minutes for the finale's Variations and Gould takes the same time for the entire work!

[Of the Opus 110] Gould has a certain innocent tranquillity, but seems unable to highlight significant moments and expressive changes. As in Opus 109 his view is one-dimensional. Kovacevich (in 2003) by comparison uses just about every pianistic device known to quietly map the movement out without appearing to be use artifice - it all comes from the heart. [...] Unfortunately the repeated chords which announce the Fugue are astonishingly crude and the rest of the sonata comes close to being crass. The pianist simply shows contempt, verging on hatred, for the music.

Of Opus 111 little can be said. The opening Allegro is ridiculously fast.

These performances raise a serious question about Gould's desire to remove part of the interpreting artist's conscious personality from music-making. Gould was only 23 when these sonatas were recorded, but his desire to eliminate any sense of spirituality from these works sounds decidedly conscious. _

And since you're obviously going to say that Rob Pennock is a maple-syrup dressed pancake (or some other dessert of your choosing), I'll close with the New York Times:
_
Mr. Gould was always an unorthodox pianist, choosing isolation over society, recordings over live concerts and idiosyncratic reinterpretations over respect for musical "authenticity."
[...]
The results, though, have been controversial. Some critics assailed what they considered his almost cruel distortion of some of the Mozart piano sonatas, his neglect of phrase markings, his willful arpeggiations of chords, his emphasis of inner voices and his lack of respect for "authenticity" and period style. _

See, the point is that you and I disagree on whether Gould was any good or not. That's all. I've even conceded that he was _talented_ and was very dextrous at the keyboard. He's not an entirely empty vessel, in other words -just someone who was more concerned that you should listen to _him_ and his ideas rather than to get to any underlying 'truth' about what the composer might have intended. An approach to music-making I think idiotic and thus I've called him an idiot, which seems to have upset a few people.

But there's no real reason for you (or them) to throw toys out of a pram by way of response. It's just that we disagree.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I find *Gould musically superficial* and incapable of arriving at a true conception of the composer's intention for a piece -because he didn't _care_ what that conception was, he was only concerned with his own thoughts on the matter. Read my Bernstein v. Callas quotes again for a non-troll description of the actual problem. Post #38, if it helps).
> 
> ...


I don't see Gould as prophetic in any way, but I don't see him as superficial either. Generally I think he's like "what if I played it this way, or put it in this light". I'm usually not too fond of what he does, or even find it that especially illuminating. But he himself admitted he's not fond of some of the stuff he does "in the moment". Superficial is more what I would call someone like Lang Lang, in just drilling through the music with a certain swagger.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't see Gould as prophetic in any way, but I don't see him as superficial either. Generally I think he's like "what if I played it this way, or put it in this light". I'm usually not too fond of what he does, or even find it that especially illuminating. But he himself admitted he's not fond of some of the stuff he does "in the moment". Superficial is more what I would call someone like Lang Lang, in just drilling through the music with a certain swagger.


I don't know who Lang Lang is: it sounds like he or she might be a giant panda in Washington National Zoo, for all I know 

I think I take your point, though, anyway: there's no doubt Gould thought about his performances a lot and that therefore makes the charge of superficiality tricky to make. Bernstein said as much about the infamous Brahms performance: Gould had a _conception_ of the work he found odd. You don't get conceptions of works and how they should be played without thought.

But what you get in a Gould performance is a window into Gould, with barely a sighting of the composer possible. So there might well be a lot of Gouldian depth, but there's little Bachian insight, let's say.

I'm afraid he always makes me think of a child's temper tantrum (and some of the temper tantrums on display in this thread strike me similarly): a lot of effort and energy no doubt expended, but to what end, other than the "look at me!" school of drama.

So when I said "I find Gould musically superficial", I think I mis-spoke. I should have said "musically insincere" or similar.

*Edited to add:* OK, I went and found a Lang Lang Goldberg. It's awful, you're right!


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Gould's pretty popular on Youtube - and the cleaned up version is at the top....5.8 million views.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

janxharris said:


> Gould's pretty popular on Youtube - and the cleaned up version is at the top....5.8 million views.


What's the phrase? Oh yeah... there's one born every minute 

I see Taylor Swift is regularly in the top 20 most-watched Youtube videos. I think it safe to conclude that we cannot draw musical conclusions from Youtube popularity statistics :lol:

He's pretty popular about these parts, too, it would seem. Indeed, he seems to have acquired quite the Prætorian Guard!


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

There's a lot about Gould's playing that I like and there's a lot about it that I don't. The fact of the matter though is that aside from a recording of Bach's French Overture (BWV 831) apparently for the CBC that I came across on YT, there isn't anything Gould recorded that I feel is in any way definitive or a reference point. When it comes to Bach on the piano I prefer Tureck, Schiff and Perahia. I absolutely dislike Gould's 1955 Goldberg recording and don't care to hear it again no matter how doctored up it may be. It is interesting to read others' opinions about it though.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

consuono said:


> There's a lot about Gould's playing that I like and there's a lot about it that I don't. The fact of the matter though is that aside from a recording of Bach's French Overture (BWV 831) apparently for the CBC that I came across on YT, there isn't anything Gould recorded that I feel is in any way definitive or a reference point. When it comes to Bach on the piano I prefer Tureck, Schiff and Perahia. I absolutely dislike Gould's 1955 Goldberg recording and don't care to hear it again no matter how doctored up it may be. It is interesting to read others' opinions about it though.


Yup, Perahia and Schiff for me on piano; Suzuki on harpsichord. I've got 9 different versions though... I like to mix them up with other intelligent players now and then.

I thought this one was rather good, too:


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

It's fine to argue post content, but please refrain from negative personal comments.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> What's the phrase? Oh yeah... there's one born every minute
> 
> I see Taylor Swift is regularly in the top 20 most-watched Youtube videos. I think it safe to conclude that we cannot draw musical conclusions from Youtube popularity statistics :lol:
> 
> He's pretty popular about these parts, too, it would seem. Indeed, he seems to have acquired quite the Prætorian Guard!


You are doubting the perspicacity of some Bach lovers?


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

janxharris said:


> You are doubting the perspicacity of some Bach lovers?


I think I'm saying there are Gould lovers; and then there are Bach lovers. And whilst the Venn Diagram of the two sets might have some overlap, on the whole, if you adore the one, you're not going to adore the other; and vice versa.


----------



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I think I'm saying there are Gould lovers; and then there are Bach lovers. And whilst the Venn Diagram of the two sets might have some overlap, on the whole, if you adore the one, you're not going to adore the other; and vice versa.


I'll pay you the compliment of assuming you are joking. Glenn Gould and Bach was one of the most popular combinations in 20th century classical music. It isn't remotely true that most people _either_ adore Gould or Bach. Check out this thread of any other Bach thread for more evidence. Best or Favorite interpreter of Bach's "Keyboard" works.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I think I'm saying there are Gould lovers; and then there are Bach lovers. And whilst the Venn Diagram of the two sets might have some overlap, on the whole, if you adore the one, you're not going to adore the other; and vice versa.


The popularity of Gould interpreting Bach seems to suggest otherwise.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

BenG said:


> I'll pay you the compliment of assuming you are joking. Glenn Gould and Bach was one of the most popular combinations in 20th century classical music. It isn't remotely true that most people _either_ adore Gould or Bach. Check out this thread of any other Bach thread for more evidence. Best or Favorite interpreter of Bach's "Keyboard" works.


Well, it's an opinion. I do think hardcore Gould fans sometimes fail to see the forest for the trees and instead are captivated more by Gould's quirkiness. I suppose it gets a little irritating having Gould held up as *the* exemplar of Bach playing when he was not. As somebody said above, Gould made it more about himself and less about the music. Plus GG's playing always seemed as cold as a witch's elbow to me.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Gramophone includes Glenn Gould's 1981 recording of the GVs: 'This truly astonishing performance..........'


