# Solo Piano: the Gould Standard?



## Lenfer

Last month my I had a rather meagre repertoire of solo piano. Sparked by a fancy for *Chopin*, I bought a few CDs that have really bolstered my piano section in my CD library. *Rubenstin*, *Argerich*, *Ashkenazy*, *Sokolov* the list goes on...

I woke up this morning to my *Boyfriend* playing the *Well-Tempered Clavier* and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since. When it comes to *Bach* for solo piano is *Glenn Gould* really the gold standard?

Who do you prefer for *Bach* and do you have any favoured recordings? :tiphat:


----------



## Dowd

Admittedly my collection is a bit skimpy for Bach and solo piano but I've been mesmerized my Angela Hewitt's solo Bach, especially her Goldberg Variations and French Suites, both on Hyperion.


----------



## Lenfer

Thanks *Dowd*, I haven't heard anything by her but I'm off to *YouTube* to see what I can find.

I know your not "new" but it's the first time we've spoke so hello.  I'm not sure how experiences you are with classical music so I don't want to offend but I'm always happy to help should you need anything. :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB

The Gould recordings are fantastic, intensely musical, and about as 'eccentric' as it gets. They are one gold standard.

Ordinarily not a fan of much Bach, {preferring all other than the Thuringian / Saxon 18th century sorts of counterpoint) I can say that a lot of what is performed of Bach, to me, is much abused by the overly pretty / reverent, and-or somewhat 'precious' sort of interpretation, the last best / worse example I can think of having heard (on air) being the already mentioned Ms. Hewitt.

If it can be had, I strongly recommend the Ralph Kirkpatrick recording of the Goldberg Variations as performed on CLAVICHORD (!) This was Bach's favorite Klavier, its being capable of both dynamic and expression, even allowing for a bit more vibrato on a note or line you would like to bring bit more to the fore. It may be OOP, and was, last I saw it, an LP recording.

Of the many fine pianists, Rosalyn Turick, etc. Choosing from those, too, is a matter of 'how you like your Bach.'

Later recordings, on harpsichord or piano, post 1970-80 especially, are more likely to be more 'historically correct,' - or at least more in keeping with what is now thought of as 'informed period practice.' One quality coming to the fore which I believe is truly correct, is all of Bach's keyboard works should be played with more 'notes inegal' - the rhythm a bit more unsprung, and 'swung.' Almost all the suites and much else having come directly from dance forms, it stands to reason this less metronomic rigid approach would not have been instantly dropped the moment the Master was playing a fugue


----------



## Dowd

Thanks Lenfer! I appreciate it. I consider myself pretty well-versed in Bach, Brahms, and the baroque Italian violinists, but have a ways to go on everything else, so I joined TC to widen my scope of interest.
Thanks again. :tiphat:



Lenfer said:


> Thanks *Dowd*, I know your not "new" but it's the first time we've spoke so hello.  I'm not sure how experiences you are with classical music so I don't want to offend but I'm always happy to help should you need anything. :tiphat:


----------



## Lenfer

Not a problem *Dowd*, I'm a chamber/solo fan most of all although I like pretty much everything to one degree or another. I to joined *TC* to expand my knowledge.

Thanks for going into such detail *Pretr8* is this the set you mentioned?








My other half has some *Wanda Landowska* recordings on harpsichord and I have a Viola de Gamba harpsichord CD which I'm quite found of. Although I like piano more than the harpsichord I guess because I can play the piano but the sound is better to my ear my dynamic.


----------



## PetrB

Lenfer said:


> Not a problem *Dowd*, I'm a chamber/solo fan most of all although I like pretty much everything to one degree or another. I to joined *TC* to expand my knowledge.
> 
> Thanks for going into such detail *Pretr8* is this the set you mentioned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My other half has some *Wanda Landowska* recordings on harpsichord and I have a Viola de Gamba harpsichord CD which I'm quite found of. Although I like piano more than the harpsichord I guess because I can play the piano but the sound is better to my ear my dynamic.


I 'had' past-tense, a single LP, this may be in that collection, but you would have to find a complete listing for all in that compilation. I also used to have a multiple LP box set of Kirkpatrick playing the Scarlatti Sonatas, on Harpsichord. - (ahem.... here is all near three hours of that!)





I too, find solo harpsichord, any length of time, more than 'difficult' -That is why I strongly recommended the Goldberg Variations on the Clavichord, a still percussive but by far sweeter instrument than the harpsichord. Of the two Gould / Goldberg recordings, I much prefer the one from the mid-late 1950's.

Dinu Lipatti did at least the first of the Six Partitas (all movements on Youtube): one of the most deeply musically intelligent of many brilliant pianists of the past; 'legendary' Chopin playing as well.

The concerto fur zwei Klavier, C major (there is another in C minor) is a delight to both listen to and to play. 
I have no idea of the contemporary roster of what's available, or if on pianos. I recall a nice performance from decades ago, Bach / Mozart: Concertos For 2 Pianos; Clara Haskil / Geza Anda , EMI but available only on LP, (amazon's price, New, (a mere pop @ $173.62 for a single LP! Ha ha haaaa Lol) and used @ $21.94 (!)


----------



## itywltmt

Gould's other-worldly technique makes him, IMHO, the go-to interpreter of Bach on the piano (though he has recoirded some of the _Art of the Fugue_ on the oorgan, which he studied at the RCM in Toronto and graduated in with honours...).

His style, interpretation and "humming", however, may be an acquired taste.

*Angela Hewitt* has a Gould connection - having won the (one-time) *Gould piano competition*, held maybe a year or two after his death in Toronto. She went on to record a very strong DG recording of the _Italian Concerto _and other piano works by Bach, that precede her Hyperion recordings, as well as some of the keyboasrd concertos with the CBC Radio Orchestra under Mario Bernardi.


----------



## Webernite

Charles Rosen's is one of the best recordings of the _Art of Fugue_ on piano, and his _Goldbergs_ are also excellent. Gould has a live recording of the _Goldbergs_ from the 50s that is amazing.

I like Gulda's WTC, but there are lots of OK recordings of that work. Pinnock is a reliable harpsichordist.


----------



## Ukko

For the WTC, Arthur Loesser..


----------



## Dodecaplex

Gould is the greatest. Everyone else sucks.


----------



## Lenfer

Thanks *Ity* I that was an interesting snippet of information bout Ms. *Hewitt*. Still haven't heard Hewitt play I was far too tired last night. As for *Gould* my other half has the *Gould*'s organ *Fugue* although I do buy CDs he already has for my own collection. I'm not sure I'm a big fan of organ works enough to buy it for myself.

I think his interpretation is excellent although I would definetly say that it's Gould interpretation rather than the one *J*.*S*. may have had. I don't mind the humming I can see why some might though, for me the biggest issue with *Gould*'s work is that on the CDs I've heard the more you turn up the volume the more noticeable the "hiss" is. 

I didn't know he had a live recording of the *GBV*s but it explains why there is a 3 disc boxed set, I must go check my boyfriend's CD collection and see if he has it. If not then I'd definitely purchase if I can find it. I shall check out both *Rosen* and *Gulda* when I'm not as tired.



Hilltroll72 said:


> For the WTC, Arthur Loesser..


Thanks *Hilly* I will look this up after my nap. :lol:


----------



## misterjones

Lenfer said:


> I woke up this morning to my *Boyfriend* playing the *Well-Tempered Clavier* and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since. When it comes to *Bach* for solo piano is *Glenn Gould* really the gold standard?


I have no idea what constitutes great Bach organ and piano except what I like, and Gould fits the bill. His CD collection of The Art of the Fugue that includes both (organ and piano) is very entertaining and rattles around in my head quite nicely.

Try some solo jazz piano now and then. A nice change of pace.


----------



## Vaneyes

Trust me, GG is the Certified Gold Standard.


----------



## itywltmt

Lenfer said:


> I didn't know he had a live recording of the *GBV*s but it explains why there is a 3 disc boxed set, I must go check my boyfriend's CD collection and see if he has it.


Read my post on the FOUR versions of the GG Goldberg's
http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/itywltmt/231-day-music-history-june.html


----------



## violadude

Webernite said:


> Charles Rosen's is one of the best recordings of the _Art of Fugue_ on piano, and his _Goldbergs_ are also excellent. Gould has a live recording of the _Goldbergs_ from the 50s that is amazing.
> 
> I like Gulda's WTC, but there are lots of OK recordings of that work. Pinnock is a reliable harpsichordist.


