# tell me about Gould's 1955 recording of the Goldbergs



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

According to a consensus of many fine talkclassicalers (http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/science/1285-talkclassicals-greatest-recordings-all.html), Gould's recording of Bach's Goldberg Variations is one of the greatest recordings of all time.










What do you think of that recording? What makes it one of the greatest recordings of all time?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Gould made two commercial recordings of the Goldbergs, the second in 1981 near the end of his life. The two are quite different, and I listen to the second more often these days. Is the 1955 a "greatest recording"? Well, it's a great performance for sure, and it had a historic impact. But a great recording?

Without going into the virtues of the 1955 performance, which have been beaten to death, it's a lousy recording with poor sound and Gould enthusiastically humming along. You can get exactly the same performance (yes, really) in stereo with modern sound and no vocals:

http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Goldberg...F8&qid=1378435034&sr=1-1&keywords=gould+zenph

This is my usual listening for the 1955s. In my book, it's the same performance and a better "recording."


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I much prefer the most tempered 1981 recording...
To be honest, although I'm a big fan of Gould, of course, I find that he's sometimes oversold as the "ultimate" Bach interpreter. I can't stand his maniac playing in some occasions.
(and I hope doctor Lecter will not overreact with my opinion!)


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

While I prefer his 2nd recording, his 1955 performance still stands as one of the greatest recordings of all time in my book. No one had ever heard Bach like that and it was a monster seller. It seems like I read once it may have been the first full recording on a piano instead of a harpsichord as well. I also seem to remember reading it was the best selling classical recording of all time at that point. It blew peoples' minds and still continues to today. It also inspired many other classical pianists to look at Bach in a whole new way. It's historical and cultural significance is what makes it a great recording to me.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

He was better later. If you 'gotta have the 55', heed _KenOC_.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Seen on another thread, but not verified: Glenn Gould said of his 1955 Goldbergs, "There's an awful lot of piano playing going on there, and I mean that in the most disparaging way possible."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

That Gould recording was nearly as revelatory of what Bach might be (vs. what the current take(s) on Bach were at the time) as what was seen and known before and after the cleaning of the Sistine Chapel ceiling mural... in that one, most academics in art had said "Da Vinci was not a colorist." Post cleaning, well, dagnabbit, but he was a colorist.

It blew the socks off of many, Bach having been played romantically, classically, reverently, but not ever quite so particularly vitally (accurate or not, we'll never really know) as Gould went at it.

If memory serves, there was reaction akin to a near collective gasp, one reviewer saying that was how Bach must have played his own music, freely, joyously, like the wind ....

To me, vitality -- whether it is completely 'correct' as to style -- counts for a great deal in music performance of any era, and in that recording vitality is certainly what Gould delivered.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

...an awful lot of vitality going on there...


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Too much of Gould mumbling/moaning! I dont really like it (the 1955 sound) and think it's a bit over rated. It's over rated because it must have been one of the first recordings of the _Goldberg_ on the piano available in a broad commerical sense, and because the work is such a beautiful great piece, the first listeners fell in love with it. But by now, there are numerous other recordings that have surpassed it, particular ones performed on the harpsichord and observing the required repeats of sections, tempo etc.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

ArtMusic said:


> Too much of Gould mumbling/moaning! I dont really like it (the 1955 sound) and think it's a bit over rated. It's over rated because it must have been one of the first recordings of the _Goldberg_ on the piano available in a broad commerical sense, and because the work is such a beautiful great piece, the first listeners fell in love with it. But by now, there are numerous other recordings that have surpassed it, particular ones performed on the harpsichord and observing the required repeats of sections, tempo etc.


Hah! Excellent parody, _ArtMusic_! I can't quite make out of who, it's too subtle for me... but a fine job.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Gould made two commercial recordings of the Goldbergs, the second in 1981 near the end of his life. The two are quite different, and I listen to the second more often these days. Is the 1955 a "greatest recording"? Well, it's a great performance for sure, and it had a historic impact. But a great recording?
> 
> Without going into the virtues of the 1955 performance, which have been beaten to death, it's a lousy recording with poor sound and Gould enthusiastically humming along. You can get exactly the same performance (yes, really) in stereo with modern sound and no vocals:
> 
> ...