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

BenG said:


> I'll pay you the compliment of assuming you are joking. Glenn Gould and Bach was one of the most popular combinations in 20th century classical music. It isn't remotely true that most people _either_ adore Gould or Bach. Check out this thread of any other Bach thread for more evidence. Best or Favorite interpreter of Bach's "Keyboard" works.


I'll likewise pay you the compliment of assuming you haven't read the entire thread!

Leave aside words like "popular" for the moment, please, because that means nothing (as I say, Taylor Swift is far more "popular" than either Bach or Gould are ever going to be).

My contention is precisely that if you like Bach (intelligently) you _cannot_ -or perhaps _should_ not- like Gould, for Gould doesn't play Bach but Gould's conception of Bach, in which the Gould component is far more important than any Bach residue that there might be.

And I've already cited lots and lots of people (critics and conductors alike) who have expressed pretty much that thought.

You certainly don't have to agree with that view, but you needn't assume anyone who advocates it must be joking.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

janxharris said:


> The popularity of Gould interpreting Bach seems to suggest otherwise.


Enough with the "popularity" argument!
Taylor Swift is popular! Gangnam Style is popular! So what? 
'Popular' indicates nothing about 'merit', let us say. 
Indeed, the very existence of this forum would be in question if we bowed before the gods of popular.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

janxharris said:


> Gramophone includes Glenn Gould's 1981 recording of the GVs: 'This truly astonishing performance..........'


Good for you, good for gramophone ...and so what?

"The opening Allegro is ridiculously fast."
"his right-hand is scrappy, the dynamics and rhythm not fully controlled, nor are the numerous tempo variations observed."
"the Prestissimo second movement lacks power and coherence."
"his almost cruel distortion of some of the Mozart piano sonatas, his neglect of phrase markings, his willful arpeggiations of chords, his emphasis of inner voice"
And on and on.

I mean, we can bat quotes from people back and forth, can't we?


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

There has certainly been a trend lately on this forum to derail threads with inflammatory and argumentative nonsense. A few members may need to be purged from the forum.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Enough with the "popularity" argument!
> Taylor Swift is popular! Gangnam Style is popular! So what?
> 'Popular' indicates nothing about 'merit', let us say.
> Indeed, the very existence of this forum would be in question if we bowed before the gods of popular.


Bach was and is popular - it's not a bad thing. He has 5.6 million monthly listeners on Spotify - that's _very_ high.

Your 'on the whole, if you adore the one, you're not going to adore the other; and vice versa,' is contradicted by the evidence.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Waldesnacht said:


> There has certainly been a trend lately on this forum to derail threads with inflammatory and argumentative nonsense. A few members may need to be purged from the forum.


Says the man whose profile includes a quote from Hans von Bülow that reads "The three greatest composers are Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. All the others are cretins."

Very non-inflammatory, non-argumentative and profoundly not-nonsense there! Not.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

5.6 Million Gould Fans Can't be Wrong.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

janxharris said:


> Bach was and is popular - it's not a bad thing. He has 5.6 million monthly listeners on Spotify - that's _very_ high.
> 
> Your 'on the whole, if you adore the one, you're not going to adore the other; and vice versa,' is contradicted by the evidence.


Well, I said it was my "contention", not evidence-backed, but since you say you've got evidence that contradicts my contention, I'd be keen to see it.

For it to be effective in that role, however, you'd have to provide me the number of listeners to Gould, the number of listeners to Bach, and point out the degree of overlap between the two sets of listeners. Since that would require you to remove all the Schiff, Gardiner and Suzuki listeners from the Bach numbers; and all the Brahms and Beethoven listeners from the Gould numbers, I don't think you're going to be able to make that case stick.

I don't use Spotify myself, so maybe you can do that, and all power to your elbow if you can. As I say, I would be genuinely interested to see the numbers properly analyzed, if it's possible to do so.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

Waldesnacht said:


> There has certainly been a trend lately on this forum to derail threads with inflammatory and argumentative nonsense. A few members may need to be purged from the forum.


People pick some terribly strange hills to die on.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> My contention is precisely that if you like Bach (intelligently) you _cannot_ -or perhaps _should_ not- like Gould, for Gould doesn't play Bach but Gould's conception of Bach, in which the Gould component is far more important than any Bach residue that there might be.


I certainly know how you feel about Gould but am curious as to the Bach keyboardists you do hold in high esteem.


----------



## Caryatid (Mar 28, 2020)

I like the Zenph concept and have enjoyed what few recordings have come of it so far, including the Gould album. It is impossible to reproduce exactly how he would have sounded, but my understanding is that they get close. It certainly _sounds_ to me plausibly like a Gould performance. The main source of difference is likely the tuning of the piano, which cannot be perfectly recreated.

As for Gould himself, my view is that in some respects he had the best technique of any recorded pianist, but his judgement was poor and as a result most of his recordings are mainly of curiousity value.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> I certainly know how you feel about Gould but am curious as to the Bach keyboardists you do hold in high esteem.


I thought I'd mentioned them earlier. On piano, Schiff and Perahia; on harpsichord, Suzuki and Leonhardt.

Edited to add: I just remembered that I recently bought Lars Vogt's Goldbergs, recorded in 2014, and quite liked them too (piano-based). I think I earlier linked to a harpsichord recording from the Netherlands Bach Society's series of another Goldberg performance by Jean Rondeau, and I liked that very much.

I also have recordings by Belder (harpsichord, acceptable); and Kempf (piano, awful).


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Caryatid said:


> I like the Zenph concept and have enjoyed what few recordings have come of it so far, including the Gould album. It is impossible to reproduce exactly how he would have sounded, but my understanding is that they get close. It certainly _sounds_ to me plausibly like a Gould performance. The main source of difference is likely the tuning of the piano, which cannot be perfectly recreated.
> 
> As for Gould himself, my view is that in some respects he had the best technique of any recorded pianist, but his judgement was poor and as a result most of his recordings are mainly of curiousity value.


In case people don't know what the 'Zenph concept' is, I refer them to this article from the New York Times, which is possibly behind a paywall, so I here also paste the most pertinent bits:

_



Zenph claimed it could take a 50-year-old mono recording and distill from its hiss-laden, squished sound all of the musical information that originally went into it. It wouldn't "process" the recording to get rid of noise; it wouldn't pretend to turn mono into stereo; it wouldn't try to correct things that were sonically "wrong." Instead the claim was that it would, using its proprietary software, learn from recorded sound precisely how an instrument - a piano, for starters - was played, with what force a key was struck, how far down the sustain pedal was pressed, when each finger moved, how each note was weighted in a complex chord and what sort of timbre was actually produced.

Then it would effectively recreate the instrument. A digital file encoded with this information would be read by Yamaha's advanced Disklavier Pro - a computerized player piano - and transformed into music. A recorded piano becomes a played piano. This would be sonic teleportation, monochromatic forms reincarnated as three-dimensional sound - not colorization but re-creation.

Click to expand...

_The article goes on:
_



John Q. Walker, Zenph's president, knows this as well. He is a brilliant software engineer (who did important work in computer networking) and a musician who speaks of his enterprise with impassioned fervor. Last week, when he started the Yamaha instrument playing his encodings of Gould, something thrilling really did take place. The piano produced sounds that were indisputably human and unmistakably Gouldian. The playing could not have come from any other pianist.

But wait. ... Gould's recorded piano sound is dry, as if each note were squeezed free of moisture. The phrases quiver; connections between notes are tensile, as if they were being held together by sinews. But at the demonstration the sound was often plump, rotund, even bell-like. That is partly the character of Yamaha pianos. And isn't that a problem? Any great pianist will adjust a performance to the instrument, treating one with a "wet sound" differently from one with more sharply etched qualities, phrasing differently, even adjusting tempo. This difference in instruments limits Zenph's claims; it also seemed to slacken the music's sinews.