Gulda's recording is the one I have. He's not playing on a modern piano is he? It sounds slightly out of tune similar to how older pianos would have sounded like to us now.


----------



## kv466

To put it in a way you'd understand, Lenfer:

Gould's Bach =










Everyone else's Bach = 









Sure, the kisses taste okay,...but how good are they really?


----------



## Webernite

violadude said:


> Gulda's recording is the one I have. He's not playing on a modern piano is he? It sounds slightly out of tune similar to how older pianos would have sounded like to us now.


It's definitely a modern piano, but Gulda was a jazz pianist as well as a classical pianist, so he probably tinkered with the workings of his pianos. Do you like the recording?


----------



## violadude

Webernite said:


> It's definitely a modern piano, but Gulda was a jazz pianist as well as a classical pianist, so he probably tinkered with the workings of his pianos. Do you like the recording?


Ya I do. I am not a recording aficionado really but the voices are clear and the tempos are pretty good I think.


----------



## Lenfer

Two the two fine chaps above me. I haven't really heard much of *Gulda* but I'm itching to find some now. Although I'm not really into jazz (I have tried) I like the jazz you see in old films from the 50s whenever a "_beatnick_" appears but the rest of what I've heard hasn't grabbed me. However I will find *Gulda* classical music with a whiff of jazz pianist doesn't sound too bad. :tiphat:


----------



## kv466

Gulda does solo piano Bach beautifully. His chromatic fantasy and fugue among many others is excellent. Of course, once you're there you could click on the Gould video and see/hear the difference.

I would also recommend Simone Dinnerstein's recording of the Goldbergs and look out for Jan Lisiecki; although I've only heard him play Mozart and Beethoven something tells me his Bach will be magnificent.


----------



## Lenfer

Thanks *Kv* that video was rather impressive I'm looking at *Gulda* on *Amazon*. I already have quite a bit in the post (mail) so I may have to wait. If I order too much they bring it in a van and I feel horrible doing that as I'm currently in the countryside far from town. I don't mind so much if it's a courier service though so we'll see. :devil:

I like *Simone Dinnerstein* I've seen her preform live I don't know why I don't already have her *Goldbergs*. I don't have much of hers actually thanks for the reminder.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

As a Bach fanatic, I quite agree that Gould is one of the "gold standards". I also love Ralph Kirkpatrick's recordings of the WTC on clavichord. More recent piano recordings that I greatly recommend include Angela Hewitt... the version recorded in 1998/99 more so than the newer recording:










You might also look into the recordings by Andras Schiff, Sviatoslav Richter (a bit too "romantic" for Bach IMO), or Roger Woodward:










Beyond the Well Tempered Clavier, Gould is always a serious contender... worthy of repeated hearings, but I would seriously look toward Angela Hewitt and Murray Perahia:




























When it comes to the Goldberg Variations I have both Gould's recordings from 1955 and 1981 (with an interesting interview in which Gould discusses the work and the recordings), Murray Perhia, Andras Schiff, Angela Hewitt, Rosalyn Tureck, and half-a-dozen other versions. Gould, Perahia, Hewitt, Schiff, and Tureck are almost always among the possible "gold standards". It ultimately comes down to which one you like best... unless you are a Bach fanatic and then you'll simply get then all.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Perahia is a phoney and he's only in it for the money. He has no soul.


----------



## Polednice

I love Perahia for a lot of recordings, including Bach, but then that might be because I'm not a proper Bach fan. My far more informed Bachian boyfriend dislikes Perahia and prefers Hewitt and Schiff.


----------



## Philip

StlukesguildOhio said:


> As a Bach fanatic, I quite agree that Gould is *one* of the "gold standards".


This. I would say he is *one* of the standards... but i know some legit pianists that definitely do _not_ think that Gould is a gold standard for Bach. Either too fast, or too slow, too eccentric, they say. Gould is the Gould standard.


----------



## kv466

Polednice said:


> I love Perahia for a lot of recordings, including Bach, but then that might be because I'm not a proper Bach fan. My far more informed Bachian boyfriend dislikes Perahia and prefers Hewitt and Schiff.


He has good taste. Nothing against Murray. I was among the first to rush and order his latest keyboard concertos. Sadly, they are not a good representation of him nor The Academy which normally are a home run for me no matter what. Now get back to your usual threads, Piggy!


----------



## kv466

"They say", eh? Fortunately, the only 'they' I am ever interested in is the multitude of voices in my head. I have legitimate concert pianist friends who couldn't care for Gould, as well; doesn't make them right. I know what I know and I hear what I hear and he does it what every cell in my being interprets as, 'the correct way'. "Too fast". Compared to what? The version Bach, himself, left us? Bach did, in fact, come back and spoke to us. He allowed himself to be heard through the fingers of this lanky, little Canadian fellow and a couple of others on other instruments.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Philip said:


> This. I would say he is *one* of the standards... but i know some legit pianists that definitely do _not_ think that Gould is a gold standard for Bach. Either too fast, or too slow, too eccentric, they say. Gould is the Gould standard.


You go back to your organs and your E. Power Biggses.

Also, calling a pianist who criticizes Gould a "legit pianist" is the funniest oxymoron I've heard.


----------



## Philip

Dodecaplex said:


> You go back to your organs and your E. Power Biggses.
> 
> Also, calling a pianist who criticizes Gould a "legit pianist" is the funniest oxymoron I've heard.


Oh, don't get me wrong, i love Gould :lol:

OK, 'professional' pianists, then..


----------



## Dodecaplex

Philip said:


> Oh, don't get me wrong, i love Gould :lol:
> 
> OK, 'professional' pianists, then..


I'm being deliberately assholish, by the way. Trying to fill in Couchie's role, trolling about Gould while he's not available to troll about Wagner.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> I love Perahia for a lot of recordings, including Bach, but then that might be because I'm not a proper Bach fan. My far more informed Bachian boyfriend dislikes Perahia and prefers Hewitt and Schiff.




You have a _conservative_ Bachian boyfriend. Are his politics conservative too?


----------



## misterjones

Lenfer said:


> I like the jazz you see in old films from the 50s whenever a "_beatnick_" appears . . .


I'm not sure such jazz exists outside of soundtracks and the occasional Tom Waits song:






But I digress . . .


----------



## violadude

Hilltroll72 said:


> You have a _conservative_ Bachian boyfriend. Are his politics conservative too?


Somehow I seriously doubt that.....just a feeling lol


----------



## ZombieBeethoven

I have been listening to Grigori Sokolov's Bach recordings for the last couple of days. Quite enjoy them.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

God... these Gould fanatics are as militant as the Wagnerians. Don't get me wrong. I love Gould and have every recording he made of Bach's music... but I love Bach more... and that's where the issue lies. With Gould, as with Richter, you get quite a bit more of the "eccentricities" of the performer. Schiff, Perahia, and especially Hewitt are far more transparent... less mannered... less of them and more of Bach. Again, I wouldn't be without Gould because I love his mannerisms which open up a world of other possibilities, but there's no way that I can see him as the single "gold standard".


----------



## kv466

On guard and ready to attack!

Gold standard, shmold smandard...I said, 'the correct way'. :lol: You know how crazy we can be. Besides, Hewitt and Schiff understand Bach and do him much justice; even though it may not be my favorite. It is only Murray that has trouble convincing me. Believe me, I'm looking for more Bach than anything. I don't buy into this whole eccentricity crap. Glenn is just as transparent a person and is even more than most when he plays. I think what most bothers some folks is that he is just too damned good and that makes a lot of people uneasy. I don't know why. I will never understand it. But it does. Any hand, any run, any trill...he did it better than anyone else. It's as simple as that. Why is impeccable phrasing and laser precision considered mechanical or robotic? All one needs is a set of ears or even one to clearly observe that this is the work of a magnificent human being.


----------



## Ukko

If you folks insist on hearing 'more of Bach', you need the WTC played on a single manual harpsichord, sequenced in the circle of fifths, with no 'weighting' of voices.

Fascinating! Fascinating I tell you!

[One time I listened for 8.7 minutes before running out of... whatever it was that I ran out of.]


----------



## emiellucifuge

Hilltroll72 said:


> If you folks insist on hearing 'more of Bach', you need the WTC played on a single manual harpsichord, sequenced in the circle of fifths, with no 'weighting' of voices.
> 
> Fascinating! Fascinating I tell you!
> 
> [One time I listened for 8.7 minutes before running out of... whatever it was that I ran out of.]