Here we go again.
When somebody says a great recording I take it to be a comment on the performance and not a comment on sound quality.
e.g HMV's "Great Rec ordings Of The Century". I believe that Schnabel's Beethoven recordings are great but obviously hi-fi wise they are not.
Perhaps we should refer to great performances instead, I've managed to understand what it means but after 65 years it comes up for question. I think this is a symptom of a beginner which doesn't include you I would have thought.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> Here we go again.
> When somebody says a great recording I take it to be a comment on the performance and not a comment on sound quality.
> e.g HMV's "Great Rec ordings Of The Century". I believe that Schnabel's Beethoven recordings are great but obviously hi-fi wise they are not.
> Perhaps we should refer to great performances instead, I've managed to understand what it means but after 65 years it comes up for question. I think this is a symptom of a beginner which doesn't include you I would have thought.


You may be missing _KenOC_'s point. I think his main 'point of preference' is that the Zenph reproduces the work of Gould's hands and feet, but not his larynx.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> You may be missing _KenOC_'s point. I think his main 'point of preference' is that the Zenph reproduces the work of Gould's hands and feet, but not his larynx.


I don't think so ,I think he meant the recording technically. But maybe he will enlighten us hopefully.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

moody said:


> I don't think so ,I think he meant the recording technically. But maybe he will enlighten us hopefully.


I meant what I said. The 1955 Gould effort is a great performance and a lousy recording. If that's symptomatic of a "beginner," then I hope always to have a "beginner's mind" (in the Zen sense...)


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I wonder how much marketing and promotion by a big record company contributes to some good recordings being world famous and other very good recordings being far less well known....


----------



## GiulioCesare (Apr 9, 2013)

Gould was certainly the best player of works for keyboard and hum.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

starry said:


> I wonder how much marketing and promotion by a big record company contributes to some good recordings being world famous and other very good recordings being far less well known....


I think this is very significant. A recording or work or performer is the greatest, so it gets promoted and it gets recommended, so it is the first you hear and the one you keep hearing, so you recommend it and it gets sold more and promoted more.... None of that denies that it might be very good but greatness casts a shadow and obscures lots of other very good pieces.

Already in this thread others have expressed a preference for other gouldberg recordings, the 1955 is failing in its greatest status. How can a work that was criticised and superseded by such a fastidious critic as the pianist himself really be a greatest. It is simply one important interpretation among several.

Ok i'm calm now >deep breaths<


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I meant what I said. The 1955 Gould effort is a great performance and a lousy recording. If that's symptomatic of a "beginner," then I hope always to have a "beginner's mind" (in the Zen sense...)


That's exactly what I said you meant and I did not call YOU a beginner ,I said you weren't. Look more carefully !


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

moody said:


> That's exactly what I said you meant and I did not call YOU a beginner ,I said you weren't. Look more carefully !


Quote: "I think this is a symptom of a beginner which doesn't include you I would have thought." Note the "I would have thought."


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Quote: "I think this is a symptom of a beginner which doesn't include you I would have thought." Note the "I would have thought."


Exactly : "Which doesn't (Does Not !!) include you I would have thought." As strange as it may seem I do know what I meant to say. Enough, I don't (do not) even like Gould and think that Bach should be played on a harpsichord in any case.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Originally Posted by moody:
That's exactly what I said you meant and I did not call YOU a beginner ,I said you weren't. Look more carefully !



KenOC said:


> Quote: "I think this is a symptom of a beginner which doesn't include you I would have thought." Note the "I would have thought."


Hah! Your elaboration on your statement modifies your meaning. That's what elaborations do. So... I see your 'note' and raise you an elaboration. Elaborations are only worth half a note*, but a raise is a raise.

* half a note is not the same as a half-note.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Originally Posted by moody:
> That's exactly what I said you meant and I did not call YOU a beginner ,I said you weren't. Look more carefully !
> 
> Hah! Your elaboration on your statement modifies your meaning. That's what elaborations do. So... I see your 'note' and raise you an elaboration. Elaborations are only worth half a note*, but a raise is a raise.
> ...


I elaborated nothing but repeated what I had said--leave it alone I'm really not interested enough to pursue this as I have indicated.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I meant what I said. The 1955 Gould effort is a great performance and a lousy recording. If that's symptomatic of a "beginner," then I hope always to have a "beginner's mind"

In other words... it is "lousy" by contemporary audiophile standards... just as _Nosferatu_ is "lousy" by current standards of cinematography. Personally, I am with Moody on this debate. There are any number of recordings that I find to be of the greatest merit based upon the performance that don't come near to current high audiophile quality:





Personally I wouldn't be proud of having such a "beginner's" bias.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Already in this thread others have expressed a preference for other gouldberg recordings, the 1955 is failing in its greatest status.