Click to expand...

_And by way of summary:
_



The process is mind-bogglingly complex. And at every moment there are also human decisions - adjustments of the piano, musical alterations. Perhaps over time both human practice and technological possibilities will evolve further, leaving fewer distinctions. A recording by Art Tatum is due next from Zenph, along with other recordings from Sony BMG Masterworks' rich archives.

But why all this effort? (Five man-months for a "reperformance," as Mr. Walker explained.) Partly perhaps because contemporary sound is considered preferable and marketable. Partly because, as Zenph's Web site points out, the great recordings of the past are passing into the public domain. The European Union allows just 50 years of protection - and this is a way of maintaining proprietary control.

But is the result really musically superior? It could only be that if there were absolutely nothing lost and every difference were an improvement; neither is the case. This is a disappointment then, though one that is exhilarating in its enterprise and promise.

Click to expand...

_From my perspective, a 'real' Gould recording would be bad enough to start with. But a recreated Gould recording that has to be tuned, tweaked and technically-fiddled with to get it to work at all, and which ends up not _quite_ sounding like Gould, and which is only created to get around copyright restrictions... is problematic. However, the lack of moaning, groaning and crooning is a definite plus!


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I liked this thread better when it was about Glenn Gould and UFOs.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

SONNET CLV said:


> I liked this thread better when it was about Glenn Gould and UFOs.


Yeah, 'cos then the Goulders didn't have to engage with contrary opinions!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I thought I'd mentioned them earlier. On piano, Schiff and Perahia; on harpsichord, Suzuki and Leonhardt.
> 
> Edited to add: I just remembered that I recently bought Lars Vogt's Goldbergs, recorded in 2014, and quite liked them too (piano-based). I think I earlier linked to a harpsichord recording from the Netherlands Bach Society's series of another Goldberg performance by Jean Rondeau, and I liked that very much.
> 
> I also have recordings by Belder (harpsichord, acceptable); and Kempf (piano, awful).


I think much better of the Belder than you and find Perahia rather bland. The others mentioned are fine.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> I think much better of the Belder than you and find Perahia rather bland. The others mentioned are fine.


I don't mind the Belder: it's just that it came in my Brilliant Classics "everything ever written by Bach" boxed set, and accordingly gets mentally tarred as being of the same set as the truly awful Leusink cantatas. I find him a bit too slow, that's all. His harpsichord's a bit 'ringy' too, in a way that Suzuki's isn't (his is just bright and clear).


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

> [Originally Posted by AbsolutelyBaching View Post
> My contention is precisely that if you like Bach (intelligently) you cannot -or perhaps should not- like Gould, for Gould doesn't play Bach but Gould's conception of Bach, in which the Gould component is far more important than any Bach residue that there might be.





Bulldog said:


> I certainly know how you feel about Gould but am curious as to the Bach keyboardists you do hold in high esteem.


Glenn Gould is far from the only performer to play his own conception of Bach. Off hand, I can think of "Switched on Bach," "PDQ Bach," the "Bach in Jazz" trio, and Vikingur Olafsson's "Reworking" of Bach. I wouldn't imagine that @AbsolutelyBaching finds any of these conceptions "intelligent," but I don't know. I'm not a big fan of Gould, but I am by no means offended by his interpretations of Bach any more than I'm offended by the other non-standard conceptions, which to me fall along the spectrum of good fun through somewhat revelatory. As for the specific recordings of any of Gould, I simply can't deal with his vocalizations, so I only listen to recordings that are cleaned up like the subject Zenph re-performance, which I find good at least because there are so many fans of Gould's Bach that it would be sort of antisocial, IMO, for a Bach enthusiast not to have some familiarity with it.

I'm one of those rigid old types who definitely prefers harpsichord performances of Bach's keyboard works. FWIW, my personal favorites are Bob van Asperen for WTC, Gustav Leonhardt for die Kunst der Fuge, and Jory Vinikour for the Goldberg Variations. For me, once the modern piano is used to interpret Bach, anything goes; make it enjoyable, make it fun, make it anything that people like. In this vein, I find Gould pretty good when cleaned up, but I really like Vikingur Olafsson. While he's more conventional than Gould, he doesn't get into the authenticity game, which is not a game you can join using the piano. He just plays so that Bach sounds beautiful, deep, transparent, and classy, which is an aesthetic I can usually appreciate.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> While he's more conventional than Gould, he doesn't get into the authenticity game, which is not a game you can join using the piano.


Not that pianists should want to join. The "authenticity game" is delusional posturing, for the most part.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I don't mind the Belder: it's just that it came in my Brilliant Classics "everything ever written by Bach" boxed set, and accordingly gets mentally tarred as being of the same set as the truly awful Leusink cantatas. I find him a bit too slow, that's all. His harpsichord's a bit 'ringy' too, in a way that Suzuki's isn't (his is just bright and clear).


Belder uses a different harpsichord for each Book.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Simplicissimus said:


> Glenn Gould is far from the only performer to play his own conception of Bach. Off hand, I can think of "Switched on Bach," "PDQ Bach," the "Bach in Jazz" trio, and Vikingur Olafsson's "Reworking" of Bach. I wouldn't imagine that @AbsolutelyBaching finds any of these conceptions "intelligent," but I don't know. I'm not a big fan of Gould, but I am by no means offended by his interpretations of Bach any more than I'm offended by the other non-standard conceptions, which to me fall along the spectrum of good fun through somewhat revelatory. As for the specific recordings of any of Gould, I simply can't deal with his vocalizations, so I only listen to recordings that are cleaned up like the subject Zenph re-performance, which I find good at least because there are so many fans of Gould's Bach that it would be sort of antisocial, IMO, for a Bach enthusiast not to have some familiarity with it.
> 
> I'm one of those rigid old types who definitely prefers harpsichord performances of Bach's keyboard works. FWIW, my personal favorites are Bob van Asperen for WTC, Gustav Leonhardt for die Kunst der Fuge, and Jory Vinikour for the Goldberg Variations. For me, once the modern piano is used to interpret Bach, anything goes; make it enjoyable, make it fun, make it anything that people like. In this vein, I find Gould pretty good when cleaned up, but I really like Vikingur Olafsson. While he's more conventional than Gould, he doesn't get into the authenticity game, which is not a game you can join using the piano. He just plays so that Bach sounds beautiful, deep, transparent, and classy, which is an aesthetic I can usually appreciate.


My listening habits aren't a secret or anything. PDQ Bach is in my top 50! I particularly enjoy the Ode to Big Daddy Bach, which I think dates to his Soused Period.

I find PDQ one of the most intelligent forms of musical comedy going. Thing is, I listen to him for fun, which is what's advertised on the tin. So there's no confusion... and no mis-selling. Ditto Wendy Carlos. I haven't listened to Switched on Bach since the 1970s, when my brother-in-law confused it for 'real' classical music and tried to show me that he got classical music too, but that's OK: I enjoyed it for what it was. It clearly wasn't pretending to be Bach Bach, but "Switched on Bach" with a nice photo of a geezer in a periwig and some electric keyboards around him: you also got what was clearly advertised on the tin.

Those aren't "non-standard conceptions of Bach". They are (at least in Switched on Bach's case) a modern re-construction of Bach (and way in the Premier League of re-imagining as compared to moving from harpsichord to piano).

And I do have some familiarity with Gould's 're-conceptioning' of Bach. I wouldn't dare open my mouth if I didn't have at least some vague clue as to what I was talking about. Trouble with Gould's "re-conceptioning" of the Goldbergs is... which one? Because the 1955 one is way different from his 1981's second go at it. Chalk and cheese, indeed.

Anyway: I like my product warnings clearly labelled on the tin. PDQ and Wendy Carlos do that. Gould doesn't. (And then doesn't play Bach particularly well into the bargain, as far as I'm concerned).