Where can I hear this?


----------



## Ukko

emiellucifuge said:


> Where can I hear this?


There's a fair chance you can't; I haven't found my CD so far. It's Russian, that label beginning with an 'L', and that's as far as my memory goes. I'll keep an eye out for it (that's really a pretty odd saying). I think what I have is Book One.


----------



## joen_cph

*Feinberg, S. Richter.*


----------



## Ukko

Quote Originally Posted by Hilltroll72 View Post
"If you folks insist on hearing 'more of Bach', you need the WTC played on a single manual harpsichord, sequenced in the circle of fifths, with no 'weighting' of voices.

Fascinating! Fascinating I tell you!

[One time I listened for 8.7 minutes before running out of... whatever it was that I ran out of.]"



emiellucifuge said:


> Where can I hear this?


Still haven't found the CD, but found some paperwork. It's Book 2, and the harpsichordist is André Volkonsky. The label wasn't mentioned in the paperwork, but I seem to remember that it's Lyrinx - maybe.


----------



## Ukko

joen_cph said:


> *Feinberg, S. Richter.*


Feinberg is excellent, though the sound is mediocre. Richter is too Russian.


----------



## Dodecaplex

StlukesguildOhio said:


> God... these Gould fanatics are as militant as the Wagnerians. Don't get me wrong. I love Gould and have every recording he made of Bach's music... but I love Bach more... and that's where the issue lies. With Gould, as with Richter, you get quite a bit more of the "eccentricities" of the performer. Schiff, Perahia, and especially Hewitt are far more transparent... less mannered... less of them and more of Bach. Again, I wouldn't be without Gould because I love his mannerisms which open up a world of other possibilities, but there's no way that I can see him as the single "gold standard".


These are all nonsensical speculations that will get you nowhere. First of all, what do _you_ know about more Bach? All we have is a bunch of ink blots on a piece of paper, and if you want 'more ink blots on a piece of paper', you're always welcome to listen to a computer play the ink blots for you (which doesn't sound bad actually, it's simply that this whole idea of 'more Bach' is utter nonsense).


----------



## moody

Hilltroll72 said:


> For the WTC, Arthur Loesser..


There's a name to be reckoned with.


----------



## moody

Dodecaplex said:


> I'm being deliberately assholish, by the way. Trying to fill in Couchie's role, trolling about Gould while he's not available to troll about Wagner.


And let me say that it suits you down to the ground, Couchie is as nothing compared to you.


----------



## Lenfer

joen_cph said:


> *Feinberg, S. Richter.*


I found *Richter*'s "clavier" to be most excellent! Quite different from *Gould*'s and alas I think I prefer *Richter*'s interpretation. I actually have only just seen your comment but thank you all the same. :tiphat:


----------



## joen_cph

Hilltroll72 said:


> Feinberg is excellent, though the sound is mediocre. Richter is too Russian.


This observation will disqualify Richter in quite a lot of music ...


----------



## Ukko

joen_cph said:


> This observation will disqualify Richter in quite a lot of music ...


 For me, only in the WTC. Same with Nikolayeva.


----------



## kv466

Lenf is liking that Snickers bar


----------



## martijn

Listened to the 5th French Suite by Gould lately. God how I hate it, I even preferred myself playing it (and that means a lot). The opening allemande is a very sensitive piece, and he plays it way too fast, with terribly weird ornaments. I rather listen to Gilels playing it, much slower, a bit too much like romantic music perhaps, but at least with feeling. Gould is an overrated pianist, I won't even mention how he has raped Mozart's piano sonatas. Yes, he plays counterpoint in a very clear and audible way, but his taste was often abonimable.


----------



## Ukko

martijn said:


> Listened to the 5th French Suite by Gould lately. God how I hate it, I even preferred myself playing it (and that means a lot). The opening allemande is a very sensitive piece, and he plays it way too fast, with terribly weird ornaments. I rather listen to Gilels playing it, much slower, a bit too much like romantic music perhaps, but at least with feeling. Gould is an overrated pianist, I won't even mention how he has raped Mozart's piano sonatas. Yes, he plays counterpoint in a very clear and audible way, but his taste was often abonimable.


Hah. I'm pretty sure you misunderstand Gould's approach to Mozart. Although, I suppose his distaste for it is a matter of taste...

As for the allemande, I dunno; certainly it suffers if played as if it were a sarabande?


----------



## martijn

I don't "misunderstand" it. I listen to it, it sounds terrible - that's all. Whether he intended to play it poorly or whatever else, that doesn't change a thing for me. It's just another example of egomania by Gould. 

I learned the allemande before I ever heard someone perform it, and I've always found that it works better at a slow tempo, allemande or not.


----------



## Webernite

I think sometimes Gould's playing was ...anti-harmonic, so to speak. He could make the voices sound so individual that they ceased to make harmonies together, and then all the color would go out of the music. I think this happens in his _Well-Tempered Clavier_, and the _English _and _French Suites_. So it bemuses me when people say, "He could only play Bach." The only Bach records of Gould's that I love are the _Goldberg Variations_, _Partitas_ and live Three-Part Inventions. The Brahms Intermezzi, Brahms concerto (1959 version), Haydn sonatas, early Beethoven sonatas, Beethoven-Liszt symphonies and Wagner transcriptions are some of his best records, in my opinion.


----------



## martijn

That's something very interesting, you state, Webernite, for I've always disliked the sound of Gould's playing. I've never thought about whether it might have to do with the way he articulates each individual voice, but it's something I'm gonna listen for.


----------



## kv466

Yeah, Martin with a j,...get back to me when you can play like this:






Guess I won't be hearing from you,...ever.


----------



## kv466

Hey,...there's a reason all of the fast food restaurants are full and people all over are consuming cheap beer and overproduced food. Some of us actually like that ****. It's all a matter of taste, right.


----------



## Ukko

kv466 said:


> Hey,...there's a reason all of the fast food restaurants are full and people all over are consuming cheap beer and overproduced food. Some of us actually like that ****. It's all a matter of taste, right.


Hah. I think there is a slant in there somewhere. But it gives me an opening to recommend Sierra Nevada's "Ruthless Rye" IPA.


----------



## kv466

Good man! That is one of most excellent supermarket beers out there at the moment.


----------



## martijn

I think I made rather clear how poor my playing is. Of course Gould is technically a 100 times better. But if you just rape pieces, then I rather listen to any mediocre piano player with good taste than to such renditions by Mr Gould.


----------



## Ukko

martijn said:


> I think I made rather clear how poor my playing is. Of course Gould is technically a 100 times better. But if you just rape pieces, then I rather listen to any mediocre piano player with good taste than to such renditions by Mr Gould.


I don't understand why you listen to Gould's Mozart; does getting pissed off make you feel better? If not, seems like the thing to do is avoid the stuff.


----------



## martijn

I listened to it for 10 seconds, then I stopped it, because it was too terrible.


----------



## kv466

In the end, we each know what we like.

Fluctuating tempos and boring approach:





or well,...what I consider absolute perfection in every way:






No cessation at all.


----------



## Lenfer

martijn said:


> I listened to it for 10 seconds, then I stopped it, because it was too terrible.


It is a matter of taste but "terrible" I think you can't really justify saying that when it comes someone like *GG*. I dislike *Gould*'s approach to music.

From an early age he decided he didn't like composers like *Chopin* et al and thus rarely played their work. Even when he did it was done in a half-hearted way as if was mocking them. Do I wish he would have expanded is repertoire? Yes I do, do I wish he would have played them with the same genius he played *Bach*? Yes I do.

Alas he was too closed minded and prefered to stick to what he knew and loved namely *Bach*. So why does no one ever bring up this fact as it's clearly untrue than *Chopin*, *Liszt* and whoever else *Gould* took a dislike to were bad composers? The answer *Glenn Gould* had a fine repertoire of witty retorts and insults that would seat him alongside the very best of *Talk Classical's* orators.


----------



## martijn

Ok, if I like something, it's boring, and if you like it's perfection. Very mature approach. Among Mozartlovers there's a general consensus that Gould was a terrible player of Mozart. Take the c minor sonata. It's no happy piece. He plays it like a hysterical child. And then these stupid ornamentations at 2:22. What an indulgent approach! TER-RI-BLE. I won't even start about the humming.