In other words the opinions of a few listeners on TC... all having the highest credentials, no doubt... supersedes the opinions of all those who have made this an essential recording?

How can a work that was criticised and superseded by such a fastidious critic as the pianist himself really be a greatest.

Perhaps due to the fact that most artists are never satisfied with their work.

It is simply one important interpretation among several.

That would seem to be the definition of a "classic" or "great" recording. Gould's 1955 performance remains one of the most important interpretations... along side his later 1981 version, that of Rosalyn Turreck, Andras Schiff, Andreas Staier, etc...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> How can a work that was criticised and superseded by such a fastidious critic as the pianist himself really be a greatest.
> 
> Perhaps due to the fact that most artists are never satisfied with their work.


Might add that I'd hardly call Gould a "fastidious critic." He had crazier opinions than Stravinsky and Beecham put together -- but more humor than Stravinsky at least. I recommend the book "The Glenn Gould Reader," which is a real hoot and available very cheaply used.

http://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Gould-R...1378597143&sr=1-1&keywords=glenn+gould+reader


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I meant what I said. The 1955 Gould effort is a great performance and a lousy recording. If that's symptomatic of a "beginner," then I hope always to have a "beginner's mind"
> 
> In other words... it is "lousy" by contemporary audiophile standards... just as _Nosferatu_ is "lousy" by current standards of cinematography. Personally, I am with Moody on this debate. There are any number of recordings that I find to be of the greatest merit based upon the performance that don't come near to current high audiophile quality:
> 
> ...


Right... want those legendary fine performers? Deal with the (often by now digitally cleansed) older recording technology. Can't listen to the older audio? I knew a young man who told me he could not watch any film in black and white; he grew up with color everything, and just could not / would not deal with it. So.... about half the "Greatest 100 films" are inaccessible to the lad.

He literally does not know what he is missing.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Things can be historical, in the sense that they were revealing at the time they were produced, but that doesn't mean that they are now, in the 21st century, the best of the best in terms of actual quality in sound, interpretation, and other aspects.
I recognize the historical importance of the 1951 recording, but I find it dreadful... I don't listen to it.
That happens always in all things. Einstein original papers on general relativity published in 1915 were pretty important historically. But they are completely useless for teaching the subject today, and even for understand it!.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Things can be historical, in the sense that they were revealing at the time they were produced, but that doesn't mean that they are now, in the 21st century, the best of the best in terms of actual quality in sound, interpretation, and other aspects.

Obviously works of a certain age will not be the best in terms of sound quality. On the other hand, the greatest audiophile technology in no way assures us that the performance/interpretation is of the greatest merit.

I recognize the historical importance of the 1951 recording, but I find it dreadful... I don't listen to it.

The performance of Gould's 1955 Goldberg Variations goes well beyond being of historical importance. It is artistically important.

That happens always in all things. Einstein original papers on general relativity published in 1915 were pretty important historically. But they are completely useless for teaching the subject today, and even for understand it!.

That's a truly lame analogy. Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Mozart, etc... haven't been superseded and relegated to nothing more than a historical footnote because time has marched on. Science and technology continually improve. Art does not. It merely changes. New composers, painters, sculptors, writers, poets, performers don't replace those of the past. They merely offer their own contributions... and if these are good enough they will join the ranks of the finest artistic achievements of the past.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

If the issue with regard to a recording is the technology involved, then it makes sense to me that later technology would enable better recordings. 

The only way I see to deny that is to claim that technology is not at all an issue. 

Once it's an issue, then the question becomes complex: is the performance so great that it compensates for the technology? Is a later performance so poor that the technology cannot compensate? That's how long debates happen. 

Anyway, I'd considered using the science metaphor as well, only my example would've been Newton. And the point of it isn't that Newton or Gould 1955 are negligible, but that they remain great because of what they were in their time. Using aleazk's choice of example, Einstein is nothing like "a historical footnote." Nor is Newton. Nor Aristotle. And so on. 

So I think the metaphor holds, and serves to vindicate Gould against the fact that with current technology better recordings are possible - regardless of the subjective question of whether better performances are possible.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The performance of Gould's 1955 Goldberg Variations goes well beyond being of historical importance. It is artistically important. 

This makes no sense to me. What does "artistically important" mean?

That's a truly lame analogy. 

This seems unnecessary. Let's just have a friendly conversation here, if possible.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> That's a truly lame analogy. Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Mozart, etc... haven't been superseded and relegated to nothing more than a historical footnote because time has marched on. Science and technology continually improve. Art does not. It merely changes. New composers, painters, sculptors, writers, poets, performers don't replace those of the past. They merely offer their own contributions... and if these are good enough they will join the ranks of the finest artistic achievements of the past.