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> Belder uses a different harpsichord for each Book.


Well, I wasn't aware that the Goldberg Variations came in more than one book! 

I assume you're talking about the Well-Tempered Clavier books? I was referring to the 'ringy' nature of the harpsichord Belder uses in his recording of the Goldbergs (CD2-11 in the Brilliant Classics 155-CD Bach Edition, where he plays on a single 'Flemish harpsichord after Ruckers, by Cornelis Bom, Schoonhoven 1999').

I think that's the same harpsichord he uses for Book 2 of the WTC.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, I said it was my "contention", not evidence-backed, but since you say you've got evidence that contradicts my contention, I'd be keen to see it.
> 
> For it to be effective in that role, however, you'd have to provide me the number of listeners to Gould, the number of listeners to Bach, and point out the degree of overlap between the two sets of listeners. Since that would require you to remove all the Schiff, Gardiner and Suzuki listeners from the Bach numbers; and all the Brahms and Beethoven listeners from the Gould numbers, I don't think you're going to be able to make that case stick.
> 
> I don't use Spotify myself, so maybe you can do that, and all power to your elbow if you can. As I say, I would be genuinely interested to see the numbers properly analyzed, if it's possible to do so.


I think the onus would be on yourself - Gould seems to come out on top whether on Spotify or Youtube. I don't quite get your complicated analysis.

I have no agenda here.


----------



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> On the whole, if you adore the one, you are not going to adore the other; and vice versa.





AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Leave aside words like "popular" for the moment, please, because that means nothing (as I say, Taylor Swift is far more "popular" than either Bach or Gould are ever going to be).


You made the claim that typically Bach lovers and not Gould lovers, and vice versa. That is a claim about _popularity_. Why can I not respond, saying that the popularity of Bach and Gould suggests otherwise?


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

BenG said:


> You made the claim that typically Bach lovers and not Gould lovers, and vice versa. That is a claim about _popularity_. Why can I not respond, saying that the popularity of Bach and Gould suggests otherwise?


No it's not.

There are people who eat beans, and there are people who eat peas. And on the whole, the bean-lovers and not going to be pea-lovers, and vice versa.

That's a statement about the typical behaviour of vegetable-eaters in the aggregate. It's not a statement about whether peas are more popular than beans.

Had I said that "on the whole, you'll find more Gould-lovers than Bach-lovers", fine: that would have been a statement about the relative popularity of Bach and Gould. But I didn't say that, so no: I wasn't making a popularity-based claim.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

janxharris said:


> I think the onus would be on yourself - Gould seems to come out on top whether on Spotify or Youtube. I don't quite get your complicated analysis.
> 
> I have no agenda here.


Well, you made the claim that "The popularity of Gould interpreting Bach seems to suggest otherwise". And the "otherwise" you referred to was my statement that "if you adore Gould you won't adore Bach and vice versa"

So you were saying (I thought) that Gould's popularity numbers on Spotify (and Youtube) indicate that Gould lovers WILL be Bach lovers and vice versa.

And my answer to that was simply to point out that Gould played not just Bach, but Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms (and other stuff too). So if you're going to say "5.6 million listeners to Gould proves that Gould-lovers can be Bach lovers", you'll need to remove the non-Bach Gould from the Gould statistics before you can substantiate that claim.

Likewise, lots of people play Bach, so you can't point to Bach's Spotify numbers and say "Look, Bach's popular, so that proves a Bach lover can be a Gould fan", unless you remove from the statistics all those Bach performances that _weren't_ by Gould.

It's not a complicated statistical analysis. It's saying you've got a boxed of mixed fruit, and if you want to compare the apples with the oranges, you've got to first remove the pears, bananas and cherries.

And since you were the one making the claim that Spotify numbers "indicate otherwise", the onus is on you to do the statistical cleaning up, I'd have said.

I don't have an agenda either. I just think Gould's pretty awful, and quoting performance numbers on sites like Spotify or Youtube to persuade me otherwise won't work for me. I was prepared to consider a more thoughtful representation of those numbers that _would_ -or _might_- really prove that the bulk of Bach fans are also Gould fans: but those Spotify and Youtube statistics as they are won't demonstrate that. And that's the only point I was trying to make to you.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I thought I'd mentioned them earlier. On piano, Schiff and Perahia; on harpsichord, Suzuki and Leonhardt.
> 
> Edited to add: I just remembered that I recently bought Lars Vogt's Goldbergs, recorded in 2014, and quite liked them too (piano-based). I think I earlier linked to a harpsichord recording from the Netherlands Bach Society's series of another Goldberg performance by Jean Rondeau, and I liked that very much.
> 
> I also have recordings by Belder (harpsichord, acceptable); and Kempf (piano, awful).


I have to say I HATE Perahia on Goldberg. I have the same problem with him in Mozart. I feel he tries to subtle-phrase everything he touches, softening certain notes to add an air of lyricism, emphasize certain notes. When it works for me, it's great (I found his Mozart Concerto 21 revelatory, and his #22 for once not overly-subtle), but when it doesn't it drives me NUTS! I prefer the coldness of Gould over him for sure. I feel Angela Hewitt does the subtle/lyrical approach much better than Perahia. But Schiff I agree is untouchable. I find him way more subtle in a more balanced way than Perahia.

I admit my abhorrence of him is subjective, because there is nothing to suggest he's wrong, when during his relaxing, I expect the opposite and vice versa.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

^What Perahia does on the piano is like what Karajan does with the orchestra. Not saying it’s a bad thing - I generally like them both - just something I have to be in a specific mood for in order to enjoy.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ^What Perahia does on the piano is like what Karajan does with the orchestra. Not saying it's a bad thing - I generally like them both - just something I have to be in a specific mood for in order to enjoy.


Agreed. Considering AbsoluteBachKing's chief complaint against Gould is that he plays in a way that doesn't respect the composer's wishes, I found it particularly hilarious that his champion of choice is Perahia (who I do like, in any case).


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> Agreed. Considering AbsoluteBachKing's chief complaint against Gould is that he plays in a way that doesn't respect the composer's wishes, I found it particularly hilarious that his champion of choice is Perahia (who I do like, in any case).


Please try spelling my name/handle correctly. There's no 'K'. Polite request.

Perahia is not my "champion of choice".

I know of Perahia because he was to some extent a Benjamin Britten protege (kind of) and I've been listening to his recordings for years in consequence. I'm not saying he's great or good, merely that his is a recording I've grown accustomed to and don't find too bad. I particularly like his choice of tempo for Variation 5, though I realise it's way faster than most harpsichordists would approve of.

For piano, my go-to is Schiff above all others. At least for now.
For harpsichord, it's Suzuki. And I prefer a harpsichord Goldberg to a piano one in any event.

And my chief complaint about Gould isn't particularly that he doesn't respect the composer's wishes, but that he doesn't care about them in the first place. And then the cherry on top is that he isn't quite the technical perfectionist you seem to want him to be.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Please try spelling my name/handle correctly. There's no 'K'. Polite request.
> 
> Perahia is not my "champion of choice".
> 
> ...


OK, I'm sorry about the name thing. I saw someone else call you that and I thought it was hilarious, especially as you tend to act as an absolute monarch with regard to Bach's music and how it ought to be played, going as far as saying that if someone loves Gould, they don't love Bach, something I'm sure countless among us find extremely offensive. But I can drop it.

As you've mentioned it, I don't "seem to want Gould to be a technical perfectionist". An interpretive perfectionist, maybe, with his obsessive habit of taking multiple takes and even splicing them together at times. As for not caring about the composer's wishes at all, it's simply not true. Idiosyncratic playing is no crime.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> As you've mentioned it, I don't "seem to want Gould to be a technical perfectionist". An interpretive perfectionist, maybe, with his obsessive habit of taking multiple takes and even splicing them together at times. As for not caring about the composer's wishes at all, it's simply not true. Idiosyncratic playing is no crime.