----------



## Lenfer

I'm not saying you can't have your opinion I'm not even saying it's wrong. I'm just saying that it's absurd to call someone like *Gould* "TER-RI-BLE" when it comes to his playing. Even someone I dislike with a passion say Mr. *Lang* I wouldn't say he was terrible. I understand about the humming although I enjoy it as I know *Gould* was sincerer his performance was not staged.


----------



## kv466

I don't know what a Mozart lover is. I guess I could be called one as I was only fifteen when I first made my way to Salzburg and Vienna only to learn more about him and go a little in depth as to where he came from. I've heard just about every recording in the book and the so-called consensus can stay with their de la Rocha and Uchida and whatever other Mozart master they want to crown. I have absolutely no problem with sheer greatness. Also, I didn't say anything about your particular likes being boring; it was the very performance I cited that I was referring to. Sloppy is sloppy and lame is lame and boring is boring. They are merely words used to describe what is. Nothing more.


----------



## martijn

Yes, he is terrible. Even if you think I can't say it, I say it. Again, I clearly stated before his technique is good. I'm criticizing his taste. Prove me wrong. Everybody here tries to make me look suspicious, but hey guys, you will have to face it that this is my opinion.


----------



## martijn

I'm a Mozart lover for example. And I know several Mozart lovers who feel the same disgust for Gould's performances as I do. Given your name/number, you seem the first Mozart lover I know, who likes Gould doing Mozart. I will agree by the way that Brendel has played the c minor sonata better, I've a recording of it which is very good.


----------



## kv466

martijn said:


> Yes, he is terrible. Even if you think I can't say it, I say it. Again, I clearly stated before his technique is good. I'm criticizing his taste. Prove me wrong. Everybody here tries to make me look suspicious, but hey guys, you will have to face it that this is my opinion.


...taking notes on maturity here...


----------



## Vaneyes

martijn said:


> Listened to the 5th French Suite by Gould lately. God how I hate it, I even preferred myself playing it (and that means a lot). The opening allemande is a very sensitive piece, and he plays it way too fast, with terribly weird ornaments. I rather listen to Gilels playing it, much slower, a bit too much like romantic music perhaps, but at least with feeling. Gould is an overrated pianist, I won't even mention how he has raped Mozart's piano sonatas. Yes, he plays counterpoint in a very clear and audible way, but his taste was often abonimable.


Bach is always nice to get through at a swift pace. Agree on the second volume of his Mozart Piano Sonatas. The early are quite charming. No rapes there.


----------



## Lenfer

martijn said:


> Yes, he is terrible. Even if you think I can't say it, I say it. Again, I clearly stated before his technique is good. I'm criticizing his taste. Prove me wrong. Everybody here tries to make me look suspicious, but hey guys, you will have to face it that this is my opinion.


You can say what you like I'm not going to stop you. Just saying but there must be more than a few *Mozart* lovers who have bought *Gould'*s *Mozart* as the CD is not out of print.


----------



## martijn

kv466 said:


> ...taking notes on maturity here...


Because people try to make me look suspicious, just because I hate Gould. Like implying I'm arrogant about my playing, which is nonsense. Like I listen to Gould's playing of Mozart to get irritated, as a sort of delight for a nihilistic person. Come on, I just dislike it, and it's not because I lack knowledge or listen in a superficial way. Face it.


----------



## martijn

Mozart played by Gould, it looks interesting, famous composer played by a famous pianist. These things are not quickly becoming out of print.


----------



## kv466

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## martijn

""Mozart was a bad composer who died too late rather than too early". Only for this infamous quote I will dislike Gould till the end of my life. If anyone was a bad composer it was Glenn Gould by the way, with that boring, incompetent string quartet of his.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Gould was being sarcastic when he said that about Mozart.


----------



## martijn

How do you know it? I think you mean ironic by the way, because if he was sarcastic, it wouldn't change a thing.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Gould always came up with quips and ripostes that were meant to incite reactions similar to what you did in post #76. I can't prove it, but the most likely conclusion is that this Mozart "joke" is just another one of those quips.

Also, look at him playing Mozart here (especially around 0:53 and 1:11, do you really think he hated Wolfie?):


----------



## Ukko

Sheesh. Gould was genuinely 'strange', a genius not very far from the 'savant' enclave, _who had to deal with the public_. He enjoyed jerking chains and rattling cages, and it was easy for him to do so, because his thought processes were only very approximately 'mainstream'. That approximation accounts for those musical deviations from the norm, as well as the other unconventional stuff _that we know about - because he was a public figure_.

That's my considered take on Mr. Gould.


----------



## martijn

First of all, if it was meant as a "joke", it's both an unsuccesfull and rather inappropriate one. Two, if he had at least written a better string quartet, #76 could at least partly be skipped. Three, I don't think Gould was just ironic. This sonata for example may be considered a relatively early sonata by Mozart, and he has expressed that he preferred the earlier sonatas. So if the weird looks are an indication of his joy (and he has indeed said he liked to play the Mozart sonatas, though he didn't seem to value them greatly), then it is not contradictory with what he has said, and other statements may be less ironic than some think as well.


----------



## Dodecaplex

A string quartet better than this beauty? Is that even possible?


----------



## martijn

Nothing special. Give me some late Mozart instead...


----------



## kv466

Actually, for string quartets I'd rather have Dvorak or Shostakovich but Mozart did write lovely works for the strings...the 563 divertimento and the string duos are very high on my favorite list.


----------



## martijn

Someone here seems to have issues.


----------



## Ukko

martijn said:


> Someone here seems to have issues.


:lol: Oh yes. Look in a mirror, Marty.


----------



## martijn

Hilltroll72 said:


> :lol: Oh yes. Look in a mirror, Marty.


First of all, I'm neither Marty, or Martin with a j. Then, I was referring to a text in very little letters that kv466 had added and now has deleted, some rather immature attempt to hurt, I suppose (if so, too bad, didn't work). And anyway, I see that some members here apparently can't respond in a normal way to my objections against Gould. That you think differently, fine, but these little unsympathetic things that a few of you, kv466 in the first place, seem to have to include in every post, become a little annoying after a while. I wish you good luck here.


----------



## Ukko

martijn said:


> First of all, I'm neither Marty, or Martin with a j. Then, I was referring to a text in very little letters that kv466 had added and now has deleted, some rather immature attempt to hurt, I suppose (if so, too bad, didn't work). And anyway, I see that some members here apparently can't respond in a normal way to my objections against Gould. That you think differently, fine, but these little unsympathetic things that a few of you, kv466 in the first place, seem to have to include in every post, become a little annoying after a while. I wish you good luck here.


Thank you. I wish you good luck there.


----------



## kv466

Something tells me Trollie and I will be just fine here _and_ there. Really though, I won't be having any more fun at your expense. Thanks for the laughs and like what you do. It is your right and anyone who knows me here knows that I respect that; just got caught up in the fun.


----------



## Vaneyes

Lenfer said:


> You can say what you like I'm not going to stop you. Just saying but there must be more than a few *Mozart* lovers who have bought *Gould'*s *Mozart* as the CD is not out of print.


Not only that..we GG lovers are so spoiled. Everything's been reissued so many times, that if we get tired of a cover....


----------



## Vaneyes

martijn said:


> If anyone was a bad composer it was Glenn Gould by the way, with that boring, incompetent string quartet of his.


I like it more each time I hear it. BTW may we hear something of yours?


----------



## Vaneyes

What objections?


----------



## Webernite

martijn said:


> Yes, he is terrible. Even if you think I can't say it, I say it. Again, I clearly stated before his technique is good. I'm criticizing his taste.


OK, but the thing is his taste wasn't _always_ bad! He recorded a lot of music. If you listen to many of his recordings, I'm sure you can find something you like. Of course, you're not obliged to take the trouble to do that, but trust me, there is some very good playing and interpreting in his discography.


----------



## Lenfer

Hilltroll72 said:


> Sheesh. Gould was genuinely 'strange', a genius not very far from the 'savant' enclave, _who had to deal with the public_. He enjoyed jerking chains and rattling cages, and it was easy for him to do so, because his thought processes were only very approximately 'mainstream'. That approximation accounts for those musical deviations from the norm, as well as the other unconventional stuff _that we know about - because he was a public figure_.
> 
> That's my considered take on Mr. Gould.


A bit like our *Hilly* eh?