I agree with much of this. Science has a certain objective quality which enables some things to last, while also liable to be expanded upon. That's not really comparable to a classical performance. Some people may well have taken inspiration from Gould, other interpreters may have taken inspiration from others. _There is more than one path in art._ That's one of the reasons why holding up a few recordings as being the ultimate ones seems rather pointless.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I think people sensed that Gould's interpretation, outlandish as it was, took Bach very seriously. What seemed unorthodox and radical actually turned out to be extremely true to Bach. Gould neutralised the piano sound by his pedal-free staccato style and the total balance of the individual voices. He made up for the wild tempi and left-out repeats by the relentless rhythmic drive and internal coherence of each variation.

He proved that Bach's keyboard music could be really exciting to listen to. That they were not just dry and didactic.

I think Gould was aware that he might be looked at as some kind of juvenile show-off, so he wrote a lenghty essay that accompanied the recording and explained the inner workings of the piece, showing to anyone that he had a profound analytical understanding of the work. On top of it, he wrote in a style that is quite difficult to read, just to make sure nobody mistook his for an intellectual lightweight.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Andreas said:


> He proved that Bach's keyboard music could be really exciting to listen to. That they were not just dry and didactic.


Others had already proved that?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starry said:


> Others had already proved that?


For the WTC? Exciting? I haven't heard evidence.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

If that's your opinion that's fine, but others would disagree. To say Gould was the first to make Bach's keyboard works worth listening to sounds mere marketing hype to me, it just seems an inflated claim.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starry said:


> If that's your opinion that's fine, but others would disagree. To say Gould was the first to make Bach's keyboard works worth listening to sounds mere marketing hype to me, it just seems an inflated claim.


Dunno 'bout you, but for me 'exciting' and 'worth listening to' are different beasties.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Dry and didactic doesn't sound like worth listening to.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starry said:


> Dry and didactic doesn't sound like worth listening to.


You are making a bigger jump than I did. Those two sentences may or may not be hogtied together; I chose not.


----------



## sonnenuntergangstunde (Apr 20, 2013)

I have this recording in a double issue with the 1981 recording called 'A State of Wonder'. I love the contrast between the two recordings, and especially like the intimacy and slower pace of the later recording. I actually like Gould's humming, I think it adds to the ambiance


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hah! Excellent parody, _ArtMusic_! I can't quite make out of who, it's too subtle for me... but a fine job.


Pardon, sir I'm not sure what you are trying to convey.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The performance of Gould's 1955 Goldberg Variations goes well beyond being of historical importance. It is artistically important.

This makes no sense to me. What does "artistically important" mean?

Certainly this doesn't strike me as a concept overly difficult to grasp. I am suggesting that Gould's 1955 performance of the Goldberg Variations is of value beyond it being merely of historical importance. It still stands and is admired by a great many as a marvelous performance... a work of art. The fact that a few here disagree because they cannot get past the older recording technology or Gould's humming doesn't negate the opinions of all those who do still admire the work.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

sonnenuntergangstunde said:


> I have this recording in a double issue with the 1981 recording called 'A State of Wonder'. I love the contrast between the two recordings, and especially like the intimacy and slower pace of the later recording. I actually like Gould's humming, I think it adds to the ambiance


Yes... and the set comes with a further disc in which Gould discusses both performances.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The performance of Gould's 1955 Goldberg Variations goes well beyond being of historical importance. It is artistically important.
> 
> This makes no sense to me. What does "artistically important" mean?
> 
> Certainly this doesn't strike me as a concept overly difficult to grasp. I am suggesting that Gould's 1955 performance of the Goldberg Variations is of value beyond it being merely of historical importance. It still stands and is admired by a great many as a marvelous performance... a work of art. The fact that a few here disagree because they cannot get past the older recording technology or Gould's humming doesn't negate the opinions of all those who do still admire the work.


I agree totally about both historic and artistic value of this performance. But not wishing to be tarred for a sin I didn't commit, I'll just repeat it's a lousy recording even by 1955 standards. The performance, as I pointed out, is available now on a very good recording.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

ArtMusic said:


> Pardon, sir I'm not sure what you are trying to convey.


This is what struck me as parody:

"But by now, there are numerous other recordings that have surpassed it, particular ones performed on the harpsichord and observing the required repeats of sections, tempo etc."