Of course it isn't a crime, but it makes me dislike a performance. My main gripe against Gould is his sometimes harebrained tempo choices which apparently were just attempts to be different. Friedrich Gulda would sometimes do the same thing. It sort of negates whatever beautiful voice-leading skill they also displayed.


AbsolutelyBaching said:


> And my chief complaint about Gould isn't particularly that he doesn't respect the composer's wishes, but that he doesn't care about them in the first place.


Bingo.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> OK, I'm sorry about the name thing. I saw someone else call you that and I thought it was hilarious, especially as you tend to act as an absolute monarch with regard to Bach's music and how it ought to be played, going as far as saying that if someone loves Gould, they don't love Bach, something I'm sure countless among us find extremely offensive. But I can drop it.


First, thanks for the name thing.

Second, I've no idea from where you get the idea that I act as an absolute monarch on Bach performance practice. I've asserted quite strongly an opinion on Gould's playing in this thread, but that's as far as I've gone. I can't play a single musical instrument properly. I have no qualifications regarding music performance except my ears and my eyes (i.e., I can read a score).

And I have _never_ said "if someone loves Gould they don't love Bach". I've said that I believe that on the whole and taken in the aggregate, those who adore Bach _won't_ be Gould fans; and those who adore Gould _won't_ generally like a lot of non-keyboard Bach. I try not to get prescriptive with the "don't": I can't speak for them all, so I, er, don't say "don't". Won't means "will not". It's future tense, so it's speculative (on my part).

I've never personally insulted anyone in this thread, but I've had plenty of insults and abuse and instructions to shut the hell up thrown at me. How in heaven's name someone can get _that_ offended because someone dares to say they think Gould's a musical charlatan, I have no idea.



flamencosketches said:


> As you've mentioned it, I don't "seem to want Gould to be a technical perfectionist". An interpretive perfectionist, maybe, with his obsessive habit of taking multiple takes and even splicing them together at times. As for not caring about the composer's wishes at all, it's simply not true. Idiosyncratic playing is no crime.


Well, I think new interpretations by whomever are fine. Every new CD is a new interpretation of something or other, after all.

But chucking the composer bathwater out with the musical baby isn't just a new 'interpretation'.

I mean that you and I could bat back and forth about Perahia or Schiff or whoever and still consider any of them decent musicians with plusses and minuses, but still musicians nonetheless. But Gould has, for me, just walked off the pitch and invented his own sport. So, I feel strongly about him because I feel he is _that_ bad and has done music -well, Bach specifically- that much disservice.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Thanks. And I have _never_ said if someone loves Gould they don't love Bach. I've said that I believe that on the whole and taken in the aggregate, those who adore Bach _won't_ be Gould fans; and those who adore Gould _won't_ generally like a lot of non-keyboard Bach. I try not to get prescriptive with the "don't": I can't speak for them all, so I, er, don't say "don't". Won't means "will not". It's future tense, so it's speculative (on my part).
> 
> Well, I think new interpretations by whomever are fine. Every new CD is a new interpretation of something or other, after all.
> 
> ...


Considering Gould's Goldberg Variations was _the_ gateway drug into all of Bach for me-and indeed all of classical music-which in case you are not aware has become a major, MAJOR part of my life, (some 6,000 posts later and thousands of dollars spent on CDs), your speculation is quite wrong. My story is not a fluke.

You still haven't specified what makes Gould's Bach so much more egregiously negligent than, say, Perahia's. You just keep finding different ways to say that he sucks, etc. What did he do to do such a disservice to Bach?


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> Your comments are irrelevant to this thread's theme as well as being ridiculous and insulting to some other TC members.


Par for the course for this particular poster, if you ask me.

As for the OP, this "re-performance" seems superfluous to me as well.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> Considering Gould's Goldberg Variations was _the_ gateway drug into all of Bach for me-and indeed all of classical music-which in case you are not aware has become a major, MAJOR part of my life, (some 6,000 posts later and thousands of dollars spent on CDs), your speculation is quite wrong. My story is not a fluke.


Well, I'm sorry, but the fact that you (and I daresay thousands of others) got into Bach via Gould doesn't negate my point and doesn't mean I'm "quite wrong". I said I was talking about people *in the aggregate*. You are an aggregate of 1. Even allowing for thousands of others with equivalent stories, that doesn't mean I'm "quite wrong" if there are, say, a quarter of a million Bach fans who can't stand Gould.

It's like me saying my "in" to classical music was via singing the tenor solo in Britten's _Rejoice in the Lamb_, so everyone needs to love Britten, and if you don't understand or like Britten, you're doing it wrong and know nothing. It would be a dumb thing for me to say, though the first bit about my "in" and about 8000 CDs later would be perfectly true. For me. And for me _only_.

I respect your story and what worked for you clearly worked for you. I wasn't talking about you, though.



flamencosketches said:


> You still haven't specified what makes Gould's Bach so much more egregiously negligent than, say, Perahia's. You just keep finding different ways to say that he sucks, etc. What did he do to do such a disservice to Bach?


I have quoted at length Bernstein's view on Gould's Brahms. I've quoted the New York Times on Gould's Mozart. I've quoted reviews of Gould's Beethoven. And I've quoted criticism of Gould's Bach. It's all in the thread, probably after post #47 and your 'I've got to run to work, but it's been truly a displeasure mincing words with you' comment.

Sorry, but I'm not digging out every reference again. You won't believe a word of it anyway (which is fine: you've made your opinion on Gould clear and I'm not trying to change your mind).

If I had to summarise, it would probably be along the lines of whacky tempi; inner voice dominance; odd dynamics; disrespect of written composer instructions (not in Bach, obviously); and humming and a-crooning away. Also the wilful nature of him putting his conception of things before any desire or attempt to understand a composer's intentions. But for the detail on any of that, look up some of the stuff I've already linked to earlier in the thread.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> Considering Gould's Goldberg Variations was _the_ gateway drug into all of Bach for me-and indeed all of classical music-which in case you are not aware has become a major, MAJOR part of my life, (some 6,000 posts later and thousands of dollars spent on CDs), your speculation is quite wrong. My story is not a fluke.
> ...


Actually that's sort of my story as well. Gould's 1955 recording was one of the first classical LPs I bought as a teenager. I do play the piano, and at that time my skill level wasn't really adequate to play the GV well at all. I've gotten much better and more importantly I've become acquainted with other interpretations, both on the piano and on the harpsichord. Flying through passages doesn't have the "ooh and ahh" effect that it had, now that I can pretty much do that too. In short, I outgrew the Gould recording. I don't want to listen to it at all anymore. It was a "look at me" recording which is understandable coming from a young musician wanting to make his mark. But it's shallow. Unfortunately I don't think Gould himself really outgrew it, even though he tried.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, I'm sorry, but the fact that you (and I daresay thousands of others) got into Bach via Gould doesn't negate my point and doesn't mean I'm "quite wrong". I said I was talking about people *in the aggregate*. You are an aggregate of 1. Even allowing for thousands of others with equivalent stories, that doesn't mean I'm "quite wrong" if there are, say, a quarter of a million Bach fans who can't stand Gould.
> 
> It's like me saying my "in" to classical music was via singing the tenor solo in Britten's _Rejoice in the Lamb_, so everyone needs to love Britten, and if you don't understand or like Britten, you're doing it wrong and know nothing. It would be a dumb thing for me to say, though the first bit about my "in" and about 8000 CDs later would be perfectly true. For me. And for me _only_.
> 
> I respect your story and what worked for you clearly worked for you. I wasn't talking about you, though.


Trust that it's not a rare story in any way; I repeat that it's not a fluke that I got into Bach from Gould. So did millions and millions of others. You are completely misquoting me with your Britten analogy. I _never_ said that everyone should "understand or like" Gould or anything along those lines. I support people hating Gould, and I totally get it! I hate some of his recordings too. But there is a difference between that and calling him all of his fans "idiots". Is this making sense now? It appears you are projecting.