Well the "_jerking chains and rattling cages_" part anyway.


----------



## martijn

Webernite said:


> OK, but the thing is his taste wasn't _always_ bad! He recorded a lot of music. If you listen to many of his recordings, I'm sure you can find something you like. Of course, you're not obliged to take the trouble to do that, but trust me, there is some very good playing and interpreting in his discography.


I didn't say everything by him was bad. I like the Goldberg Variations by Gould, for example.


----------



## Ukko

Lenfer said:


> A bit like our *Hilly* eh?
> 
> Well the "_jerking chains and rattling cages_" part anyway.


Hah. I fall considerably short of 'genius'. I do enjoy messing with chains and cages, but consider it part of my 'job' as a humanist to make folks aware of those chains and cages. I haven't figured out how to touch the chains of hate and bigotry, damn it.


----------



## Ukko

Back to Gould. A few years back I transferred an LP (Columbia M31512) of him playing Handel's suites for harpsichord 1-4.
The recording made it to CD in at least a couple versions, one of them this:

http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Fugue-Ha...r_1_10?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1332868625&sr=1-10

Gould plays a harpsichord, very well near as I can tell. Handel did not, I think, specify much if any ornamentation in his scores, leaving the task to the musician (I'm maybe getting that notion based on his sonatas?). Anyway, there is no lack of ornamentation in these recordings. I wonder if _martijn_ has heard them.


----------



## kv466

I just popped in that disc a couple of days ago and was delighted by not only the playing but the composition itself. I'm not overly familiar with them or any Handel for that matter. Definitely makes me wish the ratboy had chosen to do more stuff on the harpsi; not _instead of_ but in addition to the piano versions. Wow,...this year would be the 80th birthday 'recital' of sorts, even though it very well may have been a studio tv broadcast.


----------



## Vaneyes

kv466 said:


> I just popped in that disc a couple of days ago and was delighted by not only the playing but the composition itself. I'm not overly familiar with them or any Handel for that matter. Definitely makes me wish the ratboy had chosen to do more stuff on the harpsi; not _instead of_ but in addition to the piano versions. Wow,...this year would be the 80th birthday 'recital' of sorts, even though it very well may have been a studio tv broadcast.


Yep, Eight-Zero on September 25. What a cantankerous old fart, he robbed us of. He would've been very well medicated these days. R.I.P., GG.


----------



## Vaneyes

Digressing...how 'bout this picture?

View attachment 4095


----------



## Lenfer

Hilltroll72 said:


> Back to Gould. A few years back I transferred an LP (Columbia M31512) of him playing Handel's suites for harpsichord 1-4.
> The recording made it to CD in at least a couple versions, one of them this:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Fugue-Ha...r_1_10?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1332868625&sr=1-10
> 
> Gould plays a harpsichord, very well near as I can tell. Handel did not, I think, specify much if any ornamentation in his scores, leaving the task to the musician (I'm maybe getting that notion based on his sonatas?). Anyway, there is no lack of ornamentation in these recordings. I wonder if _martijn_ has heard them.


Sadly I can't get this here in the *UK* I will ask an *American* friend to send it to me though thanks *HT*.


----------



## Vaneyes

Lenfer said:


> Sadly I can't get this here in the *UK* I will ask an *American* friend to send it to me though thanks *HT*.


I suggest buying this quirky and very well recorded Handel by itself (see cover). Combining with Bach, as Sony did on previous occasions, interferes in my estimation.

Available inexpensively at Amazon Marketplace.

View attachment 4123


----------



## Ukko

Vaneyes said:


> I suggest buying this quirky and very well recorded Handel by itself (see cover). Combining with Bach, as Sony did on previous occasions, interferes in my estimation.
> 
> Available inexpensively at Amazon Marketplace.
> 
> View attachment 4123


amazon.com shows the back of this CD case, which probably (not easy to make out) says 'Glen Gould, piano'. What ho?


----------



## Vaneyes

Hilltroll72 said:


> amazon.com shows the back of this CD case, which probably (not easy to make out) says 'Glen Gould, piano'. What ho?


I wonder what the original LP backcover says, since this CD cover is a copy of that.

As you probably know, Steinway CD 318 was supposed to be used for this session, until it became incapacitated. Maybe some of the LP cover design was done pre-session and not changed?

PS The LP label says harpsichord. No LP backcover seen yet.

View attachment 4124


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Well, let's see... in the last couple of months we've have threads dealing with Herbert von Karajan, Leopold Stokowski, Arturo Toscanini, and Glenn Gould... and in almost every instance we've had more than a few who have needed to trash the same performers. Of course what can be expected when we have members who rate Black Sabbath above Mozart and Beethoven?


----------



## Lenfer

I happened to have the television on and I was going through trying to get the news when I happened upon an *English* television show. I don't know what it was called but there was a gag about *Arturo Toscanini* conducting the *Magic Flute*. I'm not that well acquainted with *Toscanini* but there must be something wrong if he's being mocked on television shows.

What do people have against *Karajan*?


----------



## misterjones

Hilltroll72 said:


> Back to Gould. A few years back I transferred an LP (Columbia M31512) of him playing Handel's suites for harpsichord 1-4.
> The recording made it to CD in at least a couple versions, one of them this:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Fugue-Ha...r_1_10?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1332868625&sr=1-10
> 
> Gould plays a harpsichord, very well near as I can tell. Handel did not, I think, specify much if any ornamentation in his scores, leaving the task to the musician (I'm maybe getting that notion based on his sonatas?). Anyway, there is no lack of ornamentation in these recordings. I wonder if _martijn_ has heard them.


Listening now to the version included as volume 43 of "The Complete Original Jacket Collection". Anyone know anything about that recording? (Good, bad, when, where, etc. Sounds good to me, but perhaps he recorded an even better version.)


----------



## kv466

misterjones said:


> Listening now to the version included as volume 43 of "The Complete Original Jacket Collection". Anyone know anything about that recording? (Good, bad, when, where, etc. Sounds good to me, but perhaps he recorded an even better version.)


Hmm, that link didn't take you to the actual disc in the COJC. As far as I know it is the only released studio recording. He may have done it on tv; our good buddy Pierre would know.


----------



## Lenfer

misterjones said:


> Listening now to the version included as volume 43 of "The Complete Original Jacket Collection". Anyone know anything about that recording? (Good, bad, when, where, etc. Sounds good to me, but perhaps he recorded an even better version.)


I am in agreement with *Kv* as far as I know that's it. However I haven't been able to find a complete jacket box for less than £800 and I'm not willing to pay that. If I do find one I'll listen and let you know.


----------



## martijn

Lenfer said:


> I happened to have the television on and I was going through trying to get the news when I happened upon an *English* television show. I don't know what it was called but there was a gag about *Arturo Toscanini* conducting the *Magic Flute*. I'm not that well acquainted with *Toscanini* but there must be something wrong if he's being mocked on television shows.
> 
> What do people have against *Karajan*?


Some people find that Karajan conducted every music in a similar way, no matter the difference in musical style. I like Karajan myself, but it's true what these people say.


----------



## Lenfer

martijn said:


> Some people find that Karajan conducted every music in a similar way, no matter the difference in musical style. I like Karajan myself, but it's true what these people say.


Thanks for replying *Marti*  I didn't know that but then again I'm not that familiar with him if I'm honest.


----------



## Yoshi

Glenn Gould. The end.


----------



## Lenfer

Jan said:


> Glenn Gould. The end.


Nice to see you posting again *Jan*.


----------



## moody

Lenfer said:


> Thanks for replying *Marti*  I didn't know that but then again I'm not that familiar with him if I'm honest.


 There is a thread --"Karajan-Hero or Hype?" which has been running for what seems decades and in which every type of hysteria was released, have a look.


----------



## Lenfer

moody said:


> There is a thread --"Karajan-Hero or Hype?" which has been running for what seems decades and in which every type of hysteria was released, have a look.


Thanks *Moody* I actually saw the title of that thread that's what brought it to my attention there was a love or hate tihng going on with Mr. *Karajan*. I haven't looked inside as I haven't made up my mind and would not want to be influenced unjustly, although I doubt he's either.


----------



## misterjones

Listening now to Gould playing Mozart's piano sonatas. I never could get into these before. Things have suddenly changed.


----------



## Blue Hour

emiellucifuge said:


> Where can I hear this?