Nicely led into, as well. Of course, many such recordings were made _prior_ to 1955. A large part of the reaction to Gould's recording - on the part of the classical-listening public - was appreciation for disinterring Bach's keyboard music.


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Gould made two commercial recordings of the Goldbergs, the second in 1981 near the end of his life. The two are quite different, and I listen to the second more often these days.


I've not read the rest of this thread (this post being the second in a many-page thread). My discussion of the FOUR Gould commercially-available recordings of the _Goldbergs _is one of my earliest _Tuesday blogs _(1600 views, really!?!), and is found at:

http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/itywltmt/231-day-music-history-june.html

My favourite is the Salzburg "live" version, dating 1959 but the 1955 recording is certainly a striong, striong performance, and the liner notes are especially insightful.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

These are the recordings of the Goldbergs before Gould's 1955, from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/NVD/BWV988-Rec1.htm


```
c1928		Rudolf Serkin		(Piano)
Nov 1933	Wanda Landowska 	(Harpsichord)
Jan 1942	Claudio Arrau		(Piano)
Apr 1942 	Eunice Norton 		(Piano)			CD published: Norvard: 2000	
Jun 1945	Wanda Landowska 	(Harpsichord)
1947		Rosalyn Tureck		(Piano)			1st commercial recording on piano
1950-1951	Gunnar Johansen 	(Double Keyboard Piano)
Aug 1952	Ralph Kirkpatrick 	(Harpsichord)
Jun 1953	Gustav Leonhardt	(Harpsichord)
Mar 1954	Isolde Ahlgrimm		(Harpsichord)		first with all repeats
Mar 1954	Eunice Norton		(Piano)			Unpublished
Jun 1954	Glenn Gould		(Piano)
```
There are quite a few piano versions but finding out if they were widely available or published at the time is tricky. The WTC also had 9 recording of significant parts before 1955.

Quite apart from Gould's talent his Goldbergs were released at the right time, with a growth in the market and record buying public. The fact that he looked like a 50s pop star on the cover probably helped. Interesting question that perhaps oldsters could answer: were classical performers often on the covers in that era? Aside from opera singers I would think it was rare.

Here is Eunice Norton, Gould's direct competitor from the previous year for comparison, quite a bit slower sounding, less tape hiss, and much less singing. I wonder why she went unpublished.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

itywltmt said:


> I've not read the rest of this thread (this post being the second in a many-page thread). My discussion of the FOUR Gould commercially-available recordings of the _Goldbergs _is one of my earliest _Tuesday blogs _(1600 views, really!?!), and is found at:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/itywltmt/231-day-music-history-june.html
> 
> My favourite is the Salzburg "live" version, dating 1959 but the 1955 recording is certainly a striong, striong performance, and the liner notes are especially insightful.


_KenOC_ being a Texan, we'll never know what he actually meant - but I'm going to guess _studio_ recordings..


----------



## IBMchicago (May 16, 2012)

Gould brought Bach out of the high academic tower and made him hip to the public. That's grand enough an acheivement to me.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

All this argument. All we need to know is that Dr. Hannibal Lector likes the Gould version, and that's all it matters.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

quack said:


> These are the recordings of the Goldbergs before Gould's 1955, from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/NVD/BWV988-Rec1.htm
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


No,speaking as an "oldster"I think you'll find that photos of artists on record covers became common in the late 50s onwards, incidentally there were no "pop" stars as we know it in 1955. 
The list you print doesn't mean too much because people like Landowska, Kirkpatrick and Leonhardt used harpsichords ( even if Landowska's was a modern copy ) which is correct, while Norton and Gould used pianos which is not.
I hadn't heard of Ms. Norton,but as I see that she was a Schnabel pupil she must have been OK.
As for IBMchicago ,why would it be good to make Bach hip to the public this way I wonder perhaps it would have been better to use an electric guitar, that would be really hip.
But in fact Bach never was in a high academic tower and I don't really think that the Goldberg variations figure that high as far as the general public are concerned anyway.
Have you ever listened to Kirkpatrick ?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Gould's 1955 recording is certainly one of the most remarkable and significant recordings ever made. It opened everyone's eyes that the music could be made accessible to a wide public. It is a terrific performance that is alive from the first bar. No-one knew before that Bach could be played like this. It was a runaway best seller. It holds its place as an utterly remarkable performance and also one which provides (even today) a benchmark as to how to play Bach on the piano. Before Gold Bach was regarded as a bit of a bore for the specialists only. After GG made his 1955 recording Bach was released to the general public. 
After GG came a whole bunch of pianists trying to emulate him. None have done although there have been some wonderful performances from people such as Perahia - equally valid alternatives. Of course it is fashionable to knock a pioneering recording just as it's fashionable in some quarters to knock (eg) Solti's Ring. But that does not take away from the enormous achievement.
Asteroid actual recording of the 1955 Goldbergs I would not say it is particularly bad for its age. It is certainly better recording than some of Columbia's contemporary recordings.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

moody said:


> No,speaking as an "oldster"I think you'll find that photos of artists on record covers became common in the late 50s onwards, incidentally there were no "pop" stars as we know it in 1955.
> The list you print doesn't mean too much because people like Landowska, Kirkpatrick and Leonhardt used harpsichords ( even if Landowska's was a modern copy ) which is correct, while Norton and Gould used pianos which is not.
> I hadn't heard of Ms. Norton,but as I see that she was a Schnabel pupil she must have been OK.
> As for IBMchicago ,why would it be good to make Bach hip to the public this way I wonder perhaps it would have been better to use an electric guitar, that would be really hip.
> ...


Kirkpatrick did record them, later again, on a Clavichord. This was quietly revelatory, the instrument capable of touch dynamic, and Kirkpatrick quite a fine player (I thought they were wonderful: of the two sorts of instruments intended when Bach wrote "fur Klavier," i.e. a plinkety-plonk instrument, I greatly prefer it over harpsichord.)


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

DavidA said:


> Before Gold Bach was regarded as a bit of a bore for the specialists only.


I still think this kind of thing is an overstatement. Gould may well have made Bach a bit more fashionable to some, but really it was only a matter of time anyway, if not Gould somebody else would have made Bach more hip. Actually Switched-On Bach in the late 60s sold far more (500,000) and made Bach way more popular.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I could be wrong, but I'd guess that before Gould's 1955 Goldberg, pianists mostly performed the Busoni transcriptions in concerts instead of original Bach works.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Andreas said:


> I could be wrong, but I'd guess that before Gould's 1955 Goldberg, pianists mostly performed the Busoni transcriptions in concerts instead of original Bach works.


That's an interesting guess. My guess is that if 'concert' is differentiated from 'public recital' (however that is done), you are probably right.

Most (all?) of Busoni's transcriptions to piano are of works that already have _dynamics_ - organ and violin, yes?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Andreas said:


> I could be wrong, but I'd guess that before Gould's 1955 Goldberg, pianists mostly performed the Busoni transcriptions in concerts instead of original Bach works.


I am afraid you would be wrong. It was only when Busoni's most famous pupil Egon Petri started introducing them to the public that people got to know them. I would think that few people know them now.
I am not sure that there was too much interest in Bach's keyboard music in any case,but I'm open to correction there.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> That's an interesting guess. My guess is that if 'concert' is differentiated from 'public recital' (however that is done), you are probably right.
> 
> Most (all?) of Busoni's transcriptions to piano are of works that already have _dynamics_ - organ and violin, yes?


Well I didn't know there was a difference,is a concert not a public recital ?


----------



## IBMchicago (May 16, 2012)

moody said:


> As for IBMchicago ,why would it be good to make Bach hip to the public this way I wonder perhaps it would have been better to use an electric guitar, that would be really hip.
> But in fact Bach never was in a high academic tower and I don't really think that the Goldberg variations figure that high as far as the general public are concerned anyway.
> Have you ever listened to Kirkpatrick ?


Well, I'm just, like, a really big fan of Bach and think that Gould is, like, totally awesome for making Bach better known to the wider public because Bach's music is, like, really really awesome.

In seriousness, though, I don't think this argument is meant to be intellectualized. I've heard great recordings of Bach's keyboard music by Perahia, Schiff and Hewitt (arguably better), but, the way I understand it, Bach's music was considered requisite music for learning/education, but not really for public performance until Gould's recording. And, to respond to your point about the electric guitar, I personally prefer Bach's keyboard music performed by highly refined keyboardists - and I don't consider this opinion to be an exception to the norm (at least, I would hope not  )


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Thinking back to the 1950s, Bach was generally little-heard in concert or on the radio since his music was still regarded as somewhat mechanical and without feeling -- in other words, not Romantic. Something might catch on in once in a while if appropriately pimped out, like Stokowski's Toccata and Fugue in D minor, but for most people that was the extent of it. Gould's amazing feat was to make Bach utterly compelling to a Romantically-inclined audience, and to do so without being Romantic in the least.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> Well I didn't know there was a difference,is a concert not a public recital ?