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I have quoted at length Bernstein's view on Gould's Brahms. I've quoted the New York Times on Gould's Mozart. I've quoted reviews of Gould's Beethoven. And I've quoted criticism of Gould's Bach. It's all in the thread, probably after post #47 and your 'I've got to run to work, but it's been truly a displeasure mincing words with you' comment.
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not digging out every reference again. You won't believe a word of it anyway (which is fine: you've made your opinion on Gould clear and I'm not trying to change your mind).
> 
> If I had to summarise, it would probably be along the lines of whacky tempi; inner voice dominance; odd dynamics; disrespect of written composer instructions (not in Bach, obviously); and humming and a-crooning away. Also the wilful nature of him putting his conception of things before any desire or attempt to understand a composer's intentions. But for the detail on any of that, look up some of the stuff I've already linked to earlier in the thread.


Thank you for using your own words rather than the endless quotes, and your assertion that Gould fans are "idiots". Was that so hard?

There are a thousand pianists with recording contracts who play in a way that does not please me. I don't go around calling them and their fans idiots, nor go on tirades against them in threads dedicated to their music.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> Trust that it's not a rare story in any way; I repeat that it's not a fluke that I got into Bach from Gould. So did millions and millions of others.


You literally do not know that. You're just making it up. I think the phrase usually trotted out on such occasions is "citation needed".

Look, it's fine if you want to say that you _suspect_ or _think_ or _are of the opinion that_ millions of people did X or Y. It's a little bit of hyperbole, but that's fine. Sentence construction with such phrases insulates you from the need to be factual.

But don't claim you know what millions of people did, because you simply -and factually- don't.



flamencosketches said:


> Thank you for using your own words rather than the endless quotes, and your assertion that Gould fans are "idiots". Was that so hard?


You keep saying I said things I haven't. You ascribe a "don't" to me, when I didn't say it. You claimed I thought I was a king of Bach performance practice (on no evidence). You claimed I regarded Perahia as my "champion of choice", when I never said any such thing, but merely mentioned him as one of about 4 or 5 performers of the Goldbergs I turn to.

Just stop making things up, please.

And so your suggestion that I said "Gould fans are idiots" is also something you've just completely made up.

What I said (and you can go check) was "Gould is an idiot, and so are the people that buy into his myth."

So no, I didn't call Gould's "fans" idiots. I said people who had brought into his myth were idiots, as Gould himself was. There is a difference between being a fan of something and 'buying into the myth' about something, and precision in expression is something you should take rather more seriously than it seems you do.

If you want to know the difference, you should read what Anton Kuerti has written about "Glenn Gould Worship Syndrome".

Of course, if you happen to classify yourself as someone who _has_ brought into the myth of Gould, that is, a Gould Worshipper rather than just an admirer or fan of his playing, then... well, yes, unfortunately, I think you've backed a doozy and shall feel free to say so.



flamencosketches said:


> There are a thousand pianists with recording contracts who play in a way that does not please me. I don't go around calling them and their fans idiots, nor go on tirades against them in threads dedicated to their music.


Well, good for you. (And neither have I).

*Edited to add:* Since I replied, you've gone back to edit your earlier post and added this:



flamencosketches said:


> You are completely misquoting me with your Britten analogy. I never said that everyone should "understand or like" Gould or anything along those lines. I support people hating Gould, and I totally get it! I hate some of his recordings too. But there is a difference between that and calling him all of his fans "idiots". Is this making sense now?


Not really.

First, let's be really clear that an analogy is not a quotation, so don't start by saying I was "misquoting" you with my Britten analogy.

You were suggesting that Gould could be -had been, for you- a 'gateway' into classical music more generally. I was saying that was fine, but don't go beyond your personal experience -and don't claim deviations from your personal experience are evidence of being "quite wrong" about something. The equivalent would be for me to say that I got into classical music via Britten, so you could too and if you didn't, you would be "quite wrong". My point being that what worked for me might not work for you; just as your experience with Gould as a gateway drug isn't mine and doesn't mean that I'm 'quite wrong' about anything in particular.

The analogy works for me. If it doesn't for you, well: sorry about that, but in any event, it's not a misquotation.



flamencosketches said:


> It appears you are projecting.


Oh, the irony.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I've said enough. The fact that you're getting bogged down in the semantics of it all tells me as much. I'm going to sit out the rest of this one. Not worth the headache!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^ That is a very interesting piece by Kuerti. I've listened to a few samples of Kuerti on the radio, which they sometimes play here in Toronto. His interpretations are nothing special in my view. I was going to say, at least they're not radical like Gould's. But that is precisely why Gould is an icon here and elsewhere. Like Lang Lang I mentioned earlier. He is popular for his performance antics, has sold-out shows (he did tone it down sometimes, and has great technique to be fair).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture...ntics-would-be-better-suited-to-a-circus.html


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, you made the claim that "The popularity of Gould interpreting Bach seems to suggest otherwise". And the "otherwise" you referred to was my statement that "if you adore Gould you won't adore Bach and vice versa"
> 
> So you were saying (I thought) that Gould's popularity numbers on Spotify (and Youtube) indicate that Gould lovers WILL be Bach lovers and vice versa.
> 
> ...


I wasn't including the muddying you identify. The Youtube figure of 5.8 was for Gould playing the GV and he is popular in other GV videos there too.

From Spotify (regarding GV) adding up plays for all 32 parts:

Gould (1981 Sony Classic remaster) - approx. 109 million
Perahia (2000) - approx. 4.6 million 
Schiff (1983) - approx. 4 million 
Lang Lang (Delux Studio and live) - less than 1 million

The 5.6 million referred to merely underlined Bach's popularity (on Spotify). As a comparison the Canadian rock band Rush has 3.5 million listerners per month.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

janxharris said:


> I wasn't including the muddying you identify. The Youtube figure of 5.8 was for Gould playing the GV and he is popular in other GV videos there too.


Well, I can't just guess what you're talking about, can I? You didn't specify this detail originally.



janxharris said:


> From Spotify (regarding GV) adding up plays for all 32 parts:
> 
> Gould (1981 Sony Classic remaster) - approx. 109 million
> Perahia (2000) - approx. 4.6 million
> ...


Well, I'm none the wiser, really. I think you're saying that Spotify claims 109 million plays of Gould's 1981 Goldbergs, but at the same time claims only 5.6 million plays of Bach. I don't know how that can actually be possible, unless Spotify doesn't classify the Goldbergs as not-by-Bach.

The contention was that Gould fans wouldn't become Bach fans, on the whole; nor vice versa. Here we have a bunch of statistics which prove... well, I have no idea they prove anything at all, other than that Spotify's metadata skills are sadly lacking (which I already knew! )

PS. Since we're bandying meaningless numbers around, I found this on Youtube:









In other words, Youtube's top 2 listings for the 'Johanm Sebastian Bach' search term, sorted by view count, yields one listing with 68M views and one with 48M views. So that's 116 million views in total.

And then this:









Youtube's top 2 listings for 'Glenn Gould', sorted by view count, shows one listing with 5.8M views and 1 with 5.6M views. So that's 11.4 million views.

From those figures, you could perhaps argue that 105 million Bach lovers aren't fans of Gould. Or, that 90% of Bach fans aren't Gould fans.

Except I wouldn't seriously make that sort of claim: waving Youtube viewing figures and claiming there's any meaning behind them doesn't work for me and probably shouldn't work for anyone else either.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> I've said enough. The fact that you're getting bogged down in the semantics of it all tells me as much. I'm going to sit out the rest of this one. Not worth the headache!


No, it's not semantics, because this isn't about interpreting meaning in what was written. It's simply being competent enough to quote what was actually written and not invent stuff when it's convenient to do so. No-one's getting bogged down here, but you are certainly tripping up over your inability to read and quote correctly.