Label: LYRINX
Barcode: 3383008820489

Just ordered L'enfer a copy from Ebay. I suspect it may be the CD Hilltroll mentioned however I cannot be sure.


----------



## misterjones

What is the best source for Glenn Gould on CD generally (and the Beethoven piano sonatas specifically). Is it the Complete Original Jacket Collection? The Glenn Gould Edition? Other?


----------



## kv466

Many will say the Sony Edition because of the super-bit mapping and all that...I have them on Sony, Odyssey, CBS Anniversary and Original Jacket. They all sound just about the same but I would have to go with the bunch and say The Glenn Gould Edition.


----------



## misterjones

Thanks. Though their word is not gospel, Wikipedia indicates Gould recorded 23 of Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas. I see 20 as appearing on the COJC. The same 20 appear on the Glenn Gould Edition Beethoven Piano Sonatas Vols 1-2. Piano Sonatas Nos. 24 and 29 appear on a separate Glenn Gould Edition CD, bringing the total to 22. What's the 23rd? Are there even more?


----------



## kv466

Now you got me going, MisterJones! I've got the same count. Hmmm,...maybe our good buddy Pierre can enlighten us as he is the resident expert. Hopefully he comes across this.


----------



## misterjones

Gould appears to have recorded two more, nos. 19 and 28, for CBC in 1952. That would bring the total to 24 (not 23, as Wikipedia indicates). Here's my list so far:

1-3
5-10
12-19
23-24
28-32

Anyone know of any others, even if they appear only on video and/or in bootleg form?


----------



## Romantic Geek

A little late to this debate...

Love Glenn Gould for Bach interpretations. They are so crisp and clean. I actually like a few of his Brahms interpretations because they are a nice contrast to the heavy pedal used sometimes. He's probably the only person able to pull it off.

But Glenn Gould on Mozart. It. Is. The. Worst. Here's my favorite example. This recording is so bad, that I actually broke into hysterical laughter when I heard it.






I really think Gould isn't cut for Mozart who was more of a melodicist and not a contrapuntist.


----------



## kv466

^^

Just goes to show how different everyone's tastes and ideas about how they like hearing stuff is. I actually can not listen to any other interpretation of this sonata as it almost makes me physically sick. This version is full of gorgeous attack and thoughtful phrasing and wonderful dynamics; no cessation at all. You laugh while I am in bliss. Just the way it goes. Like someone who is in sheer ecstasy while listening to Horrorwitz as I am wondering why the guy is so sloppy and even more importantly, why he's considered so damned amazing. Tomatoe, tomato.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Wait, what? That gorgeous attack hideously disrupts the phrase structure of the work not to mention it goes at a snails pace. There is not thoughtful phrasing going on here.


----------



## Vaneyes

Romantic Geek said:


> Wait, what? That gorgeous attack hideously disrupts the phrase structure of the work not to mention it goes at a snails pace. There is not thoughtful phrasing going on here.


Not as bad as that sample you left.


----------



## Romantic Geek

See, that staccato articulation on the D neighbor above the C# makes no sense. You're accenting a dissonance that's placed on a weak beat with a weak value, not to mention the Urtext of the score has that three note figured slurred. It contradicts all common phrasing practice with Mozart and I don't think it particularly adds any value. It's just...so strange. But this is what happens when Gould goes from the compound melodies in Bach and Brahms and tries to apply the same knowledge to Mozart's single line melodies.


----------



## kv466

The thing is, señor that strange doesn't bother me in the least and I don't particularly care for what should be because I don't believe there 'should be' _anything_ in music. I like playing music fresh and new as much as possible. That being said, I do respect Mozart and any composer for writing such beautiful music and putting in so much work but I also see no point in interpretation unless there is something to be said that hasn't been said before with a piece. Hey,...I'm just glad you like him at all, RG! Good to see you around, btw...I had wondered where you'd been.


----------



## Romantic Geek

kv466 said:


> The thing is, señor that strange doesn't bother me in the least and I don't particularly care for what should be because I don't believe there 'should be' _anything_ in music. I like playing music fresh and new as much as possible. That being said, I do respect Mozart and any composer for writing such beautiful music and putting in so much work but I also see no point in interpretation unless there is something to be said that hasn't been said before with a piece. Hey,...I'm just glad you like him at all, RG! Good to see you around, btw...I had wondered where you'd been.


My question to you then is, does the composer just write notes, or are their own notations of articulation and phrasing included in their composition? Bach hardly ever wrote articulation and phrasing. Mozart did it sparingly (as you can see in the Urtext editions) but they are clearly marked.

Anyway, I've lurked. Been busy finishing up my Masters and heading over to Indiana for PhD next year


----------



## moody

kv466 said:


> ^^
> 
> Just goes to show how different everyone's tastes and ideas about how they like hearing stuff is. I actually can not listen to any other interpretation of this sonata as it almost makes me physically sick. This version is full of gorgeous attack and thoughtful phrasing and wonderful dynamics; no cessation at all. You laugh while I am in bliss. Just the way it goes. Like someone who is in sheer ecstasy while listening to Horrorwitz as I am wondering why the guy is so sloppy and even more importantly, why he's considered so damned amazing. Tomatoe, tomato.


I have seldom if ever found reason to disagree with your statements on pianism, but in this case I really must.
Some people think that Neville cardus was the greatest music critic of modern times and this is part of what he had to say about Horowitz : " If I listened to the average celebrated pianist as critically, as Beckmesserishly, as I listened to Horowitz at this concert , my notice would probably be unprintable. It was once said of Horowitz that he is the greatest pianist alive or dead. The statement now seems to have been an understatement---it was perhaps not positive enough about the pianists still unborn".
I wonder if you have been listening to his very late recordings, but even then they were better than most.
As for Mr.Gould, I find him an interesting character but that's all. If his strange and lumpen version of the Emperor concerto is correct, then everybody elses is wrong and I don't believe that.


----------



## kv466

Not sure what you're saying there, Moody. As for the Emperor, that one's easy for me...I don't hear anything strange and lumpen about his interpretation of the fifth...his trills are simply better executed and all of the virtuoso runs are played with more clarity and smoother than anyone else and well, I've never heard anyone perform the slow movement with more beauty and subtle mastery. I'm not saying anyone is wrong, just not as good.

As for Horrorwitz, he's just not my cup of tea. Funny that his later works are mentioned because that is the only time he has ever impressed me. His later recordings of Scarlatti and Haydn and Mozart are quite lovely. It is the stuff that he is said to be master of that really bothers me...namely, the Rach3...I find his playing rough and sloppy and not connected from passage to passage and I could really go on and on...I wouldn't place his performance above even the Horacio Gutierrez recording, let alone the Earl Wild which I believe to be the best ever; orchestra and soloist. And pretty much every concerto Vladi recorded I can instantly name someone I like better. It's really just a matter of taste but I'll still never see the master in him because to me a master is clean and precise and knows the piece to the core above any physical virtuoso aspects. And, of course, my favorites are able to blend the two and create wonderful piano music.


----------



## misterjones

I find the extreme intolerance for Gould very odd. I can understand liking or not liking a particular rendition of a classical piece by a pianist who is able to competently play his or her instrument, but the vitriol directed at Gould (and others) seems a bit much. But then, as I have said elsewhere, I welcome creative approaches to classical art forms, whether it's Mozart or Shakespeare. If it doesn't work for me, then it doesn't work for me. I'm not going to get angry at the attempt, especially if others enjoy it.

I was thinking of posting a query seeking opinions about Wendy Carlos, whom I am currently listening to. I find her work entertaining, but if Gould is crucified, then I imagine Carlos would be crucified, hanged, drawn and quartered, and burned upside-down at the stake. I may even be called an idiot in the process.


----------



## kv466

Well, at least you have a fan here...I like her work very much...since you're listening to her, you might wanna check out Don Dorsey and his efforts on the synthesizer...unless you have already.


----------



## misterjones

I'll do that.

I like Zappa's synclavier work, as well.


----------



## moody

misterjones said:


> I find the extreme intolerance for Gould very odd. I can understand liking or not liking a particular rendition of a classical piece by a pianist who is able to competently play his or her instrument, but the vitriol directed at Gould (and others) seems a bit much. But then, as I have said elsewhere, I welcome creative approaches to classical art forms, whether it's Mozart or Shakespeare. If it doesn't work for me, then it doesn't work for me. I'm not going to get angry at the attempt, especially if others enjoy it.
> 
> I was thinking of posting a query seeking opinions about Wendy Carlos, whom I am currently listening to. I find her work entertaining, but if Gould is crucified, then I imagine Carlos would be crucified, hanged, drawn and quartered, and burned upside-down at the stake. I may even be called an idiot in the process.