Yep, but a public recital may not be a concert. depends on how you hold your tongue.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The incredible thing was that Gould made Bach's keyboard music accessible to a far wider public long before the 'switched on Bach' craze of the '60s. Looking back nearly 60 years we don't realise how formidable this music appeared back then. It was simply not played much. That's why when Gould suggested he recorded it after signing or Columbia they tried to talk him out of it. Gould insisted and the rest is history. 
As well as some brilliant playing there was also brilliant publicity which played on Gould's eccentricities in such a way it drew people in to the mystique.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Nowhere near as much as Switched-On Bach which sold about 5x more.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Something might catch on in once in a while if appropriately pimped out, like Stokowski's Toccata and Fugue in D minor


That's a point, which undermines your one on Gould, didn't _Fantasia_ popularize Bach to a very wide audience?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

starry said:


> Nowhere near as much as Switched-On Bach which sold about 5x more.


I think you miss the point. Gould was not trying to be 'switched on' - he was playing Bach as he saw it without trying to popularise it as people like Loussier.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

starry said:


> That's a point, which undermines your one on Gould, didn't _Fantasia_ popularize Bach to a very wide audience?


Stokowski/Fantasia didn't really popularize Bach, but it sure popularized the T&F in D minor -- which had actually been pretty popular anyway since Mendelssohn discovered it and added it to his own performing repertoire in 1830.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

DavidA said:


> I think you miss the point. Gould was not trying to be 'switched on' - he was playing Bach as he saw it without trying to popularise it as people like Loussier.


Yeh but people are saying he popularized Bach to a wide audience, and I'm trying to put that in context. The audience definitely wasn't as wide as later.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

starry said:


> Yeh but people are saying he popularized Bach to a wide audience, and I'm trying to put that in context. The audience definitely wasn't as wide as later.


Yes, but that makes Gould's achievement even more remarkable. No-one outside of highbrows had hardly heard of the Goldbergs.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

If Gould hadn't somebody else would have. The 50s was the taking off of the long playing record and that helped longer classical works, more people probably got record players as well.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Did Sviatoslav Richter perform Bach before Gould's Soviet tour in 1957?

I think it certainly helped that Gould chose the Goldberg. All in all, they're probably the catchiest of the large-scale keyboard works of Bach. Had he recorded the Art of the Fugue in 1955, I doubt he would have made such a splash.

But I do think it took Gould to do it, not just anyone else. His sound, his way of playing (not just Bach) was unheard of, at least according to testimonals of the time.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

starry said:


> If Gould hadn't somebody else would have. The 50s was the taking off of the long playing record and that helped longer classical works, more people probably got record players as well.


I think that is a spurious argument. To say that one piece would automatically become a best seller because of the LP is pretty far fetched. Gould's Goldbergs were the breakthrough because they were so brilliantly played. It was also the making of him as an international pianist. Before he was unknown outside Canada.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

DavidA said:


> I think that is a spurious argument. To say that one piece would automatically become a best seller because of the LP is pretty far fetched. Gould's Goldbergs were the breakthrough because they were so brilliantly played. It was also the making of him as an international pianist. Before he was unknown outside Canada.


I never said that was the reason _one piece_ became particularly popular or that this recording didn't make his name as an artist. But there were several big selling classical records in this era of the rise of the LP, and the LP obviously helped them become popular and sell a lot. I also think there is a Cult of Glenn Gould, and while he is a good pianist I'm not convinced he the ultimate pianist or musician as some preach. Recording artists can be hyped up by the media, it's all part of the selling of classical music.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

starry said:


> I never said that was the reason _one piece_ became particularly popular or that this recording didn't make his name as an artist. But there were several big selling classical records in this era of the rise of the LP, and the LP obviously helped them become popular and sell a lot. I also think there is a Cult of Glenn Gould, and while he is a good pianist I'm not convinced he the ultimate pianist or musician as some preach. Recording artists can be hyped up by the media, it's all part of the selling of classical music.


You are still missing the point which is that Gould's 1955 Goldbergs opened up Bach to a far wider audience.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

It opened up his music slightly more, but not as much as later. I think it was a stage along the way to Bach being more acknowledged, but that was a journey that had already begun anyway.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

itywltmt said:


> I've not read the rest of this thread (this post being the second in a many-page thread). My discussion of the FOUR Gould commercially-available recordings of the _Goldbergs _is one of my earliest _Tuesday blogs _(1600 views, really!?!), and is found at:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/itywltmt/231-day-music-history-june.html
> 
> *My favourite is the Salzburg "live" version, dating 1959* but the 1955 recording is certainly a striong, striong performance, and the liner notes are especially insightful.