My original post said:

1. Gould was an idiot (though talented)
2. People who buy into the Gould myth are idiots
3. People who are lovers (ie., fans) of Gould's playing have as much credibility with me as believers in UFOs

Three classes of people were mentioned.

Gould is dead and cannot be offended by anything I write.

I would imagine lots of people on this forum might fall into the third class, in which case I find they lack credibility on the subject (of sensitive, thoughtful, respectful and intelligent Bach keyboard performance): which is a statement about me and my findings more than it is an insult directed at them. And in any event, it's really not much different from me ignoring the future commentary from someone who criticises Maria Callas for singing sharp, because she's forcing her voice for dramatic reasons: it's just an indicator to me that I should ignore your musical criticism in respect of her in the future. Short version: I said nothing that could possibly offend members of the third group or class of people I originally listed.

Which leads me to ask whether you're claiming to be a member of the second class of people, a sufferer from Gould Worshipper Syndrome? If so, then it's true that I just insulted you: but as a sufferer of GWS, I would think that the least of your worries. Get cured soon!


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, I can't just guess what you're talking about, can I? You didn't specify this detail originally.
> 
> Well, I'm none the wiser, really. I think you're saying that Spotify claims 109 million plays of Gould's 1981 Goldbergs, but at the same time claims only 5.6 million plays of Bach. I don't know how that can actually be possible, unless Spotify doesn't classify the Goldbergs as not-by-Bach.
> 
> The contention was that Gould fans wouldn't become Bach fans, on the whole; nor vice versa. Here we have a bunch of statistics which prove... well, I have no idea they prove anything at all, other than that Spotify's metadata skills are sadly lacking (which I already knew! )


The 5.6 million for Bach on Spotify refers to Monthly Listeners and is defined by how many individuals have played Bach pieces - whether just one pieces or several - so multiple plays of Bach by one person will show as '1' on 'Listeners'. Gould's 29+ million plays of the GV Aria is also shown on Bach's artist page.

Gould playing Bach's GV is more popular than Schiff, Perahia and Lang Lang on Spotify - and by a long way.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ That is a very interesting piece by Kuerti. I've listened to a few samples of Kuerti on the radio, which they sometimes play here in Toronto. His interpretations are nothing special in my view. I was going to say, at least they're not radical like Gould's. But that is precisely why Gould is an icon here and elsewhere. Like Lang Lang I mentioned earlier. He is popular for his performance antics, has sold-out shows (he did tone it down sometimes, and has great technique to be fair).
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture...ntics-would-be-better-suited-to-a-circus.html


I honestly know nothing about him as a pianist, but I thought the article was extremely well put together and fun to read. The bit that stuck out for me was "Gould starts the Beethoven F# Major Sonata with an incorrect rhythm in the first bar" -which is probably something I wouldn't have noticed myself, but I appreciate a professional pianists opinion on the technical matter.

And also: "[he] continues -as in countless other works, especially by Beethoven and Mozart-by disobeying just about every instruction given by the composer", which is something that's come up before in this thread, so is indeed something I was already aware of, but again it's nice to see a professional pianist (who presumably knows a thing or two on the subject) picking up on it.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

janxharris said:


> The 5.6 million for Bach on Spotify refers to Monthly Listeners and is defined by how many individuals have played Bach pieces - whether just one pieces or several - so multiple plays of Bach by one person will show as '1' on 'Listeners'. Gould's 29+ million plays of the GV Aria is also shown on Bach's artist page.
> 
> Gould playing Bach's GV is more popular than Schiff, Perahia and Lang Lang on Spotify - and by a long way.


I added some Youtube screenshots to my post to which you replied after you'd crafted your reply, I think. Just wanting to make it clear I edited my post, in case you missed it.

In any case, I can only say that I simply don't understand what numbers you're citing. The 29 million plays of the GV Aria are listed on Bach's artist page, but he's only credited with 5.6 million listens? But on the other hand, the 5.6 million doesn't mean anything really because ..."reasons"...

Sorry: I don't use Spotify, their numbers sound peculiar, and I don't know what meaning can be drawn from them. I will happily accept 29 million people played Gould's Goldbergs and not Perahia's or Schiffs.

On Youtube, the top two results for "Goldberg Variations" ordered by viewer count is as follows:

View attachment 142705


Yup, non-Gould Gould is at the top, but not by a "long way" from Kimiko Ishizaka's version. (Incidentally, the first actual-Gould Gould doesn't appear until third in the list, with just 2.5 million views).

No, I don't know what any of that really means either.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

The link below settles this for me (- plus the general humming). Apologies that it's not from the Golbergs, but we seem to have drifted away from that.






This just makes me annoyed (and not much generally does), as I find it an insult to the music. It just seems like the wilful destruction of a beautiful creation.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Eclectic Al said:


> The link below settles this for me (- plus the general humming). Apologies that it's not from the Golbergs, but we seem to have drifted away from that.
> 
> This just makes me annoyed (and not much generally does), as I find it an insult to the music. It just seems like the wilful destruction of a beautiful creation.


Book 1's prelude in C major is one of the loveliest pieces I know. I hate the way Gould sort of 'skips' his way through it in the right-hand, and he's not even consistent about it: at one or two points, we get extensive sustain pedal and/or a more legato right-hand. It's just wilfully incoherent.

I think your characterisation of it is pretty much spot-on.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> In any case, I can only say that I simply don't understand what numbers you're citing. The 29 million plays of the GV Aria are listed on Bach's artist page, but he's only credited with 5.6 million listens? But on the other hand, the 5.6 million doesn't mean anything really because ..."reasons"...
> 
> Sorry: I don't use Spotify, their numbers sound peculiar, and I don't know what meaning can be drawn from them. I will happily accept 29 million people played Gould's Goldbergs and not Perahia's or Schiffs.


On Spotify each 'song' title has the number of times it has been streamed published right alongside. The 29 million streams of the Gould's Bach GV Aria is just that. However, the number of actual unique listeners can be a lot less since many fans will play songs multiple times. If an artist has just one song and that song has been streamed 100 times by just 2 listeners (say 50 streams each), then that artist will have a Monthly Llisteners figure of 2. The Monthly Listeners figure is published on a separate page under the 'About' tab.



> On Youtube, the top two results for "Goldberg Variations" ordered by viewer count is as follows:
> 
> View attachment 142705
> 
> ...


Your attachment is invalid.



> Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator


What is non-Gould Gould?

Searching Goldberg Variations on Youtube has the cleaned-up GV Gould second at 5.8 million - but the first place is a video that has nothing to do do with Bach it would seem.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

janxharris said:


> On Spotify each 'song' title has the number of times it has been streamed published right alongside. The 29 million streams of the Gould's Bach GV Aria is just that. However, the number of actual unique listeners can be a lot less since many fans will play songs multiple times. If an artist has just one song and that song has been streamed 100 times by just 2 listeners (say 50 streams each), then that artist will have a Monthly Llisteners figure of 2. The Monthly Listeners figure is published on a separate page under the 'About' tab.
> 
> Your attachment is invalid.


I'll try again, though you could simply go to Youtube, search for "Goldberg Variations" and click on 'Filters' to specify that the sort order should be by number of views:











janxharris said:


> What is non-Gould Gould?


Er, precisely what this thread was all about in its very beginning. You take 1955's recording of Gould playing the Goldbergs. You somehow work out from that recording what keys and pedals he was pressing at every moment within that recording, including determining the velocity with which those keys were pressed, and the length of time they were depressed for. And you turn all of that mathematical information into a digital file which you then plug in to a Yamaha self-playing piano. The Zenph recording we're talking about (and the one that appears top in the Youtube listing I mentioned) is the result of that Yamaha piano doing its thing. It's sort of like a 21st century piano roll, except I think those tended to be cut with the original pianist actually at and playing the piano. Here, we have Zenph technicians working out all the playing variables and declaring it to be what Gould actually did at his Steinway keyboard.