I find your post very odd because all I've seen on the forums is extreme sycophantic behaviour towards Gould. I trust you were not aiming at me because I'm not sure that I've mentioned him at all. He may well be the best Bach player in living memory but I wouldn't know good Bach from bad Bach. But I do not admire his Beethoven and think it poor. In the case of the afore mentioned Emperor concerto I believe the standard was set by Schnabel/Galliera, Gilels/Ludwig, Casadesus/Mitropoulos and Kempf/van Kempen.I find the Gould effort is not a patch on these and many others and that it is heavy, slow and stodgy, The first time I played it I and the people with me burst into laughter.


----------



## kv466




----------



## misterjones

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular. I was just commenting on the tenor of some of the comments aimed at Gould in a few threads, which make him sound like the John Dillinger of classical music.


----------



## moody

KV 466.
I can't quite see what the point of your music example can be, it's not an actual performance of the work. The Gould/Stokowski recording was made in 1966, Gould's television talk in 1970. So really I don't see any reason for me to alter my opinion. The first movement is marked ALLEGRO and certainly the recording is not allegro in in any way.
You mention the fact that you want to hear an interpreter say something that hasn't been said before. Firstly that is pretty well impossible but the interpreter must not insert himself/herself between the music and the listener. The secret is to aim for what the composer wanted. If you are right re: the Gould Columbia recording then all the other pianists are wrong---I don't think so!
Perhaps we should leave it at that because I'm sure that you are not going to reconsider .
We can now go back to giving each other lots of likes.


----------



## Ukko

You and _kv466_ have different philosophies about jobs - the composer's and the musician's. Both of you know the arguments, no point in repeating them.

Personally, I think there is both liberty, and a limit beyond which the work needs 'shared authorship'. For instance, Rzewski's version of Beethoven's Appassionata should be listed as composed by Beethoven-Rzewski.


----------



## misterjones

"The secret is to aim for what the composer wanted."

Likely the prevailing classical music view. A poll of classical music pundits probably would bear that out. But I doubt that would apply to any other music genre, especially jazz. 

I find strict adherence to the composer's vision to be a bit boring. For example, I would hate for the song "Summertime" to be stuck in Gershwin's Porgy and Bess mode and to be without John Coltrane's, Miles Davis', Billy Stewart's or probably 20 other artists' versions of the song.

"Ah, but classical music is different," one might say. "A show tune isn't a Mozart or Beethoven piano sonata."

Perhaps. And I'm sure there are painfully bad versions of "Summertime", which I deal with by not listenting to them.


----------



## kv466

Yeah, Moody...what _he_ said!  Really, I didn't put that video up for you but rather for someone who may not ever comment on this thread but was merely reading it. If you're saying how bad it is, I just wanted them to have a chance to hear about it for themselves. The second part of the video where he's doing the interview; the playing is so exquisite that I'm sure I don't have to twist many arms to get someone to see how good it is and to make them want to hear more. At the same time, many will go for the 'marked allegro'. Let's just say, for argument's sake, that I don't know what allegro is and I like it just the same (I have heard at least 30 versions and know how to play most of it). Well, one guy who knows exactly what tempo marking means and who I hope is still well-respected out there...is Leopold Stokowski. It's not like Glenn recorded this concerto by himself.

I may stand alone with this at the end of the day but I have to hear something _better_ to change my mind, not something _more correct_. As far as the C and b-flat concerti, I couldn't even begin to imagine someone who has even approached them better. The c-minor; many have done a fine job and it comes down to all the fine details. Same for the G major concerto; Arrau may be my next favorite but the execution is generally sloppy and fumbling. And then, the heavily saturated fifth. This makes me wonder. There's that thread about people dissecting music too much or just listening to it passingly; I think I may seriously over-digest music but I do pick apart every, single last note and nuance from everyone in the orchestra and judge accordingly. So many simple passages that other pianists let simply roll by and go unnoticed but his recordings address each note of a work and so I am drawn.

I'd really much rather hear someone that impresses me and that I strive to be like than sit there and listen to someone who is 100% true to the written music and markings but is sloppy and boring and is basically reproducing the same music that has been played before. Oh,...and you don't have to like this one, buddy...maybe the next one.


----------



## moody

KV466
You couldn't have a bigger supporter of Stokowski than I, remember the big row a couple of months back?
He was the reason I bought the record in the first place ,I think I went to every concert he gave in the UK but he could be wilful so I'm not sure that they should be together. As for being merely correct, if you think that the artists I named above come into that category I'm shocked. I like listening to Gould's performance but in a somewhat guilty way because I know I shouldn't. Lastly, if you think there's anything stodgy and boring about me --think again!
Isn't it a good thing we are both Earl Wild groupies ?


----------



## moody

misterjones said:


> "The secret is to aim for what the composer wanted."
> 
> Likely the prevailing classical music view. A poll of classical music pundits probably would bear that out. But I doubt that would apply to any other music genre, especially jazz.
> 
> I find strict adherence to the composer's vision to be a bit boring. For example, I would hate for the song "Summertime" to be stuck in Gershwin's Porgy and Bess mode and to be without John Coltrane's, Miles Davis', Billy Stewart's or probably 20 other artists' versions of the song.
> 
> "Ah, but classical music is different," one might say. "A show tune isn't a Mozart or Beethoven piano sonata."
> 
> Perhaps. And I'm sure there are painfully bad versions of "Summertime", which I deal with by not listenting to them.


To the best of my knowledge there are no written notes on real jazz.


----------



## kv466

No, Moods, I don't think those guys you mentioned are just ok players doing the right thing...I can recognize great playing no matter where it comes from...like I said, I may have ripped into certain pieces more than I should and so I really only like hearing them one way. I _really_ like those guys when I hear them play stuff I'm less familiar with like Schubert or Schumann...then, they really shine.

Good thing to know you like listening to the Wild side of piano, though! I really could never figure out how he wasn't more popularly recognized as the magnificent marvel that he is. Still, I'm glad I can hear and appreciate it myself and not have to share with so many.

Oh, and you're not boring...I rarely think of _people_ as boring. Only their playing.


----------



## Ukko

moody said:


> To the best of my knowledge there are no written notes on real jazz.


A lot of jazz is 'covers' of a sort - of songs that were 'written down'. Frequently, the first run-through is pretty close to the original; the whole performance is like a theme-and-variations. OK, I'm preaching to the choir again; I love the stuff.


----------



## misterjones

moody said:


> To the best of my knowledge there are no written notes on real jazz.


In my comparison, the written notes would be for Gershwin's original creation (not the subsequent jazz and R&B versions), and I'll bet there were (and are) written notes for it.


----------



## misterjones

moody said:


> I like listening to Gould's performance but in a somewhat guilty way because I know I shouldn't.


Perhaps I'm in danger of going to classical music jail, but I'm now even more confused than before. Why should anyone feel guilty about listening to something they like? And why shouldn't one listen to what he or she likes?


----------



## Ukko

misterjones said:


> Perhaps I'm in danger of going to classical music jail, but I'm now even more confused than before. Why should anyone feel guilty about listening to something they like? And why shouldn't one listen to what he or she likes?


Hah! Because there is danger of esthetic contamination. Some risque, say Rzewskian seepage through a crack in the armor of propriety. Next thing you know, your judgement about what is Right is shot full of holes.

[The above does not apply to _moody_; he just enjoys 'guilty pleasures'.]

:devil:

[This reminds me of a Internet friend. He has been told that hard cheese is not good for him. So, every time I send him some Cabot's Reserve cheddar, he and his wife make the eating of it a semi-formal wine and cheese occasion.]


----------



## moody

misterjones said:


> In my comparison, the written notes would be for Gershwin's original creation (not the subsequent jazz and R&B versions), and I'll bet there were (and are) written notes for it.


The jazz I listen to is the type they play in Preservation Hall, there they play off one another and make it up as they go along. Of course they often use well known tunes but they play variations. Don't you really know this? Gershwin certainly is not jazz.


----------



## misterjones

I have my list of the Degenerate Arts around here somewhere. Very popular in parts of Europe in the 1930s, I think.