Mine, too.

For folk who enjoy the '55 and '81, A State of Wonder is the set to get. Improved remasterings with a "forgotten" analog '81.


----------



## campy (Aug 16, 2012)

How can we know what _Switched On Bach _would have achieved if GG had never recorded Bach?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

campy said:


> How can we know what _Switched On Bach _would have achieved if GG had never recorded Bach?


SOB was considered 'crossover' maybe? Or maybe not classical at all? I'm wondering what the demographics of sales were. It seems possible that a majority of SOB purchasers never heard of GG.

?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

DavidA said:


> I think that is a spurious argument. To say that one piece would automatically become a best seller because of the LP is pretty far fetched. Gould's Goldbergs were the breakthrough because they were so brilliantly played. It was also the making of him as an international pianist. Before he was unknown outside Canada.


He was unknown at the time,or little known, because he was only twenty three. Also the LP record helped as you would need to purchase six 78 shellac records.
But somebody at Columbia must have known of him,these companies do not usually sign complete unknowns.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

moody said:


> But somebody at Columbia must have known of him,these companies do not usually sign complete unknowns.


Gould had already recorded an album for a Canadian label three years prior, in 1952, so he was not completely unknown in the industry (though hardly a "name"). My guess is that somebody at Columbia, hearing his playing, realized that there was potential here and sponsored him.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Just saw this thread.

Glenn Gould's 1955 recording of J.S. Bach's Goldberg Variations is one of the greatest recordings of anything ever made, and this comment from someone who insists on hearing keyboard Bach on the harpsichord.

Gould's performance is one of the rare exceptions to my harpsichord only rule.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Just saw this thread.
> 
> Glenn Gould's 1955 recording of J.S. Bach's Goldberg Variations is one of the greatest recordings of anything ever made, and this comment from someone who insists on hearing keyboard Bach on the harpsichord.
> 
> Gould's performance is one of the rare exceptions to my harpsichord only rule.


A reminder that Gould's great historic 1955 Goldbergs are available in fine stereo sound and without his less-than-talented vocals.


----------



## Heliogabo (Dec 29, 2014)

KenOC said:


> A reminder that Gould's great historic 1955 Goldbergs are available in fine stereo sound and without his less-than-talented vocals.


OOOOOHHHH Who made that thing?
The stereo sound is just ok but GG without his hummings... is not GG to me. Is a "light" GG, a GG with no body...


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> A reminder that Gould's great historic 1955 Goldbergs are available in fine stereo sound and without his less-than-talented vocals.


It's great. But you do have to turn the bass all the way down to get the typically dry Gould sound. Otherwise it sounds much too warm and smooth.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I suspect the ultra-dry sound of Gould's original 1955s was an artifact of the recording to some extent. His 1981s sound much warmer. And of course the Zenph version was recorded in a different studio, with a Yamaha instead of Gould's Steinway.

To my ears, the Zenph sound is much "better" and I welcome that.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

KenOC said:


> A reminder that Gould's great historic 1955 Goldbergs are available in fine stereo sound and without his less-than-talented vocals.


Well, it's not exactly the same performance as the original. Contours are less sharp and various nuances in the original are glossed over or simply not there. However, if the 1955 sound bothers the hell out of you, the new re-creation should do the trick. As for me, I don't find the original sound so bad.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Bulldog said:


> Well, it's not exactly the same performance as the original. Contours are less sharp and various nuances in the original are glossed over or simply not there.


This is the main basis of controversy regarding the Zenph recording. Some people swear they can hear these differences, others not. The Amazon reviews have some spirited comments!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> A reminder that Gould's great historic 1955 Goldbergs are available in fine stereo sound and without his less-than-talented vocals.


It's not Gould without the vocals! I would miss them.


----------



## staxomega (Oct 17, 2011)

I have the 1955 performances well burned into my hippocampus, the Zenph is an interesting way to hear it but it misses many subtleties of Gould's. My more often played these days are Perahia or Tatiana Nikolayeva (I prefer repeats). I purchased Gould's Complete Unreleased Goldberg Variations and look forward to revisiting this classic, it will be nice to hear all the attempted takes though I doubt I will play them much, this is one of the first times I'm buying a classical recording that is including unreleased takes; it's much more common to find these on jazz reissues. And it will be nice to have that huge book


----------