Net result: it's said to be Gould's playing, but it's not actually Gould doing the playing, and it's definitely not on a piano Gould would have played, and there's no guarantee that the Zenph technicians got it right in the first place.



janxharris said:


> Searching Goldberg Variations on Youtube has the cleaned-up GV Gould second at 5.8 million - but the first place is a video that has nothing to do do with Bach it would seem.


I can only re-post my screenshot and hopes it works this time. If it doesn't, go check it out at my website. Perhaps the results vary depending on where you're searching from or other 'Google-fu' magic?

I also have a second screenshot that shows you the precise search term and the filter settings I used on my website.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I'll try again, though you could simply go to Youtube, search for "Goldberg Variations" and click on 'Filters' to specify that the sort order should be by number of views:
> 
> View attachment 142747


That's what I get apart from the video I mentioned that isn't anything to do with Bach.



> Er, precisely what this thread was all about in its very beginning. You take 1955's recording of Gould playing the Goldbergs. You somehow work out from that recording what keys and pedals he was pressing at every moment within that recording, including determining the velocity with which those keys were pressed, and the length of time they were depressed for. And you turn all of that mathematical information into a digital file which you then plug in to a Yamaha self-playing piano. The Zenph recording we're talking about (and the one that appears top in the Youtube listing I mentioned) is the result of that Yamaha piano doing its thing. It's sort of like a 21st century piano roll, except I think those tended to be cut with the original pianist actually at and playing the piano. Here, we have Zenph technicians working out all the playing variables and declaring it to be what Gould actually did at his Steinway keyboard.
> 
> Net result: it's said to be Gould's playing, but it's not actually Gould doing the playing, and it's definitely not on a piano Gould would have played, and there's no guarantee that the Zenph technicians got it right in the first place.


Ok - I'm familiar with the idea behind the cleaned up version - I just didn't understand your phrase.



> I can only re-post my screenshot and hopes it works this time. If it doesn't, go check it out at my website. Perhaps the results vary depending on where you're searching from or other 'Google-fu' magic?
> 
> I also have a second screenshot that shows you the precise search term and the filter settings I used on my website.


I used view count too.

Maybe I am losing the plot, but Gould playing Bach's GV remains popular doesn't it? Some fans of Bach are also fans of Gould. The Spotify streams has Gould way ahead of the field and ahead on youtube.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

janxharris said:


> That's what I get apart from the video I mentioned that isn't anything to do with Bach.


Region or other Google weirdness variances, I guess.



janxharris said:


> Ok - I'm familiar with the idea behind the cleaned up version - I just didn't understand your phrase.


Sorry, in that case. "Non-Gould Gould" seemed a quicker way of describing it!



janxharris said:


> Maybe I am losing the plot, but Gould playing Bach's GV remains popular doesn't it? Some fans of Bach are also fans of Gould. The Spotify streams has Gould way ahead of the field and ahead on youtube.


No, I already conceded that I was happy to accept 29 million people played Gould rather than Schiff or Perahia in an earlier reply. I never doubted Gould's popularity: you don't get to be called a cult if you aren't popular (and can I just emphasise, for anyone looking in of a sensitive disposition, that I used an "L" in that word?).

My point, however, is simply: what's _your_ point (or, more generally, what anyone's point is if they say 'ooh look how popular X or Y is'). I think my original reply was "it merely proves that there's one born every minute". In the case of the Zenph recording we're talking about, it would appear that there's 1.57 born every minute (i.e., 5.8 million views in 7 years, or 3,681,720 minutes).

I think I also said that I reckon you'd find Taylor Swift was a lot more popular then Gould. And indeed, her top result on Youtube has 2.8 *billion* views.

Does that say something about Taylor Swift's artistic integrity being greater or better or whatever than Gould's? Of course not. And in the same way I think you and I would both dismiss a popularity statistic for Taylor Swift as indicative of artistic achievement, so I dismiss 29 million listens for Gould's Goldbergs as 29 million people who, sadly, haven't found a better Goldbergs recording yet.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Does anyone know how easy it is going to be for the technicians to re-create old performances in due course? If it gets to the point where you just need to play the old recording, let the software do its thing, and then record the Yamaha performance, then I'd be interested in hearing pianists like Gieseking (say). I bought a box set of his recordings of Debussy and Ravel, but very rarely listen because in the end the recording quality spoils it for me. Just a pity that they've gone for Gould, when they could have gone for Rachmaninov (say).

I think another interesting thing they could do is take a modern recording (ideally on a Yamaha piano), put it through their process, and then see if anyone could tell the difference.


----------



## erudite (Jul 23, 2020)

Eclectic Al said:


> Does anyone know how easy it is going to be for the technicians to re-create old performances in due course? If it gets to the point where you just need to play the old recording, let the software do its thing, and then record the Yamaha performance, then I'd be interested in hearing pianists like Gieseking (say). I bought a box set of his recordings of Debussy and Ravel, but very rarely listen because in the end the recording quality spoils it for me. Just a pity that they've gone for Gould, *when they could have gone for Rachmaninov* (say).


Well, you're in luck. 
*Rachmaninoff Plays Rachmaninoff - Zenph Re-performance
*https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rachmaninoff-Plays-Zenph-Re-performance/dp/B002BFIN6K

But at the end of the day I think the Zenph thing was futile and pointless.

Very much in the same league as the Callas Hologram "concerts"… what a travesty.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

erudite said:


> But at the end of the day I think the Zenph thing was futile and pointless.


Question: I've seen it said that it was futile because Gould re-recorded the Goldbergs in good stereo in the 1980s, so are you saying the Zenph stuff is futile or pointless for that reason? Or are you saying that the technology is not good enough to do Gould justice, so the attempt was futile for that reason?

IE, do you think that whatever the merits of that particular recording, the technology is a good idea and might be worth deploying in different circumstances?


----------



## erudite (Jul 23, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> IE, do you think that whatever the merits of that particular recording, the technology is a good idea and might be worth deploying in different circumstances?


I vaguely remember in the '90s or '80s? Prima Voce re-recorded opera singers and cleaned them up. To my ears that _did_ add to the listening experience. But they didn't try to recreate Tetrazzini or Galli Gurci with a set of mechanical vocal cords. (Now there's an idea…)

Personally (and just my opinion) there is very little to be gained by "Zenphing" whether it be Gould or Rachmaninof or… So now you have it in Stereo… well, big whoop! I mean so what. At least no more "singing", so there is some benefit.

If it had been a proof of concept that led to investment into even better present day recording techniques, I'd be very supportive. In fact if they had managed to hook it up to Steinway CD 318 (I had to look that up! Not something I'd pluck from memory.) it might have a bit more gravitas. But an electronic Yamaha? *shrug*

Sure the technology might (nearly) be good enough, but it will always be an artificial construct. A curiosity. Of course the "curiosity" might sell in vast numbers.

Hope that explains it a bit better!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

erudite said:


> [...]
> 
> Sure the technology might (nearly) be good enough, but it will always be an artificial construct. A curiosity. Of course the "curiosity" might sell in vast numbers.
> 
> Hope that explains it a bit better!


It does. Thanks.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Region or other Google weirdness variances, I guess.
> 
> Sorry, in that case. "Non-Gould Gould" seemed a quicker way of describing it!
> 
> ...


Of course, it is as you say, very possible that the current interest in Gould's Bach is just some passing overblown fad.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

janxharris said:


> Of course, it is as you say, very possible that the current interest in Gould's Bach is just some passing overblown fad.


An overblow fad that's lasted some 65 years?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Knorf said:


> An overblow fad that's lasted some 65 years?


I don't have a view on Gould. I was merely admitting the possibility.


----------