----------



## moody

misterjones said:


> Perhaps I'm in danger of going to classical music jail, but I'm now even more confused than before. Why should anyone feel guilty about listening to something they like? And why shouldn't one listen to what he or she likes?


You must concentrate more, having given a somewhat negative verdict on Goulds performance,I naturally feel guilty when i then say I like to listen to the damned thing.
Further more I'll feel guilty when I feel like it---is that OK with you?


----------



## misterjones

moody said:


> The jazz I listen to is the type they play in Preservation Hall, there they play off one another and make it up as they go along. Of course they often use well known tunes but they play variations. Don't you really know this? Gershwin certainly is not jazz.


Did I say Gershwin was jazz? In my analogy, Gershwin is the composer, not the interpreter.


----------



## misterjones

moody said:


> You must concentrate more, having given a somewhat negative verdict on Goulds performance,I naturally feel guilty when i then say I like to listen to the damned thing.
> Further more I'll feel guilty when I feel like it---is that OK with you?


It's fine with me. My point was merely that I did not understand why one would feel guilty about listening to music he or she liked. I don't equate a slab of Cabot's Reserve cheddar with music . . . and I'm really trying to concentrate here.

I suppose if Gould were fattening or high in cholesterol I might have different perspective.


----------



## Ukko

misterjones said:


> It's fine with me. My point was merely that I did not understand why one would feel guilty about listening to music he or she liked. I don't equate a slab of Cabot's Reserve cheddar with music . . . and I'm really trying to concentrate here.
> [...]


You may be concentrating/focusing_ too_ much. Then again, _grasshopper_ could remind me of _supernova_; I can't predict these things.


----------



## moody

kv466 said:


> No, Moods, I don't think those guys you mentioned are just ok players doing the right thing...I can recognize great playing no matter where it comes from...like I said, I may have ripped into certain pieces more than I should and so I really only like hearing them one way. I _really_ like those guys when I hear them play stuff I'm less familiar with like Schubert or Schumann...then, they really shine.
> 
> Good thing to know you like listening to the Wild side of piano, though! I really could never figure out how he wasn't more popularly recognized as the magnificent marvel that he is. Still, I'm glad I can hear and appreciate it myself and not have to share with so many.
> 
> Oh, and you're not boring...I rarely think of _people_ as boring. Only their playing.


The problem has been that he really did not get on to the major labels very much.He recorded the Liszt 1st. concerto along with the Hungarian Fantasy with Kostelanetz for Columbia.He did Wild about Liszt for RCA and Wild about Gershwin also but they all ended up on Quintessence. His Viennese Piano Extravaganza appeared on the RCA Victor Record Club f0r some reason.But then his Menotti and Copland Concertos were on Vanguard as were many of his recordings. His Rachmaninoff concertii came out on Readers Digest and then became almost mythical and were not available for years .To my great delight Chandos got hold of them in the UK but now I believe they are generally available with another label. Leaving aside the composers own Wild's are I am quite sure the best versions made so far.


----------



## crmoorhead

Listening to the original version of Gould's Goldberg Variations on my CD player, I have no objections. Listening with good headphones on, the hums and weird noises he makes drives me to the point of distraction. With regard to the WTC, I recently purchased a harpsichord version by Pieter-Jan Belder which I enjoy better than the piano versions I have heard.


----------



## Romantic Geek

kv466 said:


> I may stand alone with this at the end of the day but I have to hear something _better_ to change my mind, not something _more correct_. As far as the C and b-flat concerti, I couldn't even begin to imagine someone who has even approached them better. The c-minor; many have done a fine job and it comes down to all the fine details. Same for the G major concerto; Arrau may be my next favorite but the execution is generally sloppy and fumbling. And then, the heavily saturated fifth. This makes me wonder. There's that thread about people dissecting music too much or just listening to it passingly; I think I may seriously over-digest music but I do pick apart every, single last note and nuance from everyone in the orchestra and judge accordingly. *So many simple passages that other pianists let simply roll by and go unnoticed but his recordings address each note of a work and so I am drawn. *


Addressing each note isn't the pinnacle of great piano playing. There _is_ an incorrect way to approach such piano playing. And that K. 331 example is exactly what I'm talking about. He addresses that D in that opening figure...and what does he do? He puts a staccato on a note that contradicts every convention and notation of that particular opening gesture. The D is dissonant in the passage, yet its placement metrically along with the fact that it's actually surrounded by it's goal note C# leads towards the interpretation that the D doesn't need to be accented more than it already is out of pure musicality. There is literally ZERO reason to do it, except to be contradicting common practice. If that's Gould's goal, then he succeeded well. But in no ways does that mean it's a good performance. I've heard pianists craft every note in a completely musical way. My own piano professor when I was in undergrad was a master at this. He played Beethoven better than anyone I've ever heard...because detail was evident in every note. But it was incredibly musical. I just find Gould to be very unmusical with Mozart who had directions on how to perform the music.

As far as your most recent comment:



> I'd really much rather hear someone that impresses me and that I strive to be like than sit there and listen to someone who is 100% true to the written music and markings but is sloppy and boring and is basically reproducing the same music that has been played before.


No one who is true to the "written music" and markings would play sloppy or boring. This is the most common misconception about the written score. For someone who studies music for a living (yes, I'm a theorist) all the musicality you ever need is written right into the score. These composers were masters at their art. It is up to the performer to interpret that musicality, but the markings (especially in Mozart) are extremely deliberate.

To me, someone that tries to impress with flashy or new style of interpretation who miss the most importance nuances (i.e. dissonance treatment, long arching lines, etc.) are the ones who are doing a disservice to the music. Don't interpret that the score leads to only one reading. That myth is so incredibly false. But the markings are definitely there for a reason and should absolutely not be disregarded as foolish (and I mean this only with the Urtext editions...throw out your edited copies, especially by the 19th century pianists!!!)


----------



## kv466

I think perhaps you think I do not understand how it is _supposed_ to be played or that I haven't heard by dozens upon dozens of others. I simply do not care about how something _should_ be performed when the end result is something that I do not find satisfying. (good for you)

Let's take two masters going by the book:











I find these both to be clumsy with varying tempo and attack and struggling to express something concise on the keys while the one that is unholy and incorrect and that has zero reason for existing,...well, that one makes me happy to be a musician and that I can identify and appreciate greatness. To me, the performance is precise with each important phrase addressed and above all,...clean and of a high level of virtuosity coupled with thoughtful expression and flawless execution. And I'm not saying it's the only way to hear it,...it's just the way that I like to hear it.






I feel Mozart would be more thrilled and excited to hear such playing that it would not occur to bother with such ** about, 'nyah, that's not how i wrote it.' Music is meant to flow and breathe and evolve and classical is no exception.


----------



## Vaneyes

To say GG is imprecise and unmusical seems unusual to me. Maybe even absurd.

kv466 loving all GG, aside...another thing I find odd is someone giving his blessing to all of GG LvB, and condemning all of GG Mozart.

To me, there are some GG misinterps in both. But mishaps? I don't think so. GG was a studio rat. If he smelled something awry, he fixed it.


----------



## kv466

_kv466 loving all GG, aside._

Heh,...not all, my dear...there are some recordings I do not care for,...but do you think I'm gonna tell Moody and the Gang about it?!


----------



## Dodecaplex

I know you don't care about Gould's Moonlight Sonata, KV. You confessed in another thread. You traitor! You'll never be forgiven and you shall be kicked out of the Goulddom by tomorrow morning.


----------



## kv466

That's one of the very few, señor!


----------



## moody

kv466 said:


> _kv466 loving all GG, aside._
> 
> Heh,...not all, my dear...there are some recordings I do not care for,...but do you think I'm gonna tell Moody and the Gang about it?!


I hear you and I have no gang. 
I wrote a post ,above, aimed at you re: Earl Wild and you said nothing to my surprise.


----------



## moody

Vaneyes said:


> To say GG is imprecise and unmusical seems unusual to me. Maybe even absurd.
> 
> kv466 loving all GG, aside...another thing I find odd is someone giving his blessing to all of GG LvB, and condemning all of GG Mozart.
> 
> To me, there are some GG misinterps in both. But mishaps? I don't think so. GG was a studio rat. If he smelled something awry, he fixed it.


I don't think he means Gould but one of the others.


----------



## Romantic Geek

FWIW, not playing the repeats ruins the form of the piece in my opinion.


----------

